A Terrain Selection Technique Applied to the Western Desert

A few months ago, Peter's rules, descriptions of campaign moves and after action reports posted at Grid Based Wargaming, inspired me to dig out some old WWII Western Desert 1:300 Heroics and Ros models. Peter had developed rules for battle from 'Tank on Tank' from Lock 'n Load Publishing.

Peter also developed rules for selection of terrain for each battle. Selection was influenced by the location of the battle on the campaign map.

In simplified summary, Peter shuffles 18 cards and deals 9 on a 3 by 3 grid. Each card represents one of 8 different terrain types. Rules determine battle objectives, which are terrain features.

The technique works well but during games where it had been used, I encountered an issue previously experienced with English Civil War (ECW) battles also fought on battlefields with relatively few hexes; namely, the edge of a battlefield can appear to be an artificial barrier. This can be a particular issue when an objective is close to the edge of a battlefield. Generally, to regard the the side of the battlefield to be adjacent to an abyss is inappropriate. For ECW, a river works as a good boundary but a river on both sides of a battlefield would be unlikely for every battle.

One solution I'm about to trial uses the same 18 cards as Peter to determine terrain in an inner grid of 9. Peter's technique is used to determine:

• The side of the battlefield occupied by each force
• Defender and attacker adjustments to the terrain
• Battle objectives
• Initial deployment of units

Quantities of each type of terrain 
card for inner and outer grid

This is supplemented by another set of 32 cards with 4 different terrain types. This deck is shuffled and cards are dealt to determine terrain immediately around the inner grid of 9 - this results in a 5 x 5 grid of terrain features. 

The quantities of terrain cards in each deck is shown in the adjacent table. The deck for the outer grid excludes potential objective cards and a road card because only one road is permitted on the battlefield.

An example of Peter's table-top
terrain for the Western Desert

Whilst Peter battles across  impressive 'cloth' table top terrain (see the adjacent picture, which was pinched from here), I aspire to a 3-dimensional modular terrain system with a look similar to that pictured below; however, with the experience documented here, I intend to use simplified 2-dimensional terrain for now; namely, interchangeable map modules. 

Illustrative look for aspirational terrain

First use of terrain cards with outer surround

An 'open' terrain module

Each terrain card represents a module of hexes. The reason I like hexes is explained here.

Each hex has the dimensions listed below; these are a comfortable fit with units mounted on stands of 30mm square: 

• Length of face - 31mm
• Distance between opposite faces - 52mm
• Distance between opposite angles - 62mm

All modules, bar the 'open' module, contain terrain features. Terrain modules are 4 hexes wide by 3 hexes deep; they measure approx 7 1/8" (182mm) wide by 6 1/8" (157mm) deep so a 5 x 5 grid is slightly less than 3' x 3' (1m x 1m) so occupies a reasonably small part of a table-top.

Shown below is the battlefield generated by the set of cards pictured above. Note that whilst the escarpment runs the width of the battlefield, each module has a pass so that there isn't only one pass to form a bottleneck between levels (such as Halfaya Pass).

Interim terrain modules that represent the battlefield
generated by the cards shown above

Seven types of interim terrain module - absent is 'road with village'

My gut feeling is that the quantities of cards should be tweaked. I suspect that the ratio of 'open' cards to the total quantity should be greater and the ratio of soft sand and wadi should be reduced but I intend to play a few battles with the current ratios to gain experience.

Page for Rules for WWII in the Western Desert

Today, I started to populate this page to contain rules for combat in the Western Desert (Libya and Egypt) from 1940 to 1941 during World War 2. Its still work-in-progress but "the journey of one thousand miles begins with one step". The page can be accessed from the header section of Wargame Waffle.

The page can be accessed from the header section of Wargame Waffle

Background to the Italians in Libya in 1940

Introduction

The early months of the Western Desert Campaign of WWII are an interesting period of military history. Despite the Italians numerical advantage in troops over the British Commonwealth forces of 8:1 (more on this potentially misleading ratio is intended for a later post), the Italians were pushed back within one year and called upon support from Germany; this was provided in the form of the highly successful Deutsche Afrika Korps led by General Erwin Rommel, the 'Desert Fox'.

The purpose of this post is briefly to summarise how Italy happened to control Libya in 1940, when they declared war in support of the Axis powers. The post is intended to be an introduction to why the Italians were in Libya with the equipment they had when they first engaged in combat with British Commonwealth forces then based in Egypt.

Most of the material has been obtained from Wikipedia; linked references are provided at the end of this post.

The Ottoman Empire - Reference 1

The Ottoman Empire was founded circa 1299 in North Western Turkey. By circa 1550, much of the Coast of North Africa (except Morocco) was part of the Empire. The Empire started to decline in 1699 and came to an end in November 1922.

Italy's Claim to Tripolitania, Fezzan and Cyrenaica

The Ottoman Empire was a combatant in the Russo-Turkish War from 1877 to 1878 - Reference 2. This started when the Eastern Orthodox Coalition (EAC) (led by the Russian Empire), with several goals in mind, attacked the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and Caucasus. One of these goals was to free the citizens of Balkan nations from excesses of the Ottoman Empire. 

The significant military success of the EAC was halted with the signing of the temporary Treaty of San Stefano - Reference 3. From June to July 1878, representatives from the six Great Powers in Europe (Russia, Great Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, Italy and Germany), the Ottoman Empire and four Balkan states (Greece, Serbia, Romania and Montenegro) met at the Congress of Berlin. The Congress resulted in the Treaty of Berlin, which replaced the Treaty of Stefano.

After the Congress of Berlin, representatives from France and Great Britain verbally agreed to the occupation of Tripoli by Italy - Reference 4. France and Great Britain would occupy Tunisia and Cyprus, respectively; this was effectively part of the Scramble for Africa (1881 - 1914) by European powers - Reference 5.

By the end of March 1911, the Italian press began to lobby for invasion of the regions Tripolitania, Fezzan and Cyrenaica. On 29 September 2011, after failure of diplomatic efforts to gain control of the regions, Italy declared war.

Italy's Control of Libya

Italian Landings in Libya

The regions invaded by Italy may have been little more than forgotten outposts of an empire that had been in decline for 2 centuries. They were defended by only 4,800 regular Ottoman troops with antiquated equipment and the indigenous population. 

On 5 November 1911, Italy declared control over the the regions. In practice, they controlled most of the coast-line, primarily because of their naval superiority, use of aircraft and large quantities of infantry (up to 100,000) primarily to defend conurbations. This conflict has been credited with the first use of aircraft for reconnaissance and for bombing.

The Italians undertook further consolidation until 18 October 1912, when the Treaty of Lausanne was signed. This brought an end to conflict with the Ottoman Empire whom withdrew from North Africa. The financial cost of the Italian invasion was very much higher than anticipated and caused economic imbalance to Italy.

The Italians continued to fight against what were effectively guerrilla actions by the indigenous population from South of the coastal strip. The Italians sometimes responded with brutal repression, until resistance came to an end circa 1931. 

The Libyan flag in 1934

In 1934, the regions were unified and became known as Libya - Reference 6. By 1939, circa 13% of the population of Libya was from the Italian ethnic group; circa 150,000 people had relocated from Italy to Libya over the preceding couple of decades.

In 1940, the indigenous Libyans in the coastal areas were granted limited Italian citizenship. This enabled ambitious locals to take up civil administrative and military posts. As a consequence, 2 divisions of indigenous Libyan infantry were raised to fight in the Italian Army.

The Military Legacy and Capability in 1940

As was (and remains) so often the case, the aggressor (Italy) underestimated the force-requirements, time and finance required for a successful invasion and assimilation. The Italians had found themselves on the wrong side of guerrilla war fought over inhospitable territory for 20 years. (Does this sound familiar?)

By 1940, the Italian army in Libya was still more or less organised to outnumber small, lightly armed, enemy forces that operated with equipment of low technology; the Italian's based themselves predominantly in static defence of regional hubs. Presumably, over the preceding years, there had been little money available to provide modern equipment. Arguably, they were still set-up to fight their previous conflict.

Shortly before the declaration of war by Italy (in June 1940), the Governor-General of Libya, Marshal of the Air Force, Italo Balbo advised Mussolini that - Reference 7:

It is not the number of men which causes me anxiety but their weapons ... equipped with limited and very old pieces of artillery, almost lacking anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons ... it is useless to send more.

In Libya, Italy had circa 250,000 troops divided into 14 divisions, in 2 armies. Mobile communication was hampered by too few radios. Whilst the Italian trucks had a good reputation, there were too few of them. Simultaneous movement of large quantities of troops would predominantly be via Shanks's pony; although, horses were used to tow artillery pieces. 'Mechanised' in the description of a unit generally indicated that vehicles (not horses) were used to tow artillery; the infantry would still march. Those units with motorised infantry generally had too few trucks.

Arguably, in 1940, the British Commonwealth was ill-prepared for warfare against Germany but generally, their technology and organisation were far superior to those of Italy; just as well since there were only 36,000 troops in Egypt at the time Italy declared war on them.

References

1.    Ottoman Empire

2.    Russo-Turkish War 1877-1878

3.    Congress of Berlin

4.    Italian Invasion of Libya

5.    Scramble for Africa

6.    Italian Libya

7.    Italian Invasion of Egypt

There is no intention to maintain these links.

Review: 'Axis Forces in North Africa 1940-43' - Claudio Antonucci

Today, I received in the post, a used copy of  'Axis Forces in North Africa 1940-43' by Claudio Antonucci. 

It's an excellent picture book of 52 pages roughly A4 in size. It has lots of hand-drawn plates, all accredited to the author in 2005 and black and white photographs taken during the campaign; useful details are provided with the pictures. It also contains 5 pages of historical summary.

The book would be great for modellers. It provides details of uniforms and personal equipment.

The most memorable observations from this book were:

• The Italian uniforms appeared poor quality; apparently, Italian troops often appeared dischevelled.
• The Italians often wore captured British uniforms; presumably because they were better quality than their own; although, this could have been a means to display trophies.
• Some Italians wore British Commonwealth badges; again, maybe a display of trophies.
• Italians and Germans wore desert and European uniform; maybe too little desert uniform to go round. 

Quantities of Pictures

Plates     Italian        26

Plates     German     19

Photos    Italian        42 

Photos    German     58

How Best to get into a New Period for Wargames (or What Comes First, the Chicken or the Egg?)

Introduction

One attraction of the hobby of Historical Tabletop Wargames (HTW), is the variety of associated facets. Over the years, I've had several false-starts back into HTW, that were probably due to the incorrect sequence of adoption of the facets. 

This post is intended to help wargamers benefit from my experiences and eliminate false-starts. This post discusses: four facets of the hobby; a recommended sequence to pick up these facets as interest in a period develops; and experiences that have led to the recommendation.

Facets

The four featured facets are listed below in the sequence recommended for their adoption; although, note that some overlap is essential:

1. History - factual and fictional material
2. Rules
3. Modelling - figures
4. Modelling - terrain

Discussion

History

Books on the history of the western desert during WWII

For some wargamers, the history associated with a period is what really fires their imagination and motivates them to battle. History provides context and explains why an army completely composed of elite units with the latest equipment would be unusual.

History also influences: the types of units to be fielded and their characteristics; the appropriate range of ratios of quantities of unit types; what the units should look like; methods of communication; the terrain and weather with which the troops had to contend; and the rules likely to be appropriate.

Mistake: In circa 2005, I developed an interest in the Napoleonic era, found some simple rules I liked, purchased a 15mm French army, then started to read up on the history. From the history, I learned that the rules were far too generic and ignored the differences in tactics; hence, were unrepresentative of the time. This knowledge meant I'd be unable to enjoy a game with the rules so I lost interest in the period.

Lesson: Have a reasonable knowledge of the period you wish to wargame before you invest too heavily.

Rules

A visual representation of yin-yang

The rules are key to the enjoyment of a game. As with most things in life, to find rules that wargamers enjoy they must understand themselves and be able to identify the yin-yang of each set of rules they may wish to use. 

What do you want your games to represent? As a commander, what type of challenge do you want to solve; maybe: how does my section clear this building when we've only limited ammunition and without being picked off by the sniper; or how can I secure this supply route without taking too many companies from defence of the front-line?

Rules appropriate for skirmish, where the wargamer effectively takes the role of an officer of rank from Corporal to junior Officer, are likely to be relatively detailed, with one minute or less represented by one game turn and probably significantly less than 100 troops represented on the battlefield.

Contrast this with a brigade or divisional level action, where the wargamer's role is that of a general. Rules need to be much less detailed; we're interested in the big picture with potentially thousands of troops represented (although, unlikely to be present) on the battlefield; one game turn represents perhaps as much as one hour or more.

Skirmish rules would be completely inappropriate for divisional level action. The wargamer would probably be bogged-down with records and distracted from the thought processes necessary to enjoy the action. Likewise, a skirmish action would almost certainly be impossible with rules intended for high-level formations.

Additionally, mechanisms used in rules to represent outcomes are an important characteristic. Do you prefer: for measurement - tape-measure or hexes; for combat resolution - long lists of parameters that may influence the outcome or leave it all to chance (or somewhere between the extremes); etc.

A small selection of rules for wargames

Clearly, rules for HTW must: be representative of their historical period; provide wargamers with the stimulation they seek; avoid too much detail so that they remain a pleasure to use. 

Rules determine how troops are represented on the battlefield and the appearance of those troops and the battlefield; hence, influence the modelling facets of the hobby.

Mistake: In 2017, I started to wargame the 1642-1651 English Civil War (or whatever it's called when you read this). I read up on the history and found a few rules for the conflict but none of them felt quite right. Over a period of about 3 years, I tinkered with rules but found that I was going round in circles; one version would have too many bases to move, another would fail to represent the different ratios of Pike to Shot in units; I felt more comfortable with hexes (see this post) but most available rules used physical measurement devices; etc, etc. I've yet to find/ develop rules I'm completely happy with for this period but currently believe Snaphance may bear fruit.

Lesson: Understand what type of challenge you seek from your battles; hence, the granularity required of the rules. Be clear about the mechanisms you enjoy and those you don't.

Modelling

A village in Normandy *

For many wargamers, one of the pleasures of the hobby is the visual impact of figures on a miniature battlefield and the creative modelling work to achieve it. Also, there's a plethora of new and used (well painted) figures and terrain for wargames available on the internet so you can save time and money by buying them.

Figures

A unit of Pike and Shotte

Wargames rules can be clear on the appearance of troops and their equipment and how they are presented with regard to Ground Scale and the size of stands for troops. Consequently, much time spent on modelling troops before rules are reasonably firm can be time wasted. The 15mm Pike and Shotte that are pictured, were purchase as used (and painted); I rebased them for the rules I used at the time but the jury is out on whether they'll be rebased.

Note that whilst getting to grips with and/ or developing rules, you need something to play with so use simple figures or attach only one figure to a stand ultimately intended for many figures and don't bother to make the stand look too pretty.

* This image was stolen from 'Panzer Marsch!' WWII wargames rules by Graham Birkley and Steve Dunn. At the time of typing, Graham sold wargame scenery commercially. To my eye, this is model-railway quality and a pleasure to behold.

Terrain

Similarly, wargames rules can be clear on the quantity and size of terrain items so creation of that amazing hill may be premature if you construct it before you've firmed-up on the rules you intend to play with.

Mistake: In the noughties, my interest in the western desert during WWII was rekindled. I purchased the Wargames Research Group rules for the period, then started to build a modular terrain system based on these rules. The terrain was never finished and only part of it was used in anger and then on only one occasion!

Three scratch built tank transporters in cover with a Dorcester in a wadi as their loads trundle toward a fold

Lesson: Concentrate on playing so you can get the rules right and enjoy the game. If need be, play these early games with crude representations of figures and terrain. As rules firm up, enhance your pleasure with improved aesthetics when you have the time, money and inclination. If you're happy with cardboard counters such as seen in boardgames, then why change to figures and terrain?

In Support of Hexes

Introduction

This post primarily provides observations in favour of battles fought on fields marked by hexagons and other shapes; eg, squares. My experience is with hexagons but similar arguments are likely to apply to demarcation with non-hexagonal shapes - other shapes are available. 

A Hexagon

Definitions

A symmetrical hexagon has 6 sides of equal length with an included angle of 120 degrees between adjacent sides. Effectively, a symmetrical hexagon is 6 equilateral triangles, each located with a point at one place, which is the centre of the hexagon.

Within a wargamers' lexicon, a hexagon is often referred to as a 'hex'; hence, 'hexes' for multiple hexagons.

Observations

• A hex on a battlefield may be thought of as the bulk of a circle, with some overlap with adjacent circles; hence, hexes provide a neat way to represent the vagaries of battlefield geography.
• Hexes ease measurement of distance for movement and for range for distant-combat (shot); hence, shorter game times and no arguments between players about distance.
• Without demarcation by hexes, some wargamers:
• May be 'stressed' by a feeling that measurement should be precise so as not to cheat either side: the mover from moving too little; and the opponent because the move has been excessive. Similar feelings associated with the precision of ranges for distant-combat weapons can also prevail. (From where I sit on the OCD spectrum, these observations are certainly true for me!)
• May consistently push their luck and measure too far; this can spoil the pleasure of the game for other wargamers.
• Hexes are a better representation of the generality of the battlefield; eg, in reality, a unit is more likely to exert control over a copse than on one corner of it - hexes provide a neat way to visualise Zones of Control (ZOC), which are discussed later.
• Unrealism of precise movement - in practice, the distance moved during a period of time by a unit is likely to vary due to parameters such as: command indecision/ change of mind; poor communication; going that is worse/ better than expected; and the condition of the unit. Use of hexes puts a unit in a fairly precise area without excessive precision - in engineering terms, hexes provide positional a range tolerance.

Hexes and Rules

Facing

Some rules state that at the end of a move, a unit must face an edge and others that a unit must face an angle. Both approaches have their merits.

Consumption of Movement Points

Often, each unit is assigned a quantity of Movement Points (MP) per game turn, to be consumed by movement across the boundary between 2 hexes; eg, movement from one clear hex to another consumes 1MP, whereas movement across a boundary with a hex that represents broken ground consumes 2MP.

Example Zone Of Control

Zone of Control

Some rules define the ZOC of a unit to be the 6 hexes adjacent to the hex occupied by the unit. Some rules state that once a unit enters the ZOC of another unit, then both units can move only in reaction to combat and not voluntarily under the control of its command chain; ie, the wargamer.

Conclusion

There are several benefits to the use of hexes to demarcate battlefields. Primarily, hexes can add realism, speed up game-play and add to the pleasure of the experience.

If you have any thoughts on the matter, then please comment below.

An Introduction

Motivation to Blog

Bob Stewart's 'Bob's Solo Wargaming Scrapbook' has been a prime motivator for this blog. I hope to engage with other war-gamers (both solo and multi-player) to benefit from their experience, research and thoughts and hopefully add value to the community; very much as Peter has added significantly with GridBasedWargaming.

Intended Material

The intention is to discuss: history, rules, modelling, after action reports and more. Of significance to me is the fidelity intended for a set of rules and over the last 3 years, I've gone round in circles trying to develop rules for English Civil War (ECW) that appear to sit right; fidelity and ECW are likely to feature in future blogs.

Background

The Start

I started to war-game in late pre-teens. Whilst at the time I didn't appreciate the proximity of my early life to the end of World War 2 (WWII), that gap of circa only 30 years meant that most boys at that time had an interest. We'd battle with 1:72 figures from Airfix, Tamya, Rexell, etc and basic rules. It was around then that I often developed board games.

In later teens, I discovered micro-armour, a wargames club and very complex rules. In hindsight, the 'accuracy' of such rules may have been questionable and may have detracted from the pleasure of the battles.
I virtually stopped wargaming when I left school.

False Restarts

Napoleonics

About 2005, I developed an interest in the Napoleonic era, found some simple rules, bought some used, 15mm French figures and some books on Napoleonic military history. From these, I learned that Napoleonic units were more complex than represented in the generic rules I had intended to use so I lost interest.

WWII Western Desert

About 2010, I got out the Heroics and Ros WWII Western Desert models I'd bought about 40 years earlier. I purchased a used copy of the Wargames Research Group's (WRG) rules for 1925-1950 and some army lists for 'Panzer Marsch!'. The WRG rules included descriptions of terrain that inspired me to start to build a modular terrain system but with other commitments at that time, the system was never completed and I had only one battle with what had been created.

Terrain and vehicles for the Western Desert

Civil Wars

In 2017, I watched part of a film called Gettysburg, started to read up on the American Civil War, then realised I knew very little about ECW; hence, the start of a new chapter in my life! Such a fascinating period in social, political, military and religious history. I'm currently reading C.V. Wedgewood's 'The Thirty Years War', which provides some context to ECW. 

Re-Resurrected

In Nov20, I stumbled upon Peter's GridBasedWargaming, which inspired me to dig out the 40 year old Heroics and Ros WWII Western Desert models I had. These were already painted but I based them to try out the rules developed by Peter from the 'Tank on Tank' rules from Lock 'n Load Publishing. Peter and I have exchanged correspondence on these rules and ECW has taken a back seat, whilst ideas about the desert are explored.