DANES V PRUSSIANS: ANOTHER CHOCOLATE BOX WARS INTRODUCTORY GAME

 

View of the field from the right end of the Danish line, looking past the Danish Dragoons.

Yes, dear reader, this is yet another Chocolate Box Wars (CBW) post. Only this is not going to be a full blown battle report, but it will provide a sense of the latest game, with some nice shots of CBW armies in action.  I have been making the rounds, so to speak, introducing friends in my gaming club to CBW.  For this particular game, I once again pulled out my "original" CBW armies, the Prussians and the Danes mixing it up in the 1st Schleswig-Holstein war, a not often seen combination on the table--then again, Hungarians vs Russians isn't something you see too often, either, but I digress...  This was something of a landmark game; the first since actually publishing the rules--so this was no longer a playtest. As usual, you may clix pix for BIG PIX.

The very game players were Earl (left), who took the Danish cause, and Mike (right) who donned the Prussian pickelhaube (I really need to get one of those, for just such an occasion...).  Earl had played Iron Cross, so had some familiarity with the flow of the system, although he was not especially versed in the era. Mike, on the other hand, has been putting on Bloody Big Battles Risorgimento games for some time, so was versed in the era but had not played Iron Cross.  Perhaps this somehow contributed to Mike's awful run of dice...

I put together the standard playtest OOB for each side (4 line battalions, 1 guard battalion, 1 jager battalion, 1 advanced weapon battalion, 1 artillery battery, 1 cavalry regiment, and 1 light cavalry squadron).  I used the same playtest terrain layout as before. From that point onwards, we proceeded with the standard "quick game" deployment. Mike had the high roll, so set up 4 units in his zone (in this case, 12" in from the edge of the table and 12" in from the ends). Earl then set up 4 units. Then Mike set up the rest of his units. Then Earl did the same. Then Mike got to reposition 2 units. Then HQs were placed and the starting gun sounded. The following are some shots to give a flavor of the game. 

The view from Mike's avatar on the table (left), the Prussian HQ, and the Danish HQ (right), Earl's on-table counterpart. 

(Left) Looking at the center of the position from behind the Prussian lines, where the volunteer rifles (green hats) can be seen "reduced" in the foreground (had lost one stand).  (Right) The view from behind the Danish lines, with their volunteer rifles (in brown coats) still intact and holding their own.  

(Left) A Prussian line battalion facing off against the Danish Guard (in the distance). (Right) The Danish push a light company across the center with the support of a line battalion (that had taken three hits in the fighting: the black cubes). 

There's always a hard luck unit in every game, and in this one, it was this Prussian jager company. Early on, it got pummeled, so Mike did a "Retire and Reform" before it was eliminated, expecting to be able to rally off the hits and get it back into the game. Unfortunately (for Mike), this didn't pan out, even though, by all the odds, it should have. Still, the unit did survive to the end of the game, and so it did not cause the loss of an action point or lower the exhaustion threshold, so there's that. 

The ends of the lines. (Left) The Prussian dragoons echeloned back to cover the left end of the line. (Right) A Danish light infantry company and light cavalry squadron anchored the left end of the Danish line. 

The situation at the end of turn two, when we called the game. Both players took a balanced approach, deploying and advancing to good advantage. At this point, two of the Prussian battalions had been reduced (a line unit and the advanced weapon volunteer rifles). The Danes were all still intact; however, there were several Danish units that were within a hit or two of being reduced (four hits pulls a stand, causing a two-stand unit to be "reduced" to one stand).  Had we gone with a third turn, and particularly had Mike gotten the initiative and gone first, there were two Danish line units that probably would have been reduced in the early steps (one had three hits, and the other two).  Of course, these are the probabilities; how Earl would have played his reactions (and what General Dice would have had to say about the best laid plans of either...), nobody knows. Nevertheless, for anyone curious about the look and feel of a CBW game, I think this picture gives a good idea. 

A few thoughts: Both Mike and Earl are long time miniatures gamers, but there was still a learning curve involved (as mentioned on the CBW page). So there was something of a slow start to things as they moved through the steps, got used to the movement, and picked up on finding information on the player reference. So adjust expectations accordingly and be a bit patient as you get into the system if you try it.  By the end of turn 2, things were running more smoothly.  One thing they added was that the slow going was not entirely due to the system, but that they were very much engaged with trying to anticipate counter-moves and thinking two turns ahead.  Both said that they enjoyed the game and the system. Mike is going to adapt CBW for to his 10mm Risorgimento forces (I'm looking forward to that!), and Earl is going to incorporate the action:reaction system into his Rebels and Patriots games.  

The other point I should add is that the turn count really doesn't signify as it does in other game systems. Given the interactive nature of CBW, there are many steps within each turn, with players alternating between activing and reacting, and units activating multiple times. Given the activation point distribution, with 2 activations per unit in the aggregate, each turn in CBW could be equated to 2 turns in another system (at least). 

The other lesson is that the game "speeds up" as it goes. In the early turns, when you have fresh units that are distant from the enemy and a starting full force pool of activations, there seem to be almost too many activation points. However, as the lines close, you start having to burn activation points on reactions, firing, and rallying--on top of moving. Suddenly, that too-generous force pool starts feeling a bit pinched. When you start losing stands, the activation pool starts to shrink, making things even more interesting. On top of this, when losses start coming in, the units are invariably in close proximity to the opposing units, and so actions and reactions come into play much more frequently than when units are more separated. In this way, CBW has a trajectory not unlike a chess game, with an opening, a mid, and an end game. Unless the players are particularly cagey or the table is wider than 4 foot by 6 foot, turn 2 will be a transitional turn--it will begin like a continuation of turn 1 but units will be coming into range of each other and engaging, then things  start feeling very different.  In turn 3  both sides will be engaged down the line, or a good part of it, and it will be much more of a "fighting" game than before, with exhaustion levels starting to climb as well. If exhaustion doesn't end the game, usually, a gap will develop somewhere, or threaten to, and then maneuver will kick in again (end game). If playing a "tournament style" quick game, a game will be decided in three or four turns. At least that's how our games seem to have run thus far. I'd be interested to know how any others proceeded.

Excelsior!

CHOCOLATE BOX WARS UPDATE

 

Chocolate Box Wars Resource Page

This is just a quick note to update anyone who may have downloaded the rules already. I have posted an updated set of rules with a clarification (not a correction) to the activation attempt explanation.  I'm guessing that anyone who may have already downloaded the rules would also be likely to notice this post and get this update.  If you have already downloaded the rules, you could just grab another download from the resource page (link above) or save the below image and store it wherever your rules happen to be (for whenever you happen to actually read them--in advance of that, this post might not make much sense).

I've added the side note (outlined in red) to the activation/reaction table on page 2 of the rules. In case it doesn't expand to be readable, this note reiterates that the modifiers are to the activation/reaction attempt score and not the die roll. It goes on to explain that this means that positive (+) modifiers are adverse and negative modifiers (-) are favorable for activation/reaction attempts. For combat and rallies, which modify the the die roll, conventional assumptions apply.  If you're curious, this came about through playtesting. Originally, all modifiers were to the die roll, and positives were favorable and negatives were adverse, as you would expect.

However, we found ourselves doing the opposite with activations/reactions. We modified the score and not the die roll, despite what the rules said (the outcome is the same, either way, I should add)--we started with the unmodified score, added numbers for hit and activation markers, then added and subtracted modifiers to produce a modified score--against which we  then did an unmodified die roll. This is just the most natural thing to do (it may not seem so upon reading, but in practice, you start by counting markers [hit and activation], and to count is to add...).  Doing it this way also alleviated alot of odd number combinations and extra rules. So the table represents the process in practice.  It may seem daft to have a table with one side needing a 1 or better to pass (for "activations"), but it does make it self evident that the first activation is automatic (unless there are hits), and more importantly, it simplifies the process when you start stacking up multiple activations, hits, and other modifiers (a no brainer to input 1+ all modifiers). 

On the player reference, there isn't room to add a note; FYI, it applies to this section.  

As I said, this is not an actual correction. The rules state that activations/ reactions must pass an attempt score. And both the rules and the player reference state that activation/reaction attempt modifiers are to the score (not the die roll).  However, I thought that this was novel enough to trip up players and so warranted an extra reminder. 

We now return you to your regular programming.

Excelsior!

CHOCOLATE BOX WARS POSTED AND BLOG BIRTHDAY

 

CHOCOLATE BOX WARS RESOURCE PAGE

Greetings, dear readers.  I am happy to announce that I have posted the Chocolate Box Wars rules and associated supporting materials on this blog. For those interested, please see the Chocolate Box Wars Resource Page at the above link (and among the page tabs at the top of this blog). There is much to take in there, so I won't dwell at length on details here. 

Although there is always a lingering thought in the back of your head that more can  be done, this can be a trap. There comes a point--sometimes not obvious--where a project is no longer a work in progress and anything you're doing is just tinkering. In the wake of playtesting over the last few months, club members and playtesters found the rules to be functional, and even enjoyable, so much so that several friends started building CBW armies to bring to the table. This is what told me that I had crossed the line. If there are people investing time, effort, and even cash, it tells me that I had moved beyond draft, and was ready to inflict CBW upon the world. And so I have!

I'd like to thank the interest and support of the blogging community (whom I've mentioned in the acknowledgements at the end of the rules).  In particular, Aly (of Aly's Toy Soldiers), with whom I corresponded at the start of all of this on the topic of "Chocolate Box Soldiers."  I don't think it's a stretch to say that our regular "blog buddies" and blog visitors provide an important source of motivation for us, and it was certainly the case for me with this long-term project. 

I'd be very interested to hear if anyone actually gives the game a go, and how it went. I'll be posting more battle reports here in the future as friends bring their CBW armies to the table, and hope that to read a battle report or two from someone who picked up the rules here and played it. In particular, the system is very supportive of imaginations. I think it would be very interesting to see an imaginations army list that someone came up with (you may see a few of those here in the future). 

Finally, I thought it appropriate to publish CBW on this day: it was August 10, 2016 (8 years ago!) when I opened this blog--with an uninspiring non-post announcing that there was nothing to see here yet. Time flies: Thanks for following along!

Excelsior!