2026 Q3 Report: What we make of the mess

 

Napoleon's Bivouac on the battlefield of Wagram during the night of 5-6 July 1809
(Adolphe Roehn, 1810).

 

Success is relative. It is what we make of the mess we have made of things.

― T.S. Eliot

 

This quarterly report is a couple of days late. So was the last quarter’s report. I try to keep some things on A Fast Game to a fairly strict schedule, but lately more and more of my time has not been my own, and life outside of games intrudes pleasantly and unpleasantly, and there is also a burden of my own construction that devours what little time I have left.

I’ll try to get back to a tighter schedule in December/January. I doubt anyone besides myself really cares about a few days’ drift, but nonetheless, punctuality should be maintained, lest everything else begin to slide into chaos.  But enough histrionics – let’s get back to the appraisal.

 

Incoming

I have been trying to wind back on the number of games I order or purchase because of the perennial difficulties of storage, which I’m sure I’ve mentioned before. Nonetheless, I feel vaguely richer for having received thirteen new or new-to-me games this quarter, three up from last quarter. Of dear – that’s roughly one a week. When put that way, it seems like a lot.

A couple of these – 1809: Talavera (Tactical Workshop, 2026) and Brandywine 1777: A Time for Heroes (Les 3 Zouaves, 2026), were crowdfunded a while ago, while Nine Years: The War of the Grand Alliance 1688-1697 (Compass Games, 2017) was an addition to the Brandywine package with no extra shipping from the Australian distributor, Milsims. La Bataille de Hanau (Legion Wargames, 2021 – unboxing post here) was on special direct from the publisher (honestly, I could have gone a lot harder on that sale had money not been an option). The Grand Battles (GMT Games, 2026 – unboxing here) seventh expansion for Commands & Colors: Napoleonics (GMT Games, 2010), The Three Days of Gettysburg (GMT Games, 2026), Thunderbolt Deluxe, (GMT Games, 2026) and Coast Watchers (GMT Games, 2026) were P500 orders. Army of the Potomac (GMT Games, 2026), the second volume in designer Mark Herman’s Civil War Heritage series, was a post-purchase from Amazon after I’d cancelled my pre-order (to make room for Thunderbolt, 3DoG, and The Grand Battles, which all dropped in the same order – when I had to give up one game, I reasoned (correctly, as it turned out) that AofP would be the easiest to source domestically).

Q3 haul. Thunderbolt is absent from this picture (I only realised this
after putting everything away).

I’m sure I’ve expressed in this forum my lack of any nee for a new tactical-level game system. While I own several tactical systems, Operational is my preferred mode of play. That said, I can sometimes be convinced, as was the case of during a conversation with The Last Hundred Yards (GMT Games, 2019) designer, Mike Denison. Mr Denison told me about how the game had come about and gave me a brief appraisal of how the game plays out, the emphasis on the attacker’s maintaining momentum, how armour functioned and so on. In spite of my best intentions, I ordered a copy of LHY Vol. 3 - Solomon Islands (GMT Games, 2022) that afternoon.

1943-1945 (Dissimula Edizioni, 2024) and Model’s Counterattack (Dissimula Edizioni, 2025) were an opportunistic purchase. I'd regretted not backing both games during their respective Kickstarter campaigns. As it turned out, these copies landed at a store interstate that does a roaring trade in games whose owners are no longer in need of them. These two were mentioned in the store’s newsletter, which I happened to read on the bus home. I ordered them when I got in. I’m a fan of Sergio Schiavi’s work, so I was happy to give these two a new home.

Operazione C3 rule book (Banmsai 30)

I also received a copy of Bansai 30 (BonSai Games, 2026). Bansai is BonSai Games’ in-house wargaming magazine. Publisher Yasushi Nakaguro reprinted A Fast Game’s interview with designer Brian Train, in this issue, and Mr Nakaguro was kind enough to forward me a courtesy copy. Each issue of Bansai comes with a complete game, and number 30 included Operazione C3 (Aleph Game Studio, 2024), which first appeared in the November 2024 issue of Italian wargame magazine, Para Bellum.

It is a source of consternation that, apart from The Great Battles, I have yet to punch, sort or otherwise spend much time with any of these new additions. I anticipate catching up on at least some of these before Christmas, but I can make no promises regarding which ones. Brandywine 1777 is near the top of the list, as T ordered a copy at the same time and is keen to play.

 

Games played

Agincourt scenario, Men of Iron Tri-Pack.

My opportunities to play have taken a hit this quarter, and there are a couple of reasons for this, which I have talked about previously, so I’m not going to rehash everything here. My brother-in-law and I have been meeting once or twice a week for a game, and have been giving The Grand Battles a workout when we can. We’ve played a couple of the Grand Battle scenarios, including Borodino on the even larger pre-printed card map. After some back and forth, I finally managed to secure the patch kit for T’s Men of Iron Tri-Pack (GMT Games, 20), so we’ve had a couple of runs at the Agincourt scenario, just to get a feel again for the system. T is keen on getting to the Blood and Roses scenarios, claiming a distant relative who fought at Tewksbury. Expect a write-up or two in Q4.

Borodino (near-completed set-up).

After a hiatus, I’ve come back to Rally the Troops, playing an American friend at Washington’s War (GMT Games, 2010). I’m thinking about dipping my toe in with Paths of Glory (GMT Games, 1999), which is now also available on RTT. In fact, at time of writing, the site now hosts thirty-four titles. That’s thirty-four different games with full rules implementation – the system won’t let you do anything you can’t do under the rules. I’m embarrassed to admit, I’ve never played PoG, but I have another online acquaintance who is willing to coach me through my first game.

Two champions meet in single combat before the battle. Midgard: Heroic Battles.

The Wednesday group has been trying out a relatively new – definitely new to us – minis rules-set called Midgard: Heroic Battles. Reisswitz Press, 2024) Midgard covers a span from late Bronze Age through to well into the Middle Ages, and provides a smooth, intuitive, and convincing system for combat and realistic movement. So far, we’ve only played a few games set in late Roman England, but this is fast becoming one of my favourite Minis rules-sets.

Our host also introduced us to Baltic Empires (GMT Games, 2026), with a five-player game, which we played out over two weeks, but as it turned out, could probably have managed in just one if we’d played half an hour longer – Poland ran away with a Cultural Victory. We’re all keen to take it out for another spin, if only to gang up against K (who played Poland).

Another French victory. Siege of Quebec, Second Edition.

I did find time to roll out a couple of short solo games. Siege of Quebec (Worthington Publishing, 2022) is an old favourite, and short enough to get two or three games done in a short afternoon, which has been my habit of long standing because I never seem capable of beating the game on the first run.

1854: the Alma (Conflict Simulations Ltd, 2023) is another frustratingly good solo game, and one I come back to once or twice a year. I don’t think I’ve got the upper hand on this one even once. It’s a tough needle to thread. I’m sure it can be done, but I’m still looking. I probably need to write something about this one.

Baltic Empires. Truly one of the prettiest maps I've seen in a while.

Blog matters

I uploaded just ten posts this quarter, a frequency of less than one a week. I mentioned in the last quarterly report that I had begun to gather data for the blog’s next big research project. While fixed in scope, the project has ballooned beyond my initial expectations in terms of effort and time required. I had intended to have that finished and posted by the end of September (certainly before the release of this report) so as to have something to show for my tardiness on pretty every other front. I am, however, still working on it, tinkering and adding. I anticipate another fortnight, so I’ll say it should be up in three weeks’ time, and so give myself a little cheer when it arrives a week early. Whether it will have been worth the effort remains to be seen, but I did have fun with the research end. It’s taking too long to finish, but there may be some value to it when it’s done.

A Fast Game received 26,866 page views over the quarter, slightly better than Q2. It seems the less often I post, the more interest is paid to the blog. I can’t explain this; I’m just glad interest isn’t waning while I’ve been off doing other things.

In all, I posted 19,030 words to A Fast Game in Q3; not nothing, but a low-production quarter for me, and about 1,700 words more than I wrote for my Honours thesis, some time ago now. At 458,103 words overall, A Fast Game is a long essay short of The Count of Monte Cristo in length.

Announcement by Gary Mengle (Ardwulf's Lair) regarding the CSR Awards.

A recent online announcement has confirmed that, while delayed, the Charles S. Roberts Awards for 2025 will be going ahead, albeit later than in recent years. A Fast Game will continue the coverage of the Charlies that readers have come to expect over the last couple of years.  

 

Extra-curricular activities

I have taken my first step into a larger world and joined my first competitive wargame ladder. Bill Peeck runs the Washington’s War ladder for Rally the Troops. This was on the recommendation of a friend who I’ve played a couple of games with via RTT, but I fear tired of beating me so convincingly each time. I’ve been paired for my first round game, but haven’t yet heard back from my opponent; still, it’s early days. Next quarter, I’m sure I’ll be able to report on two or three sound defeats. Beyond actually playing some more and different games, all of my efforts will be funnelled into getting A Fast Game back to a reasonable frequency of posting.

 

Next steps

My primary objective in the short term is to complete the current research piece. Beyond that, the only plans I have for A Fast Game are to try to catch up on all the things I have let slide in these last four or so months. There should be an interview coming in Q4, but I can’t say more than that – it’s a surprise. There are a couple of people I’d like to interview for A Fast Game, but I haven’t approached anyone yet. There is also one more (much more focussed) feature article I’d like to do, something that’s in train, but may not get to the blog before next year. Sorry to be cryptic, but I don’t want to say too much because I’m still working out how best to make it work.

That's all I can tall you for now. Thank you for reading this far, and for sticking with A Fast Game. More posts are on the way, and most of them will be more interesting than this one. But right now real life calls (in the form of a sink full of dirty dishes and a hungry feline).

A Fast Take: limiting Command and Control in wargames - part 2

 

 

Staff work makes the Dream work.

 

This will make more sense if you read the first part first. You can find it here. If you haven’t read it yet, go do that. Then come back and read this as well. There will be one more part to come, but I'll add a link to that here as well when it's up.

In Part 1, I highlighted a post written by game designer Fernando Sola Ramos entitled Mando y control en los wargames (Command and Control in wargames), published on Josep Oliver’s Spanish language blog, El desafío de las Águilas. As I mentioned in Part 1, it’s worth taking the time to read Sr. Ramos’s article, either in the original, or (like me) via a translation app. In fact, it’s worth blocking out an hour or two to spend on las Águilas. I always come away from reading Sr. Oliver’s blog with a fresh thought or a different perspective.

Sr. Ramos identified six models of rules mechanisms that game designers have used to mimic limited intelligence in the field of battle, along with a game (in most cases) that exemplified each model. For the sake of clarity, here’s a duplicate of the list that appeared in Part 1:

- Initiative rolls for activation (leaders or formations) – Napoleon at Bay: The Campaign in France, 1814 (Avalon Hill, 1978)

 - chit-pull formation activation – A Victory Lost: Crisis in Ukraine 1942-1943 (Multi-Man Publishing, 2006)

 - through shared orders with a limited "budget" of orders – Panzer: The Game of Small Unit Actions and Combined Arms Operations on the Eastern Front 1943-44 (GMT Games, 2012)*

 - activation of armies using points in card-driven games (no single example given here, but I’m sure everyone has at least one game in mind from their own experience).

 - leadership-distance chain of command (Great Battles of the American Civil War series)

 - limiting attacks to command formations (i.e. disallowing or limiting ad hoc formations). Sr. Ramos didn’t mention a particular example here, but visually represented Mark Simonitch’s “ZoC-Bond” family of games.

In Part 1, I looked at the first two models in the list, adding a couple of examples of my own. I’m going to do the same thing here for the next two in the list and wrap it up with a third post in a week or so.

 

Shared orders with a limited order "budget"

When I think of games that use Action Points (or Operation Points), a handful of Worthington games come to mind. In games as diverse as Hold the Line: the American Civil War (Worthington Publishing, 2019), the Blue & Gray series (Worthington Publishing, 2016), and 1944: Battle of the Bulge (I could also mention Worthington’s Holdfast series, but I don’t want to get too carried away here). Each of these games share some points of commonality, which could describe Worthington’s house philosophy, are relatively low-bar entry games into the hobby, with 8-16-page rulebooks and good production values, but still provide challenging game experiences that offer a satisfying experience for fairly evenly matched players.

All the games mentioned are two-player IGO-UGO games, nothing too fancy, but leach limits the number of activations that can occur in a single turn. Added to this is the change of scoring extra activation(s) via the sanctioned lottery of a die roll.

The Blue and Gray series games, for example, use a Command Action Point (CAP) system to limit just what you can do in a turn. Each player has a fixed number of CAPs per turn. At the start of a turn, each player rolls two dice and if the result equal to or greater than their side’s Leader’s Command Rating, they get an extra CAP for that turn. CAPs can only be used in their given turn; they can’t be banked for use in subsequent turns. And you don’t get many of them; In Jackson and Sheridan: The Valley Campaigns (Worthington Publishing, 2016), each side gets just two CAPs per turn, plus the possibility of a third. CAPs regulate movement, and one CAP will allow one unit to move up to its total allowable range (other games in the series may offer more CAPs per round). The point-to-point movement and limited agency make for a challenging cat-and-mouse hunt through the Shenandoah.

1862 scenario set-up for a solo playthrough (in my opinion, the best way to learn
 the basics of a game). Photo courtesy of Michael Wild, BGG. 

The Blue and Gray games are contests of manoeuvre, often with just six or seven units to a side. 1944: Battle of the Bulge is a slight level-up in bookkeeping, still not difficult, but instead of CAPs, it uses more generic Resource Points (or RPs). Each side gets a varying number of RPs each turn, and in significantly higher quantities than Blue-and Gray’s CAPs. But these are general-purpose issue points.

Resource Points must be spent for individual unit movement (one RP per unit) combat (one RP if all are from the same army or corps, two RPs if the attacking units are from different formations, and those costs are per hex attacked), and one RP per step to refit infantry units, two points per step to refit armoured units. After a couple of rounds the move/fight/refit decisions start to get tougher for both sides. The optional weather rolls for each turn can reduce the German Resource Point quotas by two each time the clouds depart. Neither side can ever do everything they want to in a turn, and that tension makes for

 

Activation of armies using points in card-driven games

As mentioned above, Sr. Ramos didn’t offer an example of this model in use. The obvious example might be any traditional Card-Driven Games (CGDs) like For the People (GMT Games, 1998) or Washington’s War (GMT Games, 2010). The Ops value on the card can be used to activate individual leaders and their attendant forces. The ops pint values run from one to three, and ironically, the lower the activation number, the more readily you can activate a general. There are also Minor and Major Campaign cards that allow the holding player to activate two or three generals simultaneously. I’ve been playing some Washington’s War on Rally the Troops lately – never turn down the opportunity to lose a game to somebody much better than you as it’s a worthwhile learning opportunity – and it is a game that is definitely worth your time. It captures the pace of the American Revolutionary War really well. But there is another system that, for me, represents the apotheosis of card-driven mechanics.

Literally blocking the roads to Erfurt.

For my money, the most interesting use of this model in recent years has been that applied to the Conquerors series of games, starting with Napoléon 1806 (Shakos, 2017). In the Conquerors system, each turn a unit can be activated, but only once. It is then turned upside-down to indicate the unit has acted that turn. The units represent full corps, all infantry and their attendant batteries and cavalry, which are named for their commander. Movement is point-to-point, starting with the Initiative holder, players take turns activating a formation or formations and units starting at the same location may move together as a larger formation. But this is where it gets interesting. Each activation, the player declares which formation or formations will be ordered. Then a card is drawn; the cards in these games are multi-use, but in this capacity, the player checks the number in the top corner indicating that card's action point value, which will dictate how many movement-points that formation has to spend on that turn. The number will be between one and six.

If two or more formations are to attempting to move together, a point will be taken off the total available for each extra unit before any movement can be undertaken. It’s conceivable that a multi-corps formation may not be able to move at all, or only a town or two (modelling orders not received, unclear in intent, or simply ignored). Activating the formations individually comes with its own hazards. Say you want three corps to take the most direct route to Leipzig and order them separately. If the first formation draws a two-point card for its movement, and the consecutive units draw a four and a five respectively, unless they can find an alternative route, they too will only move two spaces, due to road congestion.

This simple mechanical model adds a frustratingly realistic level of battle friction to the game, enriching the experience (well, enriching my experience). Since we’re talking about the Conquerors series, it’s a good time to mention a fourth volume is on its way to crowdfunding (I’m not sure at this stage which platform, so I’ll keep you posted). Napoléon 1870 (Shakos, ~2027) will bring the Conquerors system forward sixty years to the Franco-Prussian War, and frankly, I couldn’t be happier. This is a conflict that gets some wargaming attention from time to time, but is still largely ignored by the hobby, but it’s an interesting chapter of history and a crucial step in the development of war doctrine leading up to the Great War.

– <<STOP THE PRESSES>> –

Napoléon 1870 is currently on Kickstarter! At time of publication there’s about two weeks left of the campaign, plenty of time to back it if you’re interested. You can find it here.

-----

And so ends part 2. I dug into the back-shelves a bit for this instalment, and it’s given me an appetite to play the Blue and Gray games again.

 I’ve got something else on the cooker at the moment that I’m trying to finish off, so part 3 may take a little longer to get posted, but it shouldn’t be too much later. I also have a Quarterly Report to put together – not much news, but a couple of interesting things to talk about.

Thanks for reading this far.  As a reward, here’s a photo of our cat. Dharma was a rescue with a broken tooth who hated other cats and most people, but we took a chance on her and now she’s definitely a pat of the family. The first weekend of October marks the second full year of our mutual adoption, so happy anniversary, Dharma!

 

A Fast Take: Limiting Command and Control in wargames - part 1

 

Note: in posting, the text for this piece became rather muddled, with the pics and paragraphs placed in a rather haphazard order. I think I've wrangled it back into shape, but please drop me a note if you notice this or any other post seemingly out of whack.

Josep Oliver, custodian of the exempilary wargaming blog, El desafío de las Águilas, has recently featured some guest posts by designer Fernando Sola Ramos entitled Mando y controlen los wargames (Command and Control in wargames). Full disclosure: I’m by no means a fluent Spanish reader, but online translation has come a long way from its early days; I wouldn’t rely on free online translation services if I was involved in trade negotiations, but the terms and rationales involved in a piece like this are familiar enough to grasp. Sr. Ramos’s article was brief but engaging and well-stated. Sr. Ramos identified six mechanical approaches that add an element of limitation to Command in Control (CiC), adding examples of use in a published game for five of them.*

I’ve been thinking about the problem of CiC in games for a while; about a year into posting A Fast Game, I wrote a short list of possible articles that would be interesting for both myself to write and visitors to read. Reflecting the limitations of Command in Control in wargames was near the top of that list, though I think I noted it in terms of “Fog of War”. I struggled to find an in-road to talking about this subject. In his article, Sr. Ramos approaches the question straight ahead – taking a half-dozen examples of how different game designers approached the limited intelligence question.**

Playing with perfect intelligence.

It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Here I would like to use Sr. Ramos’s post as a launching point to look at some variations on his themes. But I want to make it clear that I’m only following a trail that has already been clearly marked. I’m just looking at more of the landscape.

Sr.  Ramos begins his consideration with a succinct appraisal (reproduced here because he said it better than I could):

Of the combat functions applicable to military operations, three are quite well executed in wargames: manoeuvre, fires, and logistical support. However, intelligence gathering (…) and command and control are often relegated to the background or completely forgotten.

Sr. Ramos broadly defines four essential methods used by designers of wargames to mimic Command in Control issues followed by the game or series he uses as an example):

- initiative rolls for activation (leaders or formations) – Napoleon at Bay: The Campaign in France, 1814 (Avalon Hill, 1978)

The MMP edition of Tetsuya Nakamura's A Victory Lost.

- chit-pull formation activation – A Victory Lost: Crisis in Ukraine 1942-1943 (Multi-Man Publishing, 2006)

- through shared orders with a limited "budget" of orders – Panzer: The Game of Small Unit Actions and Combined Arms Operations on the Eastern Front 1943-44 (GMT Games, 2012)

Fernando Sola Ramos's first published work, the France, 1940 expansion (GMT Games,
2019) for James Day's Panzer. Sr. Ramos is also responsible for
Panzer: North Africa (GMT Games,2024). 

- leadership-distance chain of command (Great Battles of the American Civil War series).

- activation of armies using points in card-driven games (no single example given here, but I’m sure everyone has at least one game in mind from their own experience)

Formation attacks in Normandy '44 (Photo courtesy of Takeo Ichikawa, BGG).

 - limiting attacks to command formations (i.e. disallowing or limiting ad hoc formations). Sr Ramos didn’t mention a particular example here, but visually implied Mark Simonitch’s “ZoC-Bond” family of games was a good example.

I can’t fault the rationale here – of course there will be cases that might seem to straddle more then one model here, but it’s a solid starting point for what I’ve been looking to discuss.

So, let’s look at these, one by one. I’ll follow the list as Sr. Ramos laid it out. I’ll break my examination down into more than one part, mostly because my clarity of thought is probably not as keen as my predecessor, and I’ll probably get myself stuck in the tall grass on some of these. For clarity, I’m going to refer throughout to the design strategies or choices listed above as “models”.

Initiative rolls for activation

As soon as I read the description of this model, my mind immediately went to the Men of Iron series (GMT), probably because I’ve been helping my brother-in-law to punch and sort his copy of the MoI Tri-Pack, (Second Printing (GMT Games, 2026), now that after some confusion, he’s finally received his Errata Pack). I think this might be the purest form of the model at hand.

The roll for the next activation receives a +1 Dice Roll Modifier (DRM) to the result. If that activation succeeds, the next has a +2 modifier, and so on (this is called Continuity). After the first failed roll, the initiative passes to your opponent, who takes their first Free Activation, then rolls for their second. The non-active player also has the option to wrest the initiative from the active player; this action is called Seizing Continuity and involves drawing a chit from a cup to establish success or failure. Some of the scenarios in the series may only have three Battles to a side; if a side manages to activate all their Battles successfully, the first Battle activated may be activated again. This isn’t likely to happen with the escalating negative DRM – in my experience you’re far more likely to fail your third Activation Check – but it’s possible.  

All up, it’s a simple, elegant mechanism to reflect the manifold variables at play in a battle at this scale – pauses in the action, second-guessing and missed opportunities – and adds the dense of the degree of collapse in command direction that marked the battles of the Middle Ages and into the Early Modern period.

Volume seven of the Men of Iron series, Ermine: Battles in the War of the
Breton Succession, 1341-1364 (GMT Games, ~2027), is currently available
for pre-order on GMT's P500 page.

Men of Iron doesn’t have a turn structure. Instead, the scenario dictates which side begins the hostilities, and they choose a formation to activate. Each (colour-coded) formation, or Battle (hereon a capitalised Battle will be referring to a formation, lower-case referring to the scenario situation), is headed by a Leader – usually a member of that country’s nobility, sometimes its monarch. The first activation is a “Free Activation”, but every activation for that side is subject to an activation role with a d10; to activate, the result must meet the Leader’s Activation Rating or lower to achieve activation.

Reign of confusion. Longbowmen are no match for mounted
Men at Arms - Agincourt scenario from the MoI Tri-Pack..

Chit-pull formation activation

One of my favourite implementations of this model is Christopher Moeller’s Brothers at War, 1862 (Compass Games, 2022). This is a brigade-level command tactical game, with regimental-sized units. As to be expected, a chit-pull activation system dictates which brigades are activated when, but there are some additional wrinkles to the model; also in the draw-cup are a number of Time markers (illustrated by a pocket-watch). As each chit is drawn, it’s placed on a chit track, which has some spaces marked with the same timepiece illustration. When two Time markers are drawn, the round ends, the cup is replenished, and the Turn marker is advanced.

A particularly short turn - just six activations.

A turn starts with one-or-two Time chits in the draw-mix, but each time the drawn chits reach a timepiece marked square on the chit track, another Time chit is added to the mix. This focuses the players’ attention on what they can do with each opportunity as it arrives. You need to keep your overall goals in mind as the game progresses, but you can’t count on your best units to be in exactly the right place at just the apt moment. The game requires the players to think on their feet and work within the parameters – or confines – of the available orders, without knowing what will be activated. I really like the challenge Brothers at War presents. And I’m pleased to share that, after a long wait, a second volume, Brothers at War, 1861 (Compass Games, ~2026), should be available later this year or early 2027.

Brothers at War is also a candidate for the leadership-distance chain of command model. 

-----

So, there’s the first part of my fast take on Fernando Sola Ramos’s CiC-limiting models. I’ll try to cover the remaining four models in Part 2, which I hope to post inside of a fortnight, but expect it when you see it.

I encourage you to share your thoughts in the comments. Let me know what  Command-in-Control models you prefer, or if you like to play your games in God-mode.

 

* I would encourage readers to go read this article themselves. If you open it in a Chrome browser it should offer to translate the text into your preferred language. You can find Sr. Ramos’s original article here. Sr. Oliver has since published two more pieces by Sr. Ramos, both well worth your time. In the most recent one he deals separately with the issue of Fog of War in games. I realise not conflating FoW with the limitations of CiC was probably what tripped me up in my own efforts to write about the subject.

** I call it a problem here. It’s obviously not a problem for some players – a few even resist any kind of limited intelligence in a wargame, and that’s cool – follow your bliss. But you’ll always be dipping into the shallow end of the pool, don’t try to tell me otherwise.

† For reasons known only to the arbiters of order at Boradgamegeek.com, the Black Swan series does not warrant its own series heading. But what would I know? Maybe it’s true that Black Swan games are really just “Blind Swords” games with the serial numbers filed off.

 

Stripped Down for Parts: 1809: Talavera (Fix Bayonets! Volume II)

 

 

Note: I wanted to acknowledge that A Fast Game been very quiet for the last month or so. I’m working on a longer piece which I think will be worth the wait, but I realised I needed to take time away from that to catch upon some of the other things that have been on my mind in terms of wargaming, both incoming games and recent reading, which will push back the project work an extra week or two but I think will help make it better in the long run (as I was beginning not get a little white-line fever dealing with just that).

 

1809: Talavera (Tactical Workshop, 2026) is the second in designer Frederic Delstanches' Fix Bayonets! series, the first technically being the second edition of 1811: Albuera (Tactical Workshop, 2025). The third has already been announced - 1806: Auerstädt (Tactical Workshop, ~2027 – you can sign up to be notified of the Gamefound campaign launch here). The box art exhibits the same trade dress as the previous volume, with an extract of a painting by Richard Simkin (of whom I have written previously), The 40th (2nd Somersetshire) Regiment of Foot clash with French infantry, Battle of Talavera, 1809 (c. 1900). The original painting is part of the permanent collection of the National Army Museum in Chelsea.

The box is of what we might think of as “standard size” (roughly 12” by 9”), about three inches in depth, and of solid construction. It needs to be to accommodate everything this game brings to the table.

Box-back.

The box back hints at what we’ll find inside, with a selection of unit counters and administrative markers reproduced to their actual size under map extract showing the town of Talavera, the scene of some of the hardest fighting during the battle. A few lines set the historical context of the battle – the combined British and Spanish forces under generals Wellesley and Cuesta respectively, holding the town of the Talavera and the adjacent hills for the night of the 27^th of July, and some verry hot fighting throughout the next day, finding on the 29^th that the French had retreated in the night, leaving hundreds of their wounded and a battery of cannon.

The play notes advise that the game can be played by one or two players (I think it wouldn’t be too difficult to play with three, dividing the Allied forces along national lines). There is no dedicated solo system for the game, but there aren’t any mechanics that should make it prohibitively difficult to play two-handed (in fact, I’d go so far to say this would be the best way to acclimate to the system coming to it cold). The game’s difficulty is described as Medium to Difficult, with which I would concur (I’d place the system at about a 7 out of 9 for crunch; maybe a 5.5 for the introductory scenarios).

The current Series Rulebook (version 2.7).

The rulebook has been slightly updated from 1811: Albuera – from version 2.4 in the earlier volume to version 2.7. Going over the two rounds of errata (available as PDF downloads here), most of the changes are clarifications to standing rules, with six additional rules introduced, four corrections to existing rules wording, and a dozen or so clarifications of standing instructions.

The rulebook itself is printed in full colour on a nice weight of low-gloss paper, formatted into a double-column in a ten- or eleven-point Garamond (both choices making for easier reading and comprehension) and usefully illustrated. Box-text is used liberally throughout; yellow background boxes highlight key takeaways regarding play (making it easier to home in on specific details at the table) while red text on a white background fills in various historical or design notes in reference to the preceding rule. The whole book is easily navigable, with a detailed Table of Contents (alas, no Index, but in it’s place is a helpful glossary of Definitions, beginning on page 51).             

Rulebook - sample spread.

The rules run to 49 pages; as I mentioned, that count includes a lot of illustrations and pictorial examples, and every effort has been made to make the rules easier to assimilate, but it can’t be denied, it’s a lot to absorb. The Fix Bayonets! system is not a difficult ruleset to understand, but it is a lot to master. If Talavera is your introduction to the system, there’s an introductory scenario that uses just infantry units. Unless you’ve cut your Napoleonic teeth on something like La Bataille, I recommend dipping your toe into the Fix Bayonets! system here (but we’ll come back to the scenarios shortly). I touched on some of the details of the series rules in my unboxing post of 1811: Albuera, so I won’t repeat myself here. Go read that as well, though I should warn you that Albuera is currently out of stock with the publisher..

The back cover offers a visual guide to interpreting the unit counters and markers used in the game Inside of the back cover is a summary of Leader Movement restrictions and a quick guide to handling the Leader cards. These would have been useful on a Player Aid Card of their own, but there’s already so much in the box, I understand not committing to this extra expense (and weight, however slight). I can see some photocopying of these pages in my future. A short bibliography (twenty citations) is also included, which I always find helpful. I’m pleased to note, nearly all of the books cited are in English and many are available at a reasonable price, if you’re looking to extend your Napoleonic library.

The Battle Booklet, offering special rules, scenerios, and fascinating historical glimpses.

The 1809: Talavera Battle Booklet is twenty-four pages in length and materially shares the same qualities as the rulebook. It offers a brief historical background piece, rules for unique terrain types (olive groves and city walls), a rundown of the opposing forces, and historical notes covering the Orders of Battle for the three armies, with particular attention paid to the divisional uniforms.

Battle Booklet - sample spread.

The Battle Booklet also offers five scenarios, running in scope from the aforementioned Night Attack, which plays out in a fourteen hex-length area, twelve rows deep, enough to get a feel for the manoeuvre and combat rules without having to master the artillery rules, to the whole Two Days of Battle. The first two scenarios, The Night Attack and The Morning Assault, play out on a single board; the game is a bit of a space hog, so these will let you get to know the nuances of the game before you commit to clearing the whole dinner table. The remaining three scenarios – A Bloody Afternoon, The Full Day (covering the scope of the action of the 28^th), and The Two Days of Battle – require the full, substantial board, which we will get to next.

The South board, with Talavera and the Targus in the top left corner (the flags
at the bottom edge mark the French approaches).

The contested terrain of Talavera is represented over two map-boards that meet along a short edge, presenting a long front for the antagonists, roughly defined by the Portina brook that roughly bisects the length of the . The map runs north from the town of Talavera on the Rio Targus and extends north to the hills anchoring the British flank. The scale is roughly 120 meters (130 yards) to a hex, and elevation changes are approximately ten meters (30 feet).

The North board, depicting the area that saw most of the British action. The two smaller
scenarios are played on this half of the map.

The terrain is clear (no pun intended) and readable, generally not up for debate. The line-of-sight rules make sense in context of the map, though I’m sure the wilful will find something to argue about. I can’t say in good conscience that these are my favourite tactical Napoleonic maps – I think Sébastien Brunel’s exquisite work on Hexasim’s Eagles of France games still take that honour – but they are perfectly fit for purpose and by no means distracting, which is what you need from a game map.

Counter-sheet 1.

Counter-sheet 2.

Counter-sheet 3.

Counter-sheet 4.

Counter-sheet 5.

Counter-sheet 6.

The unit counters are one of the points where the Fix Bayonets! system really pops. The counters are large (about 3/4”) and beautifully presented, with accurate uniforms and readable digits in, in spite of the saturation of information incorporated into each unit. I mentioned the historical notes covering various divisions represented in the battle in the Battle Booklet. Each division’s distinct uniform is presented in the historical notes, and these are reflected I the unit counters. Each unit features its command affiliation (division) and Regiment/battalion, digits representing the unit’s steps, Fire and Skirmish (melee) values, a TEM score (and number broadly representing the unit’s Training, Experience and Morale going into the battle, a red number will indicate poor training), and the unit’s Movement Factor. Cavalry units are marked with the presence of a horse’s head to the left of the figure, and of course don’t feature Fire quotient. Artillery units have an above view of a cannon on their unlimbered side.

All the units and markers are pre-rounded and punch out pretty cleanly. The plethora of administrative markers suggest a business to the play that is misleading. most of the board-bound markers are mnemonic devices to remind the players of a given unit's current actions, which may need to be responded to or played out, and will not clutter the board beyond the turn. Disordered/Suppressed and in Square markers are cut smaller as to not obscure the unit below, and the elongated Charge and Column and Road Column markers have their game effect values printed on them. The design of every marker has been considered and streamlined into the best version of itself.

Player Aid Card - the outside panel.

The game comes with two duplicate Players Aid Cards. These are bi-fold (two-panel) 11” by 17” cards. On the outer wrap, you’ll find all the necessary martial charts and tables; Fire Combat Procedure and Modifiers, Melee CRT and modifiers, a Special Results Table, Leader Casualty table, and (even) a Spiked Guns Table. 

Player Aid Card - inside the fold.

Inside the fold offers a brief a Summary of Game Effects on units, Sequence of Play – and separate Assault Phase and Charge Segment Sequences – a table of TEM (Tactics, Experience and Morale) Modifiers, Stacking limits (by total Strength Points), a Fatigue Reduction Table, and a Weather & Time of Day Effects Table. God is in the details in the Fix Bayonets! system.

French Army Order of Battle.

Where the confluence of research and production shine brightest is the counters and, by extension, the Order of Battle Boards for the three armies. The OoBs present each army in their command breakdown, delineating the command structure and divisional groupings of the brigades, regiments and batteries.

Spanish Army Order of Battle.

British Army Order of Battle.

Most infantry and cavalry units have three or four steps before they become unviable as a fighting force, which means these units have multiple representative counters. The OoB sheets should be used for hosting the currently unuse counter for each multi-counter unit to negate the need for scrabbling through marker-piles mid-game. This will add to the game’s table footprint but will save a lot of headaches during play.

The Turn and Tracks card.

All the game-related functions are monitored on the charmingly named Turn and Tracks card. Rather than numbered turns, each scenario is tracked by time elapsed. This is tracked on the Game Turn Clock, a clock-face dial in the centre of the card with the outside round numbered somewhat like a real clock, and the inside circle divided into fifteen-minute intervals (the duration of a game turn). There are two clock-hand markers to register the passing of hours and minutes in the game. There are designated spaces for markers denoting morning or afternoon (AM/PM), Weather, and which side holds the initiative.

There are separate tracks for the overall cohesion of the three armies, and another to track fatigue of various formations. Spaces are delineated for the Special Events Draw Pile, the current Activation Stack and the Activated Order Pile, and Out of Play cards (to avoid confusion). Separate holding boxes are also provided for Routed French and Allied units, and for French units located at the Casa de Salinas (this represents an off-map position holding the French Reserve force and some of the Armée’s senior leaders at the beginning of some scenarios.

Card backs.

In Fix Bayonets! games, formations are ordered by their leaders, which are represented on small European-sized cards. I’m not going to get into the tall grass here, but each turn, the Activation Deck is built from the two side’s leader Activation Cards through a kind of bidding system, and these will dictate which leaders and formations get to activate in  that turn. I’ll go into this more deeply when I get to writing up an AAR of either Talavera or Albuera, but suffice to say, this is one of the hallmarks of the Fix Bayonets! system.

Sample Leader cards (top row) and Special Action Cards.

The cards look quite nice. Where possible, an actual portrait of the officer in question has been used in the representation; otherwise, a uniform character similar to those used on the counters has been incorporated. Every card also features the Leader’s name at the top against their command’s colour stripe, their numerical Command Rating just below this on the left, and an image of the leader’s corresponding counter. Senior leaders may command multiple formations; this is reflected in a note at the base of their card.

Along with the Leader decks a small deck of Special Events is also provided. The Special Event cards allow the holding player a small advantage in a given situation. Most are for general use, while a couple have different benefits depending on the side playing the card. After they are played, the cards are discarded.

There is one unique card in the Talavera game. Many will be familiar with Bernard Cornwall’s Sharpe novels or the television movie series that sprang from them. The climax of Sharp’s Eagle is set during the battle of Talavera, the eponymous Sharpe manages to capture a French Eagle, to clear a debt of honour (in reality, the 95^th Rifles – despite their best efforts, having marched over forty miles inside of twenty-four hours – just missed the action, arriving on the morning of the 29^th). To commemorate this favoured fictional event, a special Special Event card has been included. The Sharpe’s Eagle card may be held by the Allied player to play during a defensive melee action, just once, to potentially turn the tide of an otherwise disastrous result. This is a small thing, but it is very much indicative of both the design philosophy and the spirit of the game.

Box and dice (and cards as shipped).

Finally, two dice – d10s, one red, one blue – are included with the game. These are very nice; a good weight that seem to roll quite well. I’m sure they will prove to be fickle at the table, facing an opponent, but that is in the future.

As mentioned, the box is of solid construction with a firm closure but not so much that the lid is difficult to remove. My copy suffered some ever so slight dishing of the top, but no corners were harmed, and with the extremely reasonable surface shipping charge, I cannot complain.