Skip to main content

Battle of the Yalu River 1894 1/2400 scale

 I ran a game at my local wargame club this eve for the first time. I've posted some comments on the A and A Game Engineering ruleset 'Tsushima' before. It's a good game, a notch above beer and pretzel in terms of complexity and rather traditional in that it uses tables and modifiers etc. 




I don't have quite the order of battle for the Yalu River battle of the Sino-Japanese war but my fleet is fairly close. I am missing one of the two better Chinese Battleships and about 3 of the Japanese cruisers. The fleets themselves are the right size as I have a few extra gun boats and light cruisers as substitutes. 

Still the setup is quite easy. The Chinese deploy between two islands at the mouth of the Yalu, the Japanese approach from the south west.


Taken from Wikipedia


I had four players and gave them 2-3 squadrons each. I skipped the scouting phase as I wanted the battle to play out in around 3 hours and the table size was a bit smaller than the recommended 6/4. This was a good decision, the players shot away at each other for around 6-7 turns and sunk or set on fire about 75% of each fleet. Simplifying the rules was also a good idea. I tend to think 'Tsushima' is pretty simple but for pick up games there is usually someone who has a lower crunch threshold than me.


Probably the Japanese manoeuvred a little better, but the Chinese battleships do hit hard and their player rolled pretty well. I did make some simplifications; I ignored the evasive manoeuvre rules, these add lots of rerolls and slow the game down. I also allowed sinking ships to continue shooting whilst they attempted repairs. I probably should not have allowed this with hindsight. It probably made the game too fire friendly. 



From a simulation point of view I'd give the game a 6/10. Extreme historical outcomes are rarely reflected in wargame results. The Japanese creamed the Chinese fleet for no lost ships (some damaged) and the historical battle lasted around 5 hours with around 10-30% losses. In our game 6  six minute turns resulted in about 10 ships sunk and another 10 on fire spread evenly between the two sides. The game rules were more deadly, even without my rules changes to force the action.



It does look real good on the table top. The smoke and splash markers really give that fire on the horizon look. 


The smoke markers wire wool superglued to washers, then sprayed and dry brushed. The splash markers are small screws covered in polyfiller then 'sculpted' with some tweezers and then painted with blue contrast paint and greys.




Going forward I could see this being ran again. I will probably buy some more ships at some point. I am leaning towards the French fleet from 1890s-1910s because it was a total mishmash of nuts designs. There aren't many historical battles to simulate in this period outside Yalu River and Tsushima, so I would be doing fictional events or going back to the 1880s for the Sino-French war. 




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Quick Looks: Cimean War Battles - Tchernaya River

 A quick one today I traded off Across the Narva by Revolution Games (should post something on this) for an oldish (2000) copy of an S&T magazine. The mag came with two battles reprinted from the 1978 Quad game on the Crimean War. The full Quad also contained Inkerman and Balaklava, this magazine version just has Tchernaya River and Alma. Initial setup Early SPI games (and actually GDW and AH come to think of it) of the 70s tend to have lots of rules you already know. I go, U go, movement, fire, melee, rally, and most of the rules are standard. Command and control rules and friction of war arrived a lot later. To couter this I have added a simple house rule. For each division (units are brigates and regiments, about 2-8 per division) roll. On a 1 in 6 movement is halved unless the unit can charge, in which case it must charge the nearest enemy.  A simple easy to apply rule for generating those light brigade charges. You could also easily convert this to a chit pull game by division

Quick Looks; Red Star / White Eagle

I generally hate it when people describe designs or ideas in games as dated, because many of the most innovative games  are older than I am. Equally it implies there is something innately good about new designs, which I don't think there is. Dune is arguably the best multiplayer 'war' boardgame and the 70s basic DnD is in my view still the best RPG. I wasn't born until the late 80s and didn't discover these things to the mid 2000s so this isn't nostalgia doing my thinking, its just that some old ideas are better than new ones, despite our apparent 'progress'. Back when Roger B MacGowan did cool art house covers But having said all this Red Star / White Eagle is a dated game design. And this matters if you are looking at popping £70 on a new reprint of it from Compass Games. I am a wary cheapskate so I picked up a second hand copy with a trashed box of ebay for £20. It was worth it, but only just. Poles have just been creamed on the south we

Wilderness War is probably the best CDG (review)

One attribute of a good war game is that it opens up rather than narrows down the more you play it. Each time you play you see there is more strategic depth than you thought there was. When I first started playing Wilderness War, a card driven wargame design (CDG) on the French Indian War by Volko Runke, I thought it was simply a case of the British building a large kill stack and marching it up the Hudson and the French trying to get enough victory points (vps) from raiding to win before the inevitable. The outcome would likely be decided by card play and who got the reinforcement cards when they needed them. The game is afoot.  Four games later I have realised that this is not the case. Yes the British will sometimes win by marching a big army up the Hudson and sieging out Montreal, but a lot of the time things will play out quite differently. Maybe the French strike first, perhaps the British realise that going up the Hudson is going to be a slog try another route. Ei