John's Wargame Page

DBA Squared 2025 (Seeing the forest for the trees)

November 26, 2025

Introduction

I’ve seen several attempts to add rules for playing DBA on a square grid. The idea behind the square grid is to get rid of the micromanagement aspect that DBx games are famous for. Using a 60cm board and a grid, you can play a game of DBA with out the use of a ruler.

While playing DBA on a square grid, I’ve come to realize that wheeling groups is not really necessary. In the standard game, you can wheel entire lines but very rarely do you wheel a group to 90 degrees…or even more than about 45 degrees. This reprise removes the ability to wheel an entire group.

Movement

This is the heart of the grid game. Each unit will observe the command rules for the standard game. Movement rates for each unit are also the same as the standard game. The rates are expressed in paces with the following changes:

Each square is 100 paces across
Each unit must face a square edge
A forward move costs 100 paces of movement
A diagonal move costs 150 paces of movement
Groups may not wheel but still may move ahead as per the game rules. Instead, each unit in the group will have to move individually to achieve this operation.
Units may turn in place at the cost of 100 paces. They may, however, move about in any direction without changing facing as per the rules. If the unit moves straight forward, it may turn right or left for free. About face still costs 100 paces.

Zone of Control and Engagement Range

Units have a zone of engagement in the square directly in front of them. An enemy occupying that square counts as being engaged with the friendly unit and a combat must be fought. A unit that is in front but 2 squares distant counts as being pinned (or “Barkered”). That pinned unit can either move into contact with the unit to the front, stay put or back away from the enemy. Backing away may be in a diagonal direction but the move cannot be into another square that is an engagement zone or pin zone.

Command Range

Commanders have a command range of 600 paces or 300 paces if the line of sight is blocked by intervening terrain. This is reduced compared to the standard game.

Shooting

Bow and artillery ranges are expressed in units of squares. Bows can shoot 2 squares away with the usual 1 square to the left or right. Artillery can shoot 5 squares away. Note that shooting units cannot shoot into the square directly in front of them as this is the engagement zone.

Melee

There are few changes to the melee rules. Recoils are done by squares. 2 infantry may occupy a square. Only 1 of any other unit type may occupy a square. All of the rules for overlapping, flanking and supporting still apply.

Conclusion

DBA plays very well on a square grid. There is no room for ambiguity on a grid. You either make contact or you don’t. No rulers. No micro-measuring. Nothing. I wasn’t sure if I would like the 90 degree wheeling rules. After a few plays, I have learned to like them just fine. I honestly think I like DBA on a grid better than I do on a free form board. If you are a DBA player, you should give it a try. You will find yourself more working on tactics and less on wondering how you will make contact with that Psiloi when the front is covered by 1/4″ from the spear unit to its front.

Notes

DBA on a grid plays very similar to DBA on a standard board with some subtle differences. Square movement fits neatly with DBA 3.0 as 100 paces are not 40mm and not 1″. We are still playing on the same sized board. A turning penalty in some cases of 100 paces was added to slow down the unit as it changed directions compensating for the fact that you measure from the farthest point in the standard game. In the grid game, you advance 1 square (100p) and then turn for free so compensate for the fact that there is no group wheeling.

I was not going to include any zone of control rules or “Barkering” but in the end, it was necessary. I found in my first game that it was too easy to gain a flank on an enemy. Allowing for flank covering ZOCs gives the same feel as the standard game. Since the board is smaller and the ZOC covers a greater distance, I allow the withdrawing unit to move at an angle to get away if it needs to.

Shooting ranges are a bit farther too. I was going to express shooting in terms of paces but I figured I had better make it squares since all of the units will be moving faster.

Command range was reduced. A general in the center of the field can give commands to almost the entire width and length of the field but not in the corners in the standard game. I made the range 600 paces to make commander placement more important.

These rules were adopted from Andy Watkins DBM amendments for the Classical period. The rules are quite nice. I took the liberty to use many of the ideas here and filled in the blanks where he did not add any detail.

Andy Watkins DBM Classical and Medieval House Rules

1 Comment | DBA, Game Design | Permalink
Posted by John

TWERPS!

July 24, 2025

No. Not it’s not a pejorative. It’s the World’s Easiest Role Playing System. I found this game when I was in college back in the 80s. I bought many of the supplements. I think, at the time, it cost about $3 to $4 per book. They are home published, staple bound booklets. So where am I going with this? Why my thoughts on the system, of course!

The game is similar to other role playing systems in the concepts it brings. It is a stat based game that governs how skills are used to accomplish various tasks like fighting, lock picking, persuasion and about anything else you can think of. The difference is that there is only one stat. A starting character gets a random amount, from 3 to 5. This stat is your hit points, your movement rate, and your ability in performing tasks. This is both a strength and a weakness in the game.

The stat indeed is used for task resolution. When a character takes damage, the stat goes down and the character gets weaker and slower. An injured character performs less well than a fully healed character. They also move more slowly. Characters get bonuses based on their class. So a warrior might get a +1 when fighting with melee weapons while a ranger might get +1 with ranged weapons. Fighting as an example of how the game works, is done by the attacker rolling a D10, adding his current strength and any other bonuses he is entitled to. The defender rolls a D10 and adds his current strength and any other bonuses (such as armor) he is entitled to. If the attacker rolls higher, he scores hits on the defender.

There is a drawback to this system. With one stat governing everything, wizards become as physically adept as warriors. The move as fast and have as many hit points which really doesn’t make sense. Wizards can fight nearly as well as warriors with the same strength. This system probably needs a few tweaks to make a little more sense.

Movement probably should be a flat rate. Most characters should be able to move 4 spaces with a particularly fast character moving 5 and a slow character such as a dwarf or halfling moving only 3. Characters that use mental abilities should have a penalty when fighting or doing other physical tasks. It would take more play testing though. My son and I played using a Star Wars module that someone made. We both agreed that certain things did not make a lot of sense.

The game, unto itself, provides an interesting table top game similar to games such as Frostgrave or Sellswords and Spell slingers. It’s lighter in rules than those mentioned but would, indeed, provide an excellent game for those that don’t like their games so involved. Who knows? Maybe one day I will be able to figure all this out.

Until next time, good gaming!

2 Comments | Fantasy, Reviews, RPG, Sci-Fi | Permalink
Posted by John

Frosted haze from matte varnish!

July 20, 2025

On a post from The Wargames Website, someone had this old issue bite them in the behind. The issue of course is using a matte clear coat and getting a frosted haze on your newly painted miniature. If this has happened to you, do not fear. There is a simple solution.

First lets talk about why this happens and why it never happens to gloss varnish. Matte varnish goes on rough. The roughness gives it that “flat” or “non-glossy” look by not allowing all light rays to shine directly back. Think of a scratched up mirror. It will not be as brilliant or shiny if there are micro scratches all over the face. The same goes for matte finish. Little micro-pockets keep light rays from going directly back to the eye. I did, however, say “pocket.” On humid days (above 55%), these pockets can trap moisture, further obscuring the finish and making the model seem “frosted.” As a side, this is also how primer can get the rough and fuzzy finish. Gloss finish is perfectly smooth and shiny. It reflects light rays back in a uniform fashion. There are no micro-pockets to trap moisture. So you never get the frosted effect.

Now, if this has happened to you, the simple solution is to apply a gloss coat over the model. This will disperse the moisture trapped in the matte finish. After it dries, wait until you have a relatively low humidity day (55% or less) and apply your matte finish again. I’ve done this with a few models in my day.

One poster in the WGW thread thought using olive oil was the solution. While this would work as well, it would leave an oily residue on your miniature. I just assume leave olive oil for dipping bread. 😉

I hope this little post helps. Until next time, good gaming (and modeling!)

Leave a Comment » | General, Painting/Sculpting | Permalink
Posted by John

Not done

June 20, 2025

You may have noticed the lack of posts. The house is being remodeled and all the spare spaces are filled with stuff from the rooms being worked on. I’ll be spending some time in my basement in search of my gaming and painting table that have been buried under stuff both old and new. Hopefully in a week or two I can get a game or two in to test all that OHW 3-hit nonsense. Until then, good gaming!

Leave a Comment » | General | Permalink
Posted by John

Brunanburh

April 11, 2025

After pouring through a derth of information on the great battle that made England, I’ve come up with this simple scenario for the Battle of Brunanburh. The battle should be double in size, pitting a Scots-Welsh-Norse army against a double sized Anglo-Saxon army.

The battlefield should probably be a board 5-6 feet in length by 3 feet in depth. The ground is relatively flat with maybe a woods on one flank and a water feature on the other. Which flank is which should be left up to the players. As for the location? We just don’t know. It does seem that terrain was not an issue because even the poem in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle does not really mention anything. One thing we can say with at least some certainty is that the armies probably came by boat. Constantine and Olaf escaped by boat. Assuming the welsh contingent was from Strathclyde, that king would be Owain I. No mention of what happened to him.

There will be two armies per side. The Norse army is a land army. Roll once on the 6 unit land army table. This is Olaf’s army. For the Scots-Welsh army roll once for a 6 unit army on the Welsh-Scots table. Norse setup on the left and the Scots-Welsh setup on the right. For the Anglo Saxon army, roll twice on the Anglo-Saxon table. These are controled by Aelthelstand and Edmund. Edmund’s army will setup on the left and Aethelstan’s army will setup on the right, facing the Norse. It is likely that Aethelstan raised a norse contingent, perhaps from York. Replace one Great Fyrd unit with a Norse Bondi unit from the norse land army list.

Each army has a general. Constantine and Olaf control the Coalition armies. Aethelstan and Edmund control the Anglo-Saxons. With the exception of Aethelstan, they may only exert influence over their respective commands. Aethelstan may exert influence over units from either Saxon command.

Armies should setup within 12″ of the respective base edges and no closer that 6″ from either flank edge. The battle is fought until one side has been routed from the field. An army is routed wihen half of its units have been destroyed. This is a per-army basis. So if Olaf’s army takes 50% casualties, his army is routed and that leaves only Owain/Constantine to fight on.

I’ve been rebasing and painting over the past couple of months. I have the troops for this fight and hopefully will fight it out soon.

If you want to fight this out as a standard game, the coalition get a 3 unit Scots-Welsh army and the Norse contingent gets a 3 unit Norse land army. The Aglo-Saxons get a single 6 unit army and will still replace a great fyrd unit with a Norse land army unit, this time a Norse Dreng. Each army will have 1 general.

Leave a Comment » | Miniature Games, My Favorite Rules, OHW | Permalink
Posted by John

Some thoughts on the simplicity of OHW

February 26, 2025

I purchased One Hour Wargames when it was first published. My initial assessment of the rules were that they were too simple for my taste. The 30 scenarios still made the gameworth while to me. My son and I played a game which pitted Vikings vs Saxons. His thought (he was 8 years old at the time) was that you kind of got stuck in and that was largely that. Not much room for maneuver. I didn’t have the heart to tell him that this is how warfare was between two shieldwalls.

There were two problems I had with the game. First, was that the hitpoint number is too big and is not easily tracked without either a bunch of hit markers or a roster. The second was that there was no morale system that allowed for a temporary or permanent failure in morale of a unit.

Since then, I came up with the 3 hit system. This was largely an epiphany I had while playing a board game on the Great North War. Its CRT was super simple and had results for both fighting in terrain and fighting in the open. The CRT’s I used are roughly balanced to the original game. A unit will typically last 3-5 turns.

The morale system is something I came up with based on the philosophy of Don Featherstone. When a unit has a morale failure, the subsequent move should bt that unit’s move for the turn. Placing the check right before the unit moves is something I copied from Fire and Fury and On to Richmond, both American Civil War games. There was, of course, some tweaking to keep the system from making OHW too volitile.

Other aspects about OHW deals with how certain functions of the game are accomplished, all in a very simple way. You turn by pivoting about the center of a unit. No wheeling. No special rules. No nonsense. You normally get to pivot at the beginning of your turn and at the end. So, you can accomplish a backward move easily.

Shooting is accomplished as they did back in the day without any obscure rules for interrupting moves and defensive fire. Shooting ranges are generically 12″. The fastest unit can move 12″. So it stands to reason that there will be a defensive shot because even at 12″, a unit will spend one turn in shooting range. Also, units may shoot or move but not both. So a unit could not move into range of cavalry, for example, without exposing itself to a charge and not getting a shot off.

Finally, the game is simple enough to mod without ruining the game’s balance. Simple rules and tweaks do work in an interesting way. Additions, such as morale, magic, monsters and flying can enhance the game for various time periods and generes without unbalancing the game. I’ve done my fair share of tweaks to the game which you can find in the OHW subpage. The tab is at the top of this page. Have a look and you will see what i mean.

5 Comments | Game Design, My Favorite Rules, OHW | Permalink
Posted by John

Age of the Northmen for OHW

February 2, 2025

I’ve added rules and army lists for later Dark Ages from Penda through Harold Godwinson. With these you can fight battles in England. I’ve decided to make rules sets more focused on the period. These sets will include relevant army lists and only the special rules pertinent to the time period being played. You can find them on the OHW subpage.

Leave a Comment » | Game Design, My Favorite Rules, OHW | Permalink
Posted by John

The Death of Harold Godwinson

January 28, 2025

I came across a video on the Battle of Hastings. Most historians seem to cling to the old story that King Harold Godwinson dies by an arrow in the eye. The Bayeux Tapestry seems to support this though some claim that the arrow in Harold’s eye was added after the fact sometime in the later 1800s during a restoration. I think the arrow is immaterial. I have a different theory. That figure is not Harold at all.

“King Harold is dead”

The picture above is the frame depicting the final moments of King Harold. In position #1, we see a dragon standard and several men, presumably dressed in mail and carrying a shield and spear. The left most figure appears to have avoided a thrown spear. These men appear to be the kings personal Huscarls.

The figure at position #2 is who historians claim to be Harold. With a look we can see that he is clutching the arrow that presumably did him in. There are, however, two curious things. First, his socks don’t match. One is red and the other is brown. That does not seem like something a wealthy King would wear. The second thing is how he is armed. I can believe that he would carry a shield. However, heis also carrying a spear. That is a rather lowly weapon for a King in any era. I would have thought he would have had a sword or a mace or even a great ax. He is positioned under the word “Harold” so I suppose that’s something.

The figure in position #3 seems a little more like a noble to me. His socks and tunic sleeves are striped telling us he had the money to buy better close. He uses a great ax which is the weapon of a Huscarl. In total, he has a very different look than all the other living characters in the frame, either Norman or Saxon. He is also being struck down by a Norman Knight with a sword which is aligned with the two earliest accounts of his death as you will see below. Harold and the knight are rather well centered under the full title of the frame “King Harold is dead.”

The first quote comes from the book called The Carmen writen by Guy of Amiens

“William called to himself Eustace, Hugh of Ponthieu [and] Giffard … for the destruction of the king…

The first, cleaving [Harold’s] breast through the shield with his sword, drenched the earth with a gushing torrent of blood; the second cut off his head below the protection of the helmet; the third pierced the inwards of his belly with his lance; and the fourth hewed off his thigh.“
–Guy of Amiens

There is no mention here of an arrow in the eye. It does appear that Harold suffered many wounds before he died. Whether it was a heroic death or the knights just hacked at him, we will never know.

The second quote is written by the Norman chronicler, William of Jumieges.

“Harold himself, fighting amid the front rank of his army, fell, covered with deadly wounds.“
–William of Jumieges

In much less detail, this account seems to corroborate with the first account. Both accounts were written within 4 years of the battle.

The alast account is from an English Writer, William of Malmsbury.

“fell, from having his brain pierced with an arrow … and yielded to death. One of the soldiers with a sword gashed his thigh, as he lay prostrate; for which shameful and cowardly action he was condemned by William, and expelled from the army.“
–William of Malmesbury

This is the first time an arrow is mentioned, some 59 years after the battle. The arrow pierces Harold’s brain. Whether it went through the eye or not in this account is anyone’s guess. An arrow through the brain would, never the less, be lethal.

So, we could take the popular theory that Harold was hit in the eye with an arrow but the reasoning to me is flawed. The figure is standing under the name “Harold” but the name is not a tag but rather is part of the title of the frame. He is also wearing similar attire as all the other figures in the frame, save one, the man on the ground. That figure has similar armor but has striped stockings, no shield and is the only one with an ax. The demise of this figure also closely matches with the earliest accounts of his death.

There is a theory that both figures are Harold at different stages of the battle. This does not work either. Logically that would mean, Harold was wounded in the eye, changed his stockings, dropped his shield, picked up an ax and then was then slain by a Norman knight. No. The frame is a moment in time. The knights burst through Harold’s personal guard and killed him. The figure in position #3 is Harold and King Harold is dead.

The information comes from primary sources mentioned above and was compiled John D Clare’s teaching site here.

The full scene…

1 Comment | General | Permalink
Posted by John

One-Two Hit Tokens

January 19, 2025

I’ve uploaded an image of the tokens I use for OHW to mark hits. They are ideal for my 3 hit variant. Simply print them on 110 paper and cut around the parimeter of the 1s and 2s. Paste them together back to back. Cut out the individual counters. Optionaly, mark around the white edges with a brown artist’s pen. Find the counters on the OHW subpage right here.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by John

One Hour Ancient World

January 18, 2025

I’ve completed enough army lists to where I feel like OHAW will be useful to many folks. I’ve included a good many lists for Bronze Age, Early Greece, the Hellenistic period, the Punic Wars and the Early Dark Ages. I will, at some point soon work on lists for Imperial Roman (Early, Middle and Late periods) as well the Viking age up through 1066AD. You can find the set on the OHW sub-page right here.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by John

John’s Wargame Page