The Attack on Morobad: A wargame fought using rules from the Portable Colonial Wargame book

This video gives a blow-by-blow account of a wargame that was fought using the simple 'The Gatling's jammed...' rules from THE PORTABLE COLONIAL WARGAME book. If you are new to the Portable Wargame or are thinking of using the rules, this video should help you to understand how the main rule mechanisms work.
There are some scenario specific rules for this wargame:
1. Units attempting to climb unbreached walls must stop at the bottom of the wall and may not attempt to climb the wall until the next turn.
2. Units climbing through breached walls treat them as entrenchments.
3. Artillery can fire at a grid area containing a section of wall and tower/gate rather than at an enemy unit occupying that grid area.
4. If a section of wall or a tower/gate receives three direct hits from artillery fire, it is deemed to have been breached, and any unit on that section at the time it is breached is deemed to have been hit.
5. If two sections of wall are breached, the Hauserians must take a morale test. If they fail, the Sultan will surrender.
6. To test their morale, the Hauserians throw a D6 die for each of their units (not including the commander) and total the dice scores. If the totaled score is greater than the army’s remaining SPs, the Hauserians fail the morale test.
7. The morale test is repeated every time a further section of wall is breached.
8. If an enemy unit manages to enter the city of Morobad, the Hauserians must take a morale test. If they fail, the Sultan will surrender.
9. If the Sultan is killed, the Hauserians will surrender.

[@ArthurHarman-b4k]

Bob, the 'smoke' effect to show musketry and artillery fire works very well. I'm not so sure about the icon to indicate loss of SP, as it looks as if the target has suffered an explosion. But the overall effect and clear explanation is good and will be very helpful to anyone wanting to discover how PW plays in practice.😀

[@Wargaming_Miscellany]

Thanks for the feedback. I was very happy with the way the smoke and fire arrows worked but had my reservations about the Close Combat 'explosion'. I did try to find a crossed swords icon to use for Close Combat, but ended up using the explosion one as it was the best I could find at the time.

[@johnscarr70]

​@@Wargaming_Miscellanyif its good enough for Batman...

[@Wargaming_Miscellany]

@@johnscarr70, At least I didn’t add things like ‘Zap’, ‘Bang’, and ‘Kapow’!

[@johnscarr70]

@@Wargaming_Miscellany I'd have loved that, but it wouldn't work for everyone!

[@shawnhutson6853]

Excellent report. Ive got a number of your titles. Its great to see you play through Portable Wargames. Thanks.

[@Wargaming_Miscellany]

I hope that you enjoy using the rules. I really should have made a video like this years ago but never seemed to have the time get around to it until now.

[@geoffbarker3644]

Interesting and, as you say Bob, it shows how easy the Portable Wargames rules are to play. Jolly enjoyable really 👏👏

[@Wargaming_Miscellany]

I am in the process of creating a video that goes through the basic rules explaining how they work and my thinking behind the mechanisms that I used.

[@geoffbarker3644]

@@Wargaming_Miscellany That’ll be useful. And, as I’m now an OAP, it’ll help fill the hours in my day when I’m not doing whatever domestic chores my wife tells me to do. I’m hoping “wargaming” might eventually feature on the schedule. Fingers crossed 🤞🏼😉

[@Wargaming_Miscellany]

@@geoffbarker3644 My wife was pleased that I had a hobby like wargaming as it mean that I would disappear for several hours on end and keep out of her way so that she could get on with hobbies of genealogy and dressmaking.

[@geoffbarker3644]

@@Wargaming_Miscellany my wife is still working (3 days a week as from 1 July - so she’s happier now) but she likes to remind me of the chores as she steps out of the door on the way to work… ☹

[@philRminiatures]

A nice report and a great looking game!

[@Wargaming_Miscellany]

Cheers! I hope that you enjoy watching the other videos as well.

[@FinnMcRiangabra]

With so few rolls, using d6 makes this far too random and luck-heavy for me.

[@Wargaming_Miscellany]

@@FinnMcRiangabra May I ask if you have used the rules? What suggestions do you have for improving the rules? Would you suggest using different dice (e.g. D10s or D12s) or a larger numbers of D6s (i.e. a ‘bucket of dice’ approach)?

[@FinnMcRiangabra]

@@Wargaming_Miscellany I have not played the rules you show, but have done with similar rules I found in my college library years ago and some MWAN published games (midwestern war-games association newsletter). I've also played the "bucket of dice" approach (looking at you GW). It is fine for evening out the low-resolution probabilities of six-sided dice. I think that enough people have access to d10's (for a "natural" feel to probabilities for each roll lining up with percentiles and having finer resolution than d6) or D12's (for even slightly better resolution but they don't roll forever like d20's) for those higher-number sided dice to be better for use than d6.
I've been noodling with a d12 hybrid version of target number, dice pool, and number of successes for RPG, but the statistics are not working out the way I'd like (1=auto fail, 12 = auto critical, and the remaining 10 results lining up with 10% success increments).

[@Wargaming_Miscellany]

@ Thank you for your reply. I’m sorry that you haven’t tried the rules as I suspect that if you had, you might have come to somewhat different conclusions regarding the use of D6 dice in the rules.
I chose to use the D6 because it is possible to generate a reasonable range of probabilities if one uses suitable bonus and penalty modifiers. In the rules, one of the mechanisms that seems to be most attractive to users is the simple table that determines the results of combat. If a unit is hit, a D6 dice is thrown. Depending upon the unit’s rating (Elite, Average, or Poor) it has a variable chance that it will see its combat ability reduced or have the option to fall back and not see its combat ability reduced. The decision regarding the latter lies with the player and the end result is not a random event generated by probability.
The rules are the end result of many years of development and play-testing, and seem to appeal to quite a few wargamers (they have sold in thousands) and have been used at the University of the Sorbonne, the French Ecole de Guerre, and the British Defence University’s wargames group). Perhaps I can prevail upon you to give them a try; if you do, I might just change your mind.

[@FinnMcRiangabra]

@@Wargaming_Miscellany My interpretation of your reply is that it started as genteel, then went passive-aggressive.
Yes, old war-game rules that added random elements had some options for the randomization. D6 were popular probably because they were ubiquitous. Decks of playing cards were also used. Sets of "chits" or custom card decks also were used.
But it seems that we are no longer in the very early 1970's. Role playing game designers found that there were science nerds making dice with more than 6 sides. And thus we now have a very handy system (rolling dice) with much finer resolution than simple d6 rolls in which the differences between outcomes cannot be better than +/- 0.167.
Grow up and use dice with more sides - they produce better (finer resolution) results. For the small price of using d10s of different colors or percentile dice pairs you can even get your result resolutions down to 1%.
Compared to adjusting your result resolutions by, at best, +/- 16% that is an easy decision. It also helps against game results in which a block of elite troops, in good order, with support somehow on the poor roll of 1d6 are broken by independent militia. I am not saying that that never has happened in battle, but giving that chance a minimum floor of 16% happening is not good game design.