Over the years I have played many board games, role-playing games, and historical war games. This page contains some games and rules I have written, including games that I have either published or are in development.
Now that the children are older I am back to playing "serious" war games,
particularly with a
For Gallipoli and Mons I created counter design software, which is available in my GitHub account. There are also several fantasy language generators that I use in role-playing games.
In 2018 I published Gallipoli 1915, Churchill's Greatest Gamble, which is available through GMT Games. It is an extremely detailed and realistic historical study of the landings at Anzac Cove and Cape Helles in 1915.
I am working on a successor game on the Battle of Mons in 1914, aiming to publish in 2022. Both games use the Rifle and Spade rules system. The system has been updated for the Mons game. The updated rules are available int eh file seciton of Gaillipoli on Board Game Geek.
Mons is available for pre-order at GMT Games.
I originally hoped that the Rifle and Spade system would just be a slight modification on the Tactical Combat Series from Multiman Publishing, but I quickly realised that the scale, time and unit granularity, and command system needed to be completely different. So now all that the two systems have in common is that they are grand tactical.
Units are battalions and companies, because at that stage of the First World War neither side maneuvered independently as platoons. Artillery was all direct fire, so there is no need indirect fire rules. Tanks and mortars also did not exist, so the fire rules can be much simpler than for a World War 2 tactical game. Therefore I am able to put much more complexity into the command rules. The difficulty of executing an order can be influenced by many factors, and I also have rules for getting lost (particularly at night) and therefore failing your orders, plus special rules for the covering force at The Landing.
I produced one map based on the 1920 British Army contour maps held by the Australian War Memorial. I took a version of the map to CanCon in 2005 and just laid it out for people to see, and also play tested an earlier version at the Paddington Bears.
Gallipoli and Mons have been playtested at:
In the early 1990's I played a lot of the La Bataille series of Napoleonic war games published by Clash of Arms. We found the tactical complexity to be fascinating, but were frustrated by the ambiguity of the third edition rules. We were particularly confused by the cavalry charge rules, so one Saturday I decided to sit down and write up our house rules as a coherent body. Unfortunately it was not possible to describe cavalry charge without reference to fire, or formation, or units, so the small project grew into a complete rewrite of the rules. We were also playing the Civil War Brigade Series from Multiman Publishing at the time, and I became convinced that a game (i.e. a model of reality) that portrayed French superiority in terms of being able to shoot straighter and march faster was not very accurate. Napoleon's victories were usually achieved by being able to order his armies faster, i.e. to turn within their decision cycle. Austerlitz is a classic example. So we (myself and Ed Bryan) grafted a derivative of the CWB orders rules onto my rewrite. Eventually it was published in Operations. I offered my rule set to Clash of Arms for free, but they did not take me up on the offer. They produced their fourth edition rules soon after which I believe includes its own command rules. However, Clash of Arms did grant me permission to publish these rules.
The colours in the command charts refer to see-through coloured dots that I fixed to the counters to make it easier to recognise formations.
The rules are provided as pdfs, paginated to A4.
I have not played the game in years, so I won't be able to reliably answer any questions :-(
We also played a lot of the Fleet series games. We used the variant rules for "simultaneous" movement published in The General. There was one little thing which still bothered us, which was that air unit losses were expressed in absolute terms (i.e. one plane, or half a plane), irrespective of how many air units were involved in a combat. If two planes fought one, then the result was one shot down, the same result if twenty planes fought ten. So I wrote up some house rules for air combat that expressed the combat in terms of ratios. Here are those rules. This is not a very original idea, and it only matters when large groups of aircraft are involved (i.e. rarely).
Text and Images Copyright Geoffrey Phipps 2007-2020. Unauthorised copying or reuse prohibited.