استریم

برچسب: Scenario

  • Using “Congress of Vienna” in the Classroom and Reducing Time to Play a CoV “Clash of Armies” Scenario Turn Through a “Warm Start”


    Introduction by Congress of Vienna Assistant Designer/Editor, Fred Schachter – The CoV Team is privileged having in its rank’s educator Tyler Brooks, who with his co-teacher adapted Congress of Vienna for the classroom to teach students so they could experience the challenges of being in a coalition or facing one. The class they created was entitled… “Applied Strategy: Wargaming the Great Captains of History”. This involved non-gamer college level students successfully gaining needed appreciation of our wonderful hobby and using CoV’s four turn “Clash of Armies” Scenario in particular.  Quite the achievement!

    If you’re unfamiliar with Congress of Vienna, there’s a host of material regarding it within GMT’s site: GMT Games – Congress of Vienna, 2nd Printing  Yes, the game’s warm enthusiastic hobby reception has it “Out of Stock”: but CoV’s 2nd Printing, which will include all rule clarifications as of the date of printing, can be P-500 ordered.  All this article’s referenced CoV Optional Historical Rules (OHRs 15.1 – 15.17) can be obtained via this GMT site for the game.  But back to Tyler’s remarkable accomplishment.

    A turn of Congress of Vienna, with experienced players, can average 40-60 minutes each and for Tyler, this amount of classroom time was prohibitive.  He therefore cleverly devised a kind of “House Rule” to dramatically shorten a turn’s playing time by pre-disposing results of its Initial and Diplomacy Phases… those are skipped via a “Warm Start”.  A “Warm Start” begins each turn with Issues won and only Military Cards remaining in each Major Power’s hand.  A “Warm Start” turn begins with Government Phase Resource allocations and then it’s off to the drama, conundrums, fun and excitement of Congress of Vienna’s War Phase whose Armies and military units are all prepositioned on the game map!!

    CoV Designer Frank Esparrago and I had a blast assisting Tyler adopt his Congress of Vienna Clash of Armies Scenario Turn “Warm Start” for the InsideGMT audience.  You’ll find it within an Appendix to Tyler’s intriguing Using “Congress of Vienna” in the Classroom article.

    To skip the article and go direct to the CoV “Turn Warm Start” Instructions & Set-Up Illustrations click here.

    The Concept

    Militaries across the world obsess over how to create better strategists.  With the sudden leaps in artificial intelligence, great powers have even begun attempting to train “synthetic strategists” to either augment or replace human ones. [1]  A debate continues among academics and practitioners over whether great military strategists (as well as wargame designers) can be trained or simply discovered and recruited.  In each of the above cases, wargames serve an integral part in either training strategists (both human and machine) or identifying their strengths and weaknesses. 

    As both a professional strategist and wargamer myself, I’ve been deeply involved in both analytical and educational wargaming; but it’s the latter I’d like to focus on here, and how I’ve used GMT’s “Congress of Vienna” game to instruct professional strategists, emerging senior military leaders, and novice professional wargame designers.

    Literature and Theory Background 

    In “On War,” Carl von Clausewitz defines genius as a “highly developed mental aptitude for a particular occupation.”[2]  He goes on and identifies several human characteristics, the harmonious combination of which produces military genius:

    1. Physically & Morally Courageous
    2. Visionary (coup d’œil)[3]
    3. Determined (courage d’esprit)[4]
    4. Mindful[5]
    5. Ambitious for Fame and Honor
    6. Emotionally Disciplined
    7. Charismatic to inspire esprit de corps[6] in others
    8. Map Literate
    9. Creative & Imaginative
    10. Competent in Statesmanship
    11. Competent in Math & Science

    Combining Clausewitz’s “On War” with the principals of war from Antoine-Henri Jomini, most western strategic theory necessary to train military planners in operational art and strategy can be extrapolated, with allowances made for changes to the character of war since their writings.[7]  And yet while military strategy courses teach about both these theorists; they often neglect to spend any time studying the man from whose genius they were both attempting to derive their methods: Napoleon Bonaparte, emperor of France. 

    In developing a pilot elective course for this academic year, my co-teacher and I chose to focus on Bonaparte for our choice of related wargames but given that he ultimately abdicated (twice!), it does beg the question from an uninitiated student: “Why do I care what a loser thinks about war winning?”  In response, I point to a medium article by Ethan Arsht where he quantified the “Wins Above Replacement” (WAR) sabermetrics on all western[8] generals’ battle records in Wikipedia which determined Napoleon Bonaparte’s measurement was 23 standard deviations from the mean, while second place Julius Caesar was in the “paltry” ballpark of around 7.[9]  To confirm this astonishing statistic, I had a department mathematician run the numbers, and the result was that Bonaparte (relative to his contemporaries during his own time) was so dominant a commander that there would have to be 10 times the current number of humans who have been born before you’d expect him to exist.[10]  This suggests Napoleon was not only the greatest military commander who ever lived, but quite possibly the greatest who will ever live.[11]

    The omission of Bonaparte from the above referenced professional military education occurs partially because Napoleon never made much of an attempt to explain his methods in writing, but he does provide some insight into how he became a “Great Captain of History”.  He names whom he considers great captains, including himself as the greatest (of course) and then explains that the way to become a great captain is to study the great captains.[12]  Napoleon’s argument is essentially a militarized take on Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” which assumes a “Great Man Theory” of history.  While Napoleon didn’t leave us theoretical writings to study; he did leave us his historical battles and campaigns.

    Wargames’ Educational Potential (with Reference to Congress of Vienna in Particular)

    So, this finally brings me to “Congress of Vienna” and the use of historical wargames, such as CoV, in the classroom as a teaching tool.  Training military leaders with wargames gives them the simulated experience of experiencing many of Clausewitz’s traits of military genius.  Wargames also provide a safe laboratory for students to test their own ideas and interact with history in an engaging manner that synthesizes insight out of a historical narrative, insight that should be generalizable to other, more modern, situations.  But especially for our purposes, this medium allows the student to travel back in time to inhabit the mind of Napoleon and his contemporaries during the critical years of 1813 – 1814, as best as Frank Esparrago and other designers/developers can manage.  I became interested in the game “Congress of Vienna” professionally when, like most other games in my collection, I had a professor ask me to recommend a game to help him teach a niche topic.

    Classroom Application of Congress of Vienna (With a 5th Major Power, Prussia, Added) 

    In August of 2022, the training school for all U.S. Army Strategists asked if I could design a bespoke educational wargame to accompany a presentation of Gordon A. Craig’s famous 1965 lecture, “Problems of Coalition Warfare: The Military Alliance Against Napoleon, 1813-1814.”[13] Given that I was not a historian by trade, and in fact deficient in any in depth knowledge of Napoleon at the time, I dug into the Gordon A. Craig reading with a critical eye and imagined a game much like “Churchill” from Mark Herman’s Great Statesman series to model the “frienemy” aspect of the balance of power within a coalition. 

    Yet I didn’t consider myself equal to the task of creating such a game from scratch at the time.  However, upon further rumination, I vaguely remembered seeing there was another P500 game on GMT game’s website for the Great Statesman series and this one was about Napoleon.  That was encouraging, but I doubted I would be so lucky for it to be about the War of the Sixth Coalition.  In any case, modifying a commercial off the shelf solution for the classroom is almost always a better idea than creating a new game from scratch; so, I went to the GMT Games site and looked up that P500 game about Napoleon.  Huzzah!! It turned out, “Congress of Vienna” was exactly the game I wanted!  I immediately rectified my error of not being subscribed to GMT’s monthly newsletter. 

    But the tantalizing “Congress of Vienna” game was still in development during August of 2022, without an online rulebook. Therefore, I looked around the internet as best I could and try to piece something together.  What I found on Board Game Geek (BGG) was a wonderful 4-part video by two CoV Team Members doing a full playthrough demo using the then current Vassal prototype of the game.[14]  So naturally, I watched those YouTube videos 4 or 5 times and from them built a PowerPoint Classroom Presentation explaining how to play “Congress of Vienna”. 

    I thought I had most of it figured out (except maybe for the “Congress of Peace” Issue), but I wanted to confirm my understandings.  So, I figured it wouldn’t hurt to reach out and introduce myself to CoV Designer Frank Esparrago via BGG and explain to him what I was trying to accomplish.  I subsequently emailed Frank my draft PowerPoint for feedback to learn if I got anything wrong and was thrilled when he swiftly responded! He offered me the opportunity to playtest the “Congress of Vienna” prototype with him via Vassal.  I was honored to get a chance to work with the development team. [15]    

    The Congress of Vienna game I wanted for the class would differ from the four-player version the CoV Team was developing.  How?  By adding a fifth Major Power: Prussia into the game!  So, Frank, who became enthused about my idea, spent a couple of weekends or so playing and modeling a prototype with me, since the professor had some specific requests for Prussia being its own 5th Major CoV Power, distinct from Russia. 

    To accomplish this, Frank created prototype Prussian cards and modified the Vassal board’s Diplomacy Section to accommodate a 5th National Negotiation Track.  We found adding a 5th Major Power team increased the length of play substantially, so we sped up the game in other areas to To accomplish this, Frank created prototype Prussian cards and modified the Vassal board’s Diplomacy Section to accommodate a 5th National Negotiation Track.  We found adding a 5th Major Power team increased the length of play substantially, so we sped up the game in other areas to make up for that.  One of the approaches, which Frank did not like, but nevertheless helped me achieve the playing time reduction goal, was getting rid of the card trading mechanic and through creating exclusive to each Major Power four “National Decks” (for France, Britain, Austria, and Russia); as in Mark Herman’s “Churchill” instead of using a single shared deck. 

    In retrospect, doing away with the shared deck removes a significant amount of interesting interplay between the Allies, and potentially upsets the balance of the game, not to mention removing some cards’ historical flavor.  We experimented further by having the Prussian and Russian team play with independent National Tracks, but use a shared hand of cards.[16]  However,  it became difficult to make Prussian strategic decisions distinguishable from Russian ones to be worth the extra complexity and time it was asking of the students.[17]  We cut the idea for a Prussian team, along with eliminating the Pax Britanica and Future Government of France Tracks from the classroom version of the game and sought to make even more cuts to speed things up.  We also reduced the number of Negotiation Rounds from 6 to 4 and reduced the number of cards from each Major Power’s hand by 2 to make up for the fewer card play Rounds.  We also made changes to the National Advantages (especially Russia’s) so we could script the Initiative Order (Wager), Initial Situation Cards, and the Initial Environment Table die rolls.  By scripting these starting conditions, we freed up precious minutes for more playtime.

    Now if readers have their interest piqued by the described Five Major Powers Congress of Vienna Game Variant, be heartened! This may eventually be published as a physical game or an InsideGMT article with a link to its associated Vassal Module. But for now, we shall focus on providing an aspect of the Variant we realized applicable to the current Congress of Vienna game: a “Warm Start” for helping teach the game to new players and adapt it to a classroom’s constraints.   

    Organizing a Congress of Vienna Lesson Plan for the Classroom 

    In consultation with the professor’s learning objectives and with Frank’s advice as CoV’s designer, for the prospective class we chose to play the four turn “Clash of Armies” scenario, which encompasses the Full Campaign Game’s turns 5-8 (per CoV Playbook Section 17.3).   The limiting factor using wargames for educational purposes tends to be fitting the teach and the game into a single class period, 4 hours in this case.  After playtesting the scenario with the professor, the most crucial feedback I received was that the Negotiation Phase of the game, while most interesting, would not make much sense to untrained players until they completed a War Phase.  Therefore, I took the recommendation to create a “Warm Start” for the scenario by starting in medias res of turn 5, scripting the Government Phase in PowerPoint for me to brief to the students and then scripting cards and Issues going into the turn 5 War Phase which allowed them to start the game there.

    Over my years working with educational wargaming, I’ve found that consolidating a scenario and rules brief together into a graphical presentation is often a great multimedia approach to teach a game when combined with a physical copy set up in front of the students.  If comprehensive and tailored to the scenario, such a presentation can serve as a replacement for the rulebook, as well as the short Quick Start Rules Summary, scenario instructions, and Player Aids which CoV provides as references.  Mark Leno, who teaches professional wargame designers and facilitators with me, breaks down a good rules briefing for students into the following format, which I follow for all teaching presentations (and rulebooks)[18]:

    1. Explain the game theme
    2. Explain the game objective (how do you win?)
    3. Briefly explain the game components and key terms
    4. Explain the rules and necessary mechanics in play order
    5. (if needed) Demonstrate any mechanics or special rules
    6. (if needed) Provide additional examples or explanations
    7. Summarize objective, key rules, and common errors
    8. Optional: If time permits, briefly describe common strategies or approaches to play and/or play a practice turn or round

    The above is called the “Full-Teach,” as opposed to a “Partial-Teach” method where we just do steps 1-3, and let the players complain when we reveal new rules as they become relevant.  ‘Partial-Teach” is less boring, but it comes at a price of being blamed for potentially ruining the players’ strategy by not explaining the entire game up front.  “Congress of Vienna” is a complex enough game that with novice gamers, “newbies”, it doesn’t lend itself well to either method; hence the “Warm-Start” approach. 

    You can get away without explaining the Initial Phase, Diplomacy Phase or each of the game’s Issues by starting with the War Phase by explaining to the players “This is what your incompetent ambassadors left you with, now General, go figure out the battles.”   After they see the struggle of operationalizing a policy they were handed by the facilitator, you can then put them in the seat of the ambassador for the Diplomacy Phase of turn 6.  The facilitator then explains the Issues for negotiation and/or debate for the upcoming turn. Then the students can see if they could do better.

    With this variant’s National Decks, the scripted initial situation, only 4 Negotiation Rounds, and the simplified game board eliminating the Pax Britanica and Future Government of France Tracks, I can consistently get a new group of future military strategists through a 30-minute rules teach and 2.5 turns of play in four hours.  During that classroom time, professors leverage the experiential learning from “Congress of Vienna” to discuss not only the friction of coalition warfare, but also the two interpretations of Clausewitz’s Trinity: the people, the government, and the general.  Or respectively: passion, reason, and chance.  “Congress of Vienna” is by far one of the best games (among “Conquest & Consequence” and “Triumph and Tragedy”) at modeling grand strategy. 

    But where “Congress of Vienna” excels is in its exploration of military genius and its effect on the enterprise of statesmanship and warfare.  Over the years, I’ve found that demonstrating an understanding of theoretical concepts, like strategy in complex systems, can only be observed in watching the synthesis through application at a gaming table.  The barrier to entry, however, is teaching students how to play the game.  Game theory and literacy among professional strategists are just as important as reading literacy, because as William North Whitehead put it: “The purpose of thinking is to let the [bad] ideas die instead of you.”

    I still have digital copies of this CoV variant’s “National Deck”, custom cards, and I’ve in fact continued to play the game in the classroom with that mod for years, until I got my official physical copy of the game this year.  Like the 5-player Prussian team variant, the National Decks aren’t fully play tested or balanced for public use, but if there’s interest, there might be a vassal mod made available at some point in the future. 

    Once I got my fresh copy of the published Congress of Vienna game, I couldn’t stand not to play with Terry Leeds’ beautiful cards and game board, so I switched back to the shared deck and card trade mechanics. This included student strategists lacking analysis paralysis by needing to read the extra text on the cards than their professors did during playtesting!  Fred Schachter was kind enough to update my “Warm Start” rules teach to match the full and final rules of the commercially released game and, with Frank’s help, present them here for you to use.  I hope you find these resources helpful in getting this game in front of more students in the classroom, and/or new hobbyists on your local gamers’ table or convention floor.

    Congress of Vienna in the Classroom! The left Photo is of three game participants. The right-side photo is of Dr. Richard Anderson, my co-teacher, facilitating the After-Action Review in class which enlightens students regarding the challenges of Coalition Warfare.

    Turn Warm Starts to Accelerate Game Playing Time of CoV’s “Clash of Armies” Scenario (17.3)

    As indicated above, an aspect of this “Congress of Vienna” game variant, which can be applied to accelerate play of the “Clash of Armies” scenario, is to start a game, or individual turn, with a “Warm Start”.  That is, for this variant, players begin with “Issues Resolution”, Step #2 of the Government Phase (12.0).

    This means skipping a turn’s Initial Phase (10.0) and time-consuming Diplomacy Phase (11.0).  Players begin a turn by determining how to best spend their available Resources to pay for won Issues, gain die roll drm for the Absolutism/Liberalism and/or Pax Britannica Tracks, as well as acquire Military Support markers or VP for Sound Government.  That’s it!  In all other particulars, play the game using Standard Congress of Vienna rules.

    Three Appendixes at this article’s conclusion contain Frank’s design (historical) interpretations of a “Clash of Armies” turn’s Set-Up.  These include, for the Scenario’s Turns 5, 6, 7, and/or 8 each Major Power’s number of available Resources, won Issues (from that turn’s Diplomacy Phase), Victory Point Track marker, Military Map Armies/units placements, and marker locations for the Absolutism/Liberalism, Pax Britannica, and Future Government of France Tracks.  For this scenario’s historical background, please reference: A Historical Introduction to the Congress of Vienna Period (CoV) Part 3 of 4: Europe Aflame (July–December 1813) – InsideGMT

    Author’s Bio

    At the time of this writing, Daniel “Tyler” Brooks is a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army, serving as an Army Strategist (FA59) and wargame designer in the Department of Strategic Wargaming (DSW) at the United States Army War College (USAWC) in Carlise Barracks, PA,  where he teaches the Army’s “Wargame Designer Course,”  two wargaming electives, and runs bespoke analytical wargames for the Army and Joint Force.  He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Philosophy from the United States Military Academy at West Point, and a Master of Arts in International Security from the Josef Korbel School of International Studies (JKSIS) at the University of Denver.  Like Napoleon, Tyler was a field artillery officer before becoming a strategist.  He graduated from the Basic Strategic Arts Program (BSAP) at USAWC in 2017.  The thoughts, opinions, and techniques presented here are solely the views of Tyler Brooks, and does not represent the thoughts, opinions, or policy of the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, or any organization in the U.S. Army War College.  This article is meant to be a discussion of pedogeological techniques using wargames under fair use and does not constitute endorsement of the game “Congress of Vienna” by any U.S. Government organization. 

    Endnotes

    [1] https://mwi.westpoint.edu/strategic-centaurs-harnessing-hybrid-intelligence-for-the-speed-of-ai-enabled-war/

    [2] Chapter 3

    [3] Literally “Stroke of the eye,” which can be interpreted as “Commander’s Vision”, but what he’s describing is more akin to system 1 thinking as described in the book “Thinking Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman.  This is an ability to mentally visualize conceptually complex situations, accurately and instantaneously in the moment with incomplete information. 

    [4] Literally “Courage of the Spirit” or “Courage of the Mind” which can be interpreted as “Moral Courage”. But Clausewitz [re: “Clausewitz’s wife”] uses the term to mean something in addition to Moral Courage, as he already includes it with physical courage.  Here, he means it as an additional trait that also includes a willingness to not give up in the face of overwhelming odds.  It is a willingness and self-confidence to act on the visualization of coup d’œil in an uncertain environment.

    [5] Meaning, to not miss any important details, and to be aware of everything that is in front of you and be able to distinguish signal from noise in order to see through the “Fog of War.”

    [6] Literally “Spirit of the body” meaning the collective morale of a group to achieve a common goal in the face of hardship.

    [7] I’m ignoring the Eastern thought, for the most part, for my purposes here, so apologies to those interested in Sun Tzu and Mao Zedong.

    [8] Again, sorry Genghis Khan, our Western bias left you and your brilliant generals missing from the data set.

    [9] https://medium.com/data-science/napoleon-was-the-best-general-ever-and-the-math-proves-it-86efed303eeb 

    [10] To be more precise, the odds are astronomically worse than that, because the sample number assumes everyone who has ever been born was also a battlefield general.  The calculations broke the computer as is, so we called it “good enough” for the purpose.

    [11] Ok, this bold claim ignores a lot of factors.  But the point remains it is a safe bet that Napoleon is worth looking at as a premier model for a Great Captain of History.

    [12] In “Napoleon on Napoleon,” edited by Somerset de Chair, Bonaparte explicitly states those captains are: Alexander the Great, Hannibal the Great, Julius Caesar, Gustavus Adolphus the Great, Turenne, Prince Eugene of Savoy, Fredrick the Great, and Napoleon Bonaparte.

    [13] https://www.usafa.edu/app/uploads/Harmon07.pdf This brings you to the entirety of this fascinating piece.

    [14] The Youtube videos have since been removed from BGG, probably because they featured a CoV prototype from before Terry Leeds’ beautiful art was added.

    [15] BTW, game designers and developers, like CoV’s, love it when you ask them about their games.  You’d be surprised how often they will write you back if you are struggling with a problem and need help with a game.

    [16] Taking inspiration from the “Two-Headed Giant” format in “Magic the Gathering”

    [17] We also added a “Deutsche Bund” track and some new Prussian staff cards in the attempt.  I also begged Frank to add “Clausewitz” and “Jomini” cards into the variant, but Frank rightfully pointed out “Clausewitz didn’t play much of a role until Waterloo.  Frank did humor me by making a neutral Jomini card, since his national loyalties caused him to serve multiple roles on different sides in official capacities.  Jomini even played a small role in the Congress itself, and Napoleon identified him by name, declaring Jomini to not be a French spy.  Both the Allies and the French deemed Jomini honorable in his military service throughout the war, despite his changing sides, or recusing himself on occasion throughout the Napoleonic Wars.

    [18] From “How to Teach a Game” by Mark Leno

    APPENDIX 1: “Warm Starts” For CoV Clash of Armies Scenario Turns 5, 6, 7, or 8

    Introduction to “Warm Starts” Appendix by Congress of Vienna Assistant Designer/Editor, Fred Schachter: Game designer Frank Esparrago and I enjoyed editing Tyler’s clever concept of shortening a Congress of Vienna “Clash of Armies” (17.3) scenario’s playing time by starting a turn at its Government Phase.  This eliminates time spent resolving a turn’s Initial Phase (10.0) and Diplomacy Phase (11.0).  It lets player(s) proceed immediately to deciding how to best allocate their Major Power’s Resources and then proceed to the exciting, fun, and dramatic action of a War Phase.  

    This can help newbie Congress of Vienna players learn the game system incrementally and avoid a Diplomacy Phase’s perceived complexities.  It also speeds resolving a CoV game turn when players are pressed for time… although at the price of sacrificing the fun challenges of selecting, negotiating, and debating Issues during a Diplomacy Phase. 

    Here are general instructions for a “Warm Start” to a “Clash of Armies” Game Turn:

    For all set-ups: As the French Leader, Napoleon, was not used during a turn’s preceding Diplomacy Phase, a free FR Military Operation marker is placed in Paris.  Prior to commencing a game, it is OK to include any or all CoV Optional Historical Rules (OHRs 15.1 – 15.17).

    A “Warm Start” Turn begins with the following predetermined by Major Power: any Initial Environment Table effect(s), Card Hand Size, VPs, Number of available Resources, Issues won during the turn’s Diplomacy Phase, Military Cards, and Military & Diplomacy Sections’ pieces placements.  There is a Table for each “Warm Start” Turn identifying these for set-up purposes.

    Duration & Options: A “Clash of Armies” Scenario can be for its full four turns or less.  Yes, a single turn game, with a Turn 8 “Warm Start”, could be played!

    When selecting a turn to begin a “Clash of Armies” Scenario which will be more than one turn, that is, starting with turns 5, 6, or 7, participants can agree to play the next turn as a regular Congress of Vienna turn with all Phases.  Example: Play a two-turn game with a Warm Start for Turn 7 and then Turn 8 with its Initial Phase (10.0), Diplomacy Phase (11.0) and so on.

    Alternately, every turn of a “Clash of Armies” Scenario can be played with its “Warm Start”.  Furthermore, readers should feel free to “tinker” with a turn’s “Warm Start” Resources, Issues won, Military Cards and pawn/marker placements if there’s a consensus believed to result in a more balanced, challenging, interesting, and/or better game.  Perhaps there’s an enterprising gamer in the GMT audience who’ll devise and share Tyler’s “Warm Start” approach with another Congress of Vienna Scenario?  The goal is to “tickle your gamer fancy” and have fun!

    APPENDIX 2: Adding to the “Warm Starts” variability and re-playability?

    If you want to add more variability to the game, you can deal each player one or two Handicap cards (players decide at the start of a game). Apply the result of each Handicap card at the beginning of the Government Phase, regardless of what the card says. If a drawn Handicap card cannot possibly affect a “Warm Start” game, set it aside and select another than can be applied.  This will add a touch of uncertainty and stimulating re-playability.

    APPENDIX 3: “Warm Starts” Set-Ups for “Clash of Armies” Scenario Turns 5, 6, 7, & 8

    Turn 5, August 1813

    Marker/Pawn Placements: War of 1812: BR 1, Pax Britannica: Castile & Valencia under Coalition Control, Absolutism: Defense of the Faith, Liberalism: Secularism & Confiscation, Future Government of France: Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte.

    Military Map Piece Placements: See below Turn 5 illustration.

    Government Phase Resource Allocation Reminders: A) Adjust VP markers for the three Peace Congress (12.4.1.1) die rolls. B) If resourcing a won Minor Country and/or Recruitment Issue, add any related Military Unit(s) and adjust the Major Power’s VP Track Marker accordingly. C) Adjust VPs for any Absolutism/Liberalism die roll result.

    IMPORTANT NOTE: If proceeding to a Turn 6 “Warm Start”, carry over this turn 5’s VP’s, Card Hand Size, Pawns (Absolutism, Liberalism, Pax Britannica), War of 1812 Status, and all Military Map positions of Armies on the board (with their units) as well as pieces in each Major Power’s Force Pool.  Otherwise, only use the upcoming turn’s “Warm Start” Table’s indicated Resources, Military Cards available, Won Issues, and drm modifiers to start the next Turn with its Government Phase.

    Turn 6, September 1813

    Marker/Pawn Placements: War of 1812: BR 1, Pax Britannica: Castile & Valencia under Coalition Control, Absolutism: Defense of the Faith, Liberalism: Free Market, Future Government of France: Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte.

    Military Map Piece Placements: See below Turn 6 illustration. Note that Turn 6’s Replacements have been taken and are now upon the map.

    Government Phase Resource Allocation Reminders: A) If resourcing a won Minor Country and/or Recruitment Issue, add any related Military Unit(s) and adjust the Major Power’s VP Track Marker accordingly. B) Adjust VPs for any Absolutism/Liberalism die roll result.

    IMPORTANT NOTE: If proceeding to a Turn 7 “Warm Start”, carry over this turn 6’s VP’s, Pawns (Absolutism, Liberalism, Pax Britannica), War of 1812 Status, and all Military Map positions of Armies on the board (with their units) as well as pieces in each Major Power’s Force Pool.  Otherwise, only use the upcoming turn’s “Warm Start” Table’s indicated Resources, Military Cards available, Won Issues, and drm modifiers to start the next Turn with its Government Phase.

    Turn 7, October 1813

    Marker/Pawn Placements: War of 1812: BR 1, Pax Britannica: Castile & Valencia under Coalition Control, Absolutism: Monarchies Alliance, Liberalism: Free Market, Future Government of France: Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte.  Appropriately place reminder markers for: Track C- Heavy Rains, -2DRM to BR for Gascony + Toulouse & Track A- The Grande Armée is not allowed to Withdraw.

    Military Map Piece Placements: See below Turn 6 illustration. Note that Turn 6’s Replacements have been taken and are now upon the map.

    Government Phase Resource Allocation Reminders: A) If resourcing a won Minor Country and/or Recruitment Issue, add any related Military Unit(s) and adjust the Major Power’s VP Track Marker accordingly. B) Adjust VPs for any Absolutism/Liberalism die roll result.

    IMPORTANT NOTE: If proceeding to a Turn 8 “Warm Start”, carry over this turn 7’s VP’s, Pawns (Absolutism, Liberalism, Pax Britannica), War of 1812 Status, and all Military Map positions of Armies on the board (with their units) as well as pieces in each Major Power’s Force Pool.  Otherwise, only use the upcoming turn’s “Warm Start” Table’s indicated Resources, Military Cards available, Won Issues, and drm modifiers to start the next Turn with its Government Phase.

    Turn 8, November-December 1813

    Marker/Pawn Placements: War of 1812: BR 1, Pax Britannica: Castile & Valencia under Coalition Control, Absolutism: Defense of the Faith, Liberalism: Democracy, Future Government of France: Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte.

    Military Map Piece Placements: See below Turn 8 illustration. Note that Turn 8’s Replacements have been taken and are now upon the map.

    Government Phase Resource Allocation Reminders: A) If resourcing a won Minor Country Issue add any related Military Unit(s) and adjust the Major Power’s VP Track Marker accordingly. B) Adjust VPs for any Absolutism/Liberalism and/or Peace Congress die roll result. C) If Resourced, adjust VP for the Future Government of France result.

    CONTINUE THE GAME TO TURN 10 (OR TO THE OPTIONAL TURN 11 PER OHR 15.4)?

    If player(s) agree to proceed to a Turn 9 and possibly beyond:

    1. To satisfy curiosity, as of the end of Turn 8, determine a Major Power winner of the “Clash of Armies” (17.3) Scenario.
    2. Then, carry over this turn 8’s VP’s, Pawns (Absolutism, Liberalism, Pax Britannica), War of 1812 Status, and all Military Map positions of Armies on the board (with their units) as well as pieces in each Major Power’s Force Pool.
    3. Start Turn 9 as any regular CoV Game Turn with its Initial Phase (10.0).
    4. YOU ARE NOW PLAYING A CONGRESS OF VIENNA GAME VICTORY DETERMINATION AS PRESENTED BY RULEBOOK SECTION 14.2.

    Previous Congress of Vienna InsideGMT Articles



    Source link

  • The Tale of the “Spectre” – “Infernal Machine’s” Scenario Ten from a ‘Northern Aspect’ – InsideGMT


    As our play testing of “Infernal Machine” continues apace, it is interesting to see how our teaching scenarios can be tinkered with to make sure they are providing much-needed information on game play and hints on strategy, as well as have some fun with the game system.

    Scenario Ten has the Player fill the shoes of the Inventor, the “Man with the Dream”, who wants to design, build and then sail an Underwater Marvel of the Industrial Revolution, something that the newspapers have called a “fishboat.”

    In the original Scenario Ten, the Player is a citizen of the Confederacy, who sees his fishboat as the means to drive off the Union Navy from the mouth of the Mississippi River.

    I decided to see if we could work the scenario in reverse, and have the Union Navy under Admiral David G. Farragut send a ‘fishboat’ of their own up the Mississippi River to blow a hole in the obstructions that the Rebels had built to block the Yankee fleet in front of two fortifications protecting the lower River: Forts Jackson & St. Philip.

    Here is what happened:

    This time we are on the USA side at start, with our Machine Shop located in Boston, MA. 

    (Our fishboat is to be constructed at said Machine Shop in Boston, then assigned and shipped to the US Navy’s West Gulf Squadron. They are currently anchored at the mouth of the Mississippi River known as Head of Passes, south of New Orleans. Once there, our fishboat will be ordered to conduct raids (via Towed Launch) on the Rebel defenses centered around “Big Muddy’s” forts “Jackson” & “Saint Philip.”

    The Union Player’s time factor is the same as that of the Confederate’s. 

    Union Adm. Farragut wants to see if “this new-fangled fishboat thingie” can help by raiding ships, clearing obstructions, destroying wharves and generally raising hell near the two forts. 

    Failure means Farragut’s plan to take New Orleans will hit a snag. 

    This won’t do Union General Benjamin “Beast” Butler’s short-fuse temper any good either The first image (see below) is at the end of Summer 1861, with hull built and Magnetic Engine installed, and an Air Lock next up for inclusion. This looks promising, with 2nd Mechanic converting a Journeyman to (Oh joy!) Sam Eakins of “Alligator” fame! Investments made on both Spring & Summer were middling. Autumn 1861 will have action beginning on Contract to keep funds flowing. Yep, Autumn ’61 is looking very interesting.

    As I was running a previous playtest, I surmised that, if the Union Admiralty was less sold on traditional sailing warship practices and kept up with the advances being made through nautical engineering, they could have gotten out of the fishboat starting gate at the same time as Horace Hunley, James McClintock & Baxter Watson did in New Orleans. 

    If so, then the best place in Yankee-dom for a civilian contractor wanting the most up-to-date technology, along with the mechanics and engineers to wield it would be Boston, Massachusetts. 

    There were the Sciences and Engineering Departments at Harvard University, and also to the newly-founded (1861) Massachusetts Institute of Technology just next door to Harvard in the Cambridge suburb. 

    MIT’s engineering wizards of the era were a marvelously rich source; the Inventor’s team would be up-to-date on all the latest technical advancements, and just might  be able to get their educated hands on a real engineering marvel: British physicist & inventor Michael Faraday’s battery-powered Magnetic Engine.  

    The choice of an Air Lock as the fishboat’s primary weapons delivery system would be easy to obtain from any competent steamship chandlery down at Boston Harbor, and a reputable salvage operation would be a source for a salvage and demolition Diver with the proper credentials.

    Two guidelines to follow when starting this scenario: 

    1) Get a good Investor to start with. Mine is French émigré Brutus de Villeroi, a wealthy ex-French aristocrat, who is a naval designer, engineer and a self-described “Natural Genius.” 

    (At least that is what he told the Immigration folks his occupation was upon his arrival in New York City.)

    2) Make sure you are hiring a capable multi-Expertise gang of Mechanics. You will need at least 12 Expertise total between your Shop and your crew so you can install the Magnetic Engine as soon as possible.

    My plan is to finish building and training by Winter, 1862. 

    The fishboat and team will then deploy to the Gulf in Spring of 1862 where training missions and final tinkering occurs. 

    This will leave the Summer of 1862 is the only season for any additional training, plus the all-important attack mission.

    “Fish Boat” under construction at Boston, Summer 1861

    One more thing: you’ve got to make sure of your money. 

    Once you’ve got that key Mechanism in hand, (Mine will be the Magnetic Engine), you are looking at adding the Prow and Stern, plus one or two Boat Sections, a Steering Linkage, Ballast Tank, Propeller and Hatch. 

    Autumn 1861 is coming up. To scare up some ready cash, I plan to shift some Journeymen over to Contract work at that time, plus make another run at the Investment Table.

    Hey, if it was easy being an Inventor of Fishboats, everybody would be one!

    So here’s Autumn, 1861 where the “Spectre” (cool name, huh?) is being fitted out in Boston, MA. 

    Of course, I hadn’t paid attention to the weather.  

    In game terms, Boston in Autumn is little different from Boston in Winter, the only difference is that you still have a relatively active Machine Shop that brings in $7. In Winter, that Shop income plummets to $3. 

    Autumn is also the season our Boston machine shop will “promote” a Journeyman to Mechanic. This got me Mechanic Lodner Philips who can, once per game, promote a Journeyman to Mechanic all on his own, which he will do in Winter of 1862.  

    Praise the Autumn 1861 “Fortunes of War” table.

    I rolled a 7 and got another Investor (instead of a Black Cube), one Professor Eben Horsford, currently on sabbatical from MIT who is Investing his grant money in our little fishboat project here. 

    His initial stipend plus that of Prof. de Villeroi’s funded the purchase of two hatches, a set of keel weights, plus a propeller and its shroud.  

    Fingers crossed, I should have enough for a steering linkage plus a snorkel and maybe a ballast/level tank pair. 

    With Winter 1862 coming up,  Horsford and de Villeroi should “invest” a total of $15 as their “Holiday Gift” to the shop to bolster that meager $3 shop intake for the season. Despite there being only one Action this season, it has been a productive one for Project Spectre.

    (Incidentally, I decided to drop the one season transfer cost for moving the completed fishboat from Boston to Head of Passes. Per the American Enterprise Institute, travel by steamship in 1857 between New York & New Orleans took just six days, with Boston to New York adding a half day steaming time.)

    Thus, I have Spring, 1862 to complete building “Spectre” and deploy her to Head of Passes in Louisiana, leaving one Training mission and one Attack mission for Summer, 1862. 

    This is a tight schedule. 

    Each season’s Fortunes of War/Event could easily mess things up. 

    “Spectre” shown in final stages of construction. Note Magnetic Engine and improved propeller.

    Winter 1862 turn finds Mechanic Sam Eakins exercising his Special Ability to add a second Action for the season. He’s quite the motivator, that one! 

    True to form Brutus de Villeroi & Professor Eben Horsford together add their $15 yearly benefit. 

    While at Eakins’ party, Mechanic Lodner Phillips uses his Special Ability to convince de Villeroi’s wife Eulalie to replace a departing Journeyman, which results in Eulalie de Villeroi joining both the project and the crew!

    Remember, these are Mechanics, not superstitious Sailors. 

    Being French, de Villeroi is very proficient with pistol and saber. 

    As is Eulalie! 

    Winter, 1862’s first Action is an Investment Check of $5 

    A dr of 8 yields not only a $10 return but adds Investor Augusta Price, who adds $40 more to the project’s treasury. 

    This allows the crew to use the remaining Action to complete the “Spectre’s” mechanism manifest by adding a ballast tank combination, snorkel, periscope and gearbox. 

    A cold February Saturday finds all hands present on the wharf at Boston Harbor as the “Spectre” is loaded onto the deck of the USS “Varuna.” 

    With Investors Horsford and Price waving goodbye, “Spectre” and crew set out for Head of Passes, Louisiana and warmer climes.

    Spectre construction completed

    [Caption: “Spectre’s” Gauges Board at the close of Winter 1862. The crew positions assigned by de Villeroi have him Steering, with Eakins & Lodner Phillips in reserve if needed. 

    Log entry:

    Acting Master Samuel V. Eakins, USS “Spectre.” 

    17 February 1862 – Aboard U.S.S. “Varuna” – at Sea, off coast of Long Island, NY.

    (At this point I will let excerpts from Master Eakins’ personal log book tell the story of the “Spectre” and her crew on their journey from Boston to the mouth of the Mississippi River.) 

    -X-

    We left Boston Harbor this morning about 10 o’clock. All passengers affiliated with the “Spectre” were assigned bunk space in officer’s quarters and had their gear stowed. The “Spectre” itself is currently tied down atop the central hold access gratings, lashed fore and aft between fore and mainmasts to prevent pitching during rough seas. 

    Which we’ve had plenty of, as the ship’s captain, Commander Charles S. Boggs, is determined to set a record for the fastest passage between Boston and the Gulf. To that end, “Varuna” was bouncing off a heavy snow squall in Long Island Sound that forced Boggs to tack continuously across the wind, with only the foretop sails set to assist “Varuna’s” remarkably noisy steam engine. 

    I’ve offered Boggs our mechanical assistance to help speed “Varuna” along. 

    Boggs sniffed at me, stole a glance at “Spectre” gently rocking in her stays on the main deck, and spat a large brown stream of tobacco juice over the side. Apparently, Captain Boggs enjoys his tobacco in its natural state.

    The storm is really kicking up a fuss, with winds in excess of 20 knots and seas of 10 to 15 feet and increasing the further south we go, which is bad news for my crew of landlubbers.

     Most of them are seasick, as is Madame de Villeroi who is being ministered to by the ship’s surgeon and de Villeroi himself. 

    I’ve avoided the effects of “mal de mer” by placing a sliver of fresh-cut ginger root under my tongue. 

    The “Varuna’s” helmsman, a garrulous Irishman named Reagan says we should be sailing out of the storm by the time we reach Cape May off New Jersey, 

    ” – an’ that be some-toyme ter-night,  Lord willing yore worship, sorr.” 

    We will see.

    Log entry 18 February 1862 – Aboard USS “Varuna” – at sea off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.

    It is late afternoon (“Six Bells of the Afternoon Watch.”) 

    We’ve sailed out of yesterday’s snow storm and into a steady rain that has soaked through just about everything on board “Varuna”. 

    Thankfully, we’ve not encountered the usual gales found here above the “Graveyard of the Atlantic,” but that may just be “Sailors Luck,” as the “Varuna’s” crew have it. Commander Boggs’ men are about as taciturn a gang of bluejackets as their skipper. 

    Though they are professional seamen, to a man they do have a sailor’s curiosity about “new-fangled equipment” and were very curious about “Jus’ whut be thet thang lashed down on th’ Main be, sorr?” 

    I’ve told my team to be friendly but not informative to the sailors about “Spectre.” The ship’s officers are another matter, and de Villeroi and I will be discussing where we are heading exactly, and when will we get there? 

    Before we left, the telegraph had brought news of Admiral Farragut’s West Gulf Squadron departing Pensacola for Head of Passes, which means he and the Squadron should be there by tomorrow afternoon. 

    The clock is ticking on our little venture.

    Log entry, 19 February 1862 – USS “Varuna” – at Sea off St. Augustine, Florida.

    We are making good time on our journey to Head of Passes. As we sailed past Flag Officer DuPont’s South Atlantic Blockade Squadron off Savannah, a US Navy cutter hailed us, then came along side “Varuna” and delivered the mail and a communique from Flag Officer DuPont, who wished us “…good luck in your endeavor, and death to the Rebels, every one!” 

    Commander Boggs read the communique to the ship’s crew, and to our crew as well. It got the usual response of sniffs, coughs and suppressed chuckling from the swabbies at the back of the gathering. Boggs glared back at those assembled but said nothing, then pulled his hat down in front and stalked off to his cabin.  

    Seems our crew of jolly tars have several among them “from Maryland,” which means they are Southern by birth; not necessarily “from Maryland” but still loyal to the Union, as far as that goes. 

    Serving on “Varuna” is Master’s Mate Henrik Schenderhans, a likeable Dutchman from Hoorn in Holland. 

    Henrik (he prefers this “familiarity” over my stumbling over his last name all the time) says that “Dis regionalz grumblin’ vill schtop!” as soon as “Varuna” joins Farragut on the Mississippi. 

    The meeting with Boggs’ officers over dinner last night was a frost. 

    None of them saw any advantage in sneaking up on the Rebels, blowing things up, then sneaking away again. 

    If sneaking means you get home with an undamaged fishboat and an uninjured crew, then I’ll have a double-helping of “Sneaking” and keep it coming, thank you very much.

    Log entry, 20 February 1862 – USS “Varuna” – at Sea off Tampa, Florida.

    We entered the Gulf of Mexico sometime last night, leaving cold, rainy and snowy weather behind for the balmy sun-soaked breezes of the Caribbean at about Six Bells in the Forenoon Watch (10:30 am). 

    Because of high winds in the Straits of Florida, we had to hug the coast, which brought us past Fort Jefferson to starboard. If there is any place more remote and forlorn than the Dry Tortugas islands, I don’t know of it. 

    God help the men who are building this monster way out here in the middle of the ocean, and it being all brick and masonry for the most part. 

    The February sun beating down was hot enough on board to have sailor and crew stripped to the waist for comfort. 

    Poor Eulalie, being a lady, could not partake, though she did strip down to her chemise and a skirt and sported a parasol while on deck. 

    We should be off Mobile, Alabama soon, perhaps by tomorrow. 

    The next day should find us at Head of Passes, where our work really begins.

    Log entry, 21 February 1862 – USS “Varuna” – at Sea off Mobile, Alabama.

    Early this morning at Six Bells in the Morning Watch (6:30 am), we joined the Navy’s West Gulf Squadron off Ship Island, Mississippi. 

    Commander Boggs went ashore to report. 

    The harbor master at Ship Island promptly told Commander Boggs to get back on “Varuna” and “report to Admiral Farragut at Head of Passes. Now, Commander!” 

    Boggs did just that, and has driven his crew like John Paul Jones with a wasp in his pants; telling his engineers and stokers to make all steam possible and the navigation officer to plot the fastest course to the mouth of the Mississippi, “Because I mean to beat Farragut there or know the reason why!” 

    de Villeroi and the rest of us are busy attending to “Spectre,” getting her ready for her debut tomorrow on “Big Muddy.”

    Log entry, 22 February 1862 – Head of Passes, Louisiana.

    This will have to be short, as we are casting off on our first training mission. 

    A while ago, Commander Boggs mustered the Spectre” crew on the aft deck and addressed us. 

    In his gruff manner, Boggs complimented us on our skills, our perseverance and our bravery, and said “that we could ship with him anytime we asked to.”    

    There’s been some argument between de Villeroi, Philips and myself over who will be at the helm of “Spectre”. 

    de Villeroi won the toss, darn his luck…

    … and there’s Philips blowing his bosun’s whistle, which means we are about to get underway. 

    Faraday’s Engine has been tuned up, and that gearbox we got from Robert Stephenson has been quietly whirring away in its machine oil coating in anticipation of the trip we will be making. 

    I’ve also had a word with our Diver. Signor Stefano Rojas knows the Air Lock’s operation, both out and in. 

    We are as ready as we will ever be!

    -End of excerpt-

    -X-

    Turn 5 – Spring 1862 – 

    After settling an argument on the merits of Union General Hunter’s emancipating the Carolina Sea Island slaves, (-$1 to the Pilot Town Tavern’s keeper for breakage) “Spectre’s” crew began its first training mission, sailing up the Mississippi past Tripod, then past Alligator Station and Northeast Point, then returned to Head of Passes, both “Spectre” and crew passing their first sea trial. 

    In the process they repaired a snag-clogged propeller shroud at send-off. 

    Next, “Spectre” passed Alligator Station while surfaced.

    de Villeroi then ordered “Spectre” to be crash-dived thru Awash depth to Below Shallow on her first dive to show that the Ballast/Level system worked as he had designed  it to. He then ordered “Spectre” back to the surface and sailed home to Head of Passes.

    With a total of four black cubes against one red cube earned on this mission, “Spectre’s” success attracted a new Investor (per Rule Book p. 43), and Russell Sturgis joins the team, adding $15 to the treasury (that is now at $52). 

    Sturgis’ Special Ability is to bring another Investor on once per game. 

    On being informed by de Villeroi of the success of this first training mission, Admiral Farragut ordered another training mission forthwith.

    “Spectre’s” second training mission had Northeast Point as its goal. 

    Almost from the start, equipment began to malfunction. 

    First, the Gearbox began acting up. 

    Next the Steering Linkage locked, but Eulalie de Villeroi was there with her toolbox and repaired it while dodging her husband’s feet at the helm. 

    At Alligator Station, a seal in the forward Ballast tank ruptured which submerged “Spectre” to Awash depth (and caused Lodner Philips to Panic), before Eulalie got that Malfunction repaired. 

    Entering Northeast Point, de Villeroi ordered a descent to Below Shallow. At that point the gearbox began to Malfunction again, this time dropping the Power Grade from “A” to “B”. de Villeroi immediately surfaced the boat, reversed course and headed back downriver to Head of Passes. 

    Arriving there, the “Spectre” got caught in a current drift and sprung a leak in an aft hull seam. Recovery was uneventful, with repairs being needed on the gearbox and an aft hull seam.

    Back alongside USS “Varuna” that was now serving as tender for “Spectre,” de Villeroi and Eakins determined that the aft-section Leak was caused by an impact to the Shroud’s support framing that had cracked through into the lower propeller mount, and then carried along the lower hull seam for about a foot and a half. Fortunately, de Villeroi had requested that the “Varuna” be fitted with a forge and metalworking shop, whose machinists and shipwrights joined “Spectre’s” crew in lifting and positioning “Spectre” on “Varuna’s” main deck to repair the aft hull leak. As for the jammed gearbox, mechanic J.B. Morrell discovered that the clutch mechanism responsible for changing gear speed had broken a tooth in its cog, which caused the jam. Morrell and Lodner Philips got busy fashioning a new clutch gear for the mechanism. 

    Spring slowly changing to Summer found that repairs to “Spectre” had been completed satisfactorily.  

    An examination by de Villeroi, Eakins and the assembled mechanics declared the “Spectre” fit for duty. 

    As the “Varuna’s” launch carried de Villeroi and Eakins and their good news to USS “Hartford,” (Admiral Farragut’s flagship) the West Gulf Squadron’s mortar schooner fleet opened a thunderous barrage upon the Rebel forts ”Jackson” and “St. Philip.” 

    In the din, Eakins leaned over, tapped de Villeroi on the leg and pointed back towards “Varuna.” 

    de Villeroi turned just in time to see the “Spectre” being swung over “Varuna’s” starboard side and lowered into the Mississippi. 

    Turning to look back at Eakins, de Villeroi realized that “Spectre’s” and their time to act had just gotten significantly shorter.

    Union Gauges sheet shows “Spectre” with 2 Training Levels at the start of her Attack mission. Note that Brutus de Villeroi and wife Eulalie occupy the steering helm under the forward hatch. The Faraday (Magnetic) Engine occupies the whole of the next tile aft, with the rest of the crew occupying the stern. Also note that the second successful training mission netted another Investor.

    And so, to war. 

    “Spectre” departed the fleet anchorage to the cheers of the sailors on board USS “Varuna.” 

    de Villeroi, standing in the fore and aft hatches took the cheers, doffing his hat as “Spectre” passed under “Old Glory” on the stern of USS “Hartford.” 

    His hat tip was returned by both Admiral Farragut, Commander Boggs.  

    “Spectre” leaves Head of Passes heading up the Mississippi River.

    Steering for the westernmost bank of the “Big Muddy,” de Villeroi ordered half speed on the Faraday Engine, to which Mechanic Lodner Philips complied. de Villeroi chose his course well, staying in the calmer shore current as “Spectre” passed the old semaphore “Tripod” on the eastern river bank. Alligator Station also proved to be a calm passage, the Faraday humming along as fresh air whistled through the open hatches. A solid blanket of clouds kept Ol’ Man Moon from an unwanted appearance, while the wind gusts tested de Villeroi’s steering ability. Northeast Point saw the first malfunction, being a ballast pump valve stuck open, diving the “Spectre” from Surface to Awash.  Eulalie de Villeroi assisted Acting Master Sam Eakins in freeing up, replacing the defective ballast pump valve and then surfacing the “Spectre” once more. Rounding the bend just south of The Jump, Lodner Philips spotted some watch fires ahead, whereupon de Villeroi had Eakins crash dive the boat to Below Shallow to avoid detection.

    “Spectre” passes The Jump.

    de Villeroi kept the “Spectre’s” bow pointed into the river’s current as it slowly passed the old Salt Works factory. 

    At this point the Faraday Engine decided to kick up a fuss. 

    Though making a racket (and panicking Lodner Philips) it was still capable of forward motion at the current Easy pace, but needed fixing should de Villeroi need flank speed at any point in the journey. 

    With Lodner cowering behind the Leveling Tank it was up to J.B. Morrell and Eulalie de Villeroi teaming up to effect repairs. 

    After several tentative crackles and a whiff of ozone, the Faraday recovered its comfortable hum. As they approached Beaver Station, de Villeroi told the rest of the crew that “Spectre’s” mission was to blow a hole in the submerged river obstructions near the eastern shore of the river. 

    Raising the boat from Below Shallow to Awash enabled de Villeroi to use the periscope to confirm that “Spectre” had arrived in the right place. 

    de Villeroi ordered Eakins to dive the boat back to Below Shallow, and to get Diver Stefano Rojas ready for duty.

    Diver Rojas prepares to disembark with his demolition charge.

    Lugging his demolition torpedo, Diver Rojas exited “Spectre’s” Air Lock. 

    J.B. Morrell and Eulalie both kept an eye on the Faraday Engine at this crucial moment of the mission. 

    Rojas’ journey to his target was slowed by the inevitable silting up that the Mississippi had “dusted” the fascines and “dragon’s teeth.” 

    Diver Rojas plants the demolition charge on target

    Uncovering a pre-existing Rebel-made passage through the line of Obstructions, Rojas placed the Large Charge on the left side base of the obstructions. 

    Upon detonation, the charge would widen the Rebel’s current passage, and the stronger river current would carry additional debris of the explosion downstream, making the breach even wider.  

    Once set, Diver Rojas carefully returned to the “Spectre’s” Air Lock and climbed inside, cycling the water-filled Air Lock and replacing it with air. 

    Rojas hooked the charge’s insulated electrical wires to a bank of Leyden Jar batteries, then climbed through the Air Lock access hatch and into the main cabin. At a nod from Rojas, Eakins threw a nearby switch. 

    A most satisfying “THUMP!” resulted, that was not only heard but felt through the hull. Success!

    Image 9: (Tactical Board)[caption: The demolition charge destroys the Obstructions.]

    The demolition charge destroys the Obstructions.

    “Let’s get out of here,” bellowed Eakins, as de Villeroi executed a classic pirouette that reversed “Spectre’s” course heading to downstream and home. 

    Instead of skulking along in the shallows to avoid the worst of the Mississippi’s current, de Villeroi now swung “Spectre” into the main channel, letting Big Muddy take the strain of travel while the Faraday engine was recharging the Leyden Jars. Double the number of watch fires now burned on both banks of the Mississippi, while picket boats swarmed like angry hornets on the river’s surface.

    But “Spectre” lived up to her name, ghosting along safe in the rivers depths. 

    As “Spectre” passed opposite Northeast Point, a mid-evening fog bank rolled in which further hampered Confederate pursuit –

    Image 10: (Mission Board) [caption: “Spectre” passes Northeast Point as the Fog rolls in.]

    “Spectre” passes Northeast Point as the Fog rolls in.

    When “Spectre” arrived back at Head of Passes, the Faraday Engine conked out again just as “Spectre” pulled alongside USS “Varuna.” 

    As de Villeroi opened the forward hatch, a sailor on “Varuna’s” fo’csle hollered “How was yer huntin,’ boys?” 

    Standing in the aft hatch, Lodner Philips reached down, pulled a broom out and waved it energetically over his head: a “clean sweep!”

    The “Varuna’s” crew erupted in cheers, and Commander Boggs ordering a signal gun fired to alert Admiral Farragut of “Spectre’s” safe arrival. 

    Sighing, de Villeroi pulled a cigar from his vest pocket. 

    Lighting it up, he took a long drag of Havana tobacco smoke and permitted himself a rare smile.  

    Looking down through the hatch he saw his wife Eulalie looking up at him.

    Eulalie was smiling, too.

    May, 1862. 

    Having visited the White House and been feted by President Lincoln and Washington society, the de Villeroi’s were taking the train back to their Machine Shop in Boston, Massachusetts. 

    The destruction of the Confederate river barriers below Forts Jackson & St. Philip allowed Farragut’s fleet to sail virtually unchecked past those two old piles of now-smoldering masonry.

    The massive Confederate ironclad CSS “Louisiana” took a close-in pounding from the West Gulf Squadron and was last seen, adrift and on fire from stem to stern, floating downriver to the Gulf of Mexico, together with the wrecked remnants of the Rebel river fleet.   

    Upon a unanimous vote by the city council, New Orleans was declared an “Open City.” The councilmen then fled upriver to the state capital at Baton Rouge.

    Union General Benjamin Butler and his soldiers were received by the now-leaderless Crescent City with something less than open arms. 

    Though there were still a number of firebrands calling for guerilla and urban warfare, most of the populace shrugged their collective shoulders and got on with life.

    On de Villeroi’s recommendation, Acting Master Samuel Eakins was inducted into the US Navy and promoted to the rank of Lieutenant. 

    Lithograph image showing the Washington Navy Yard during the Civil War {source: history.navy.mil}

    de Villeroi’s crew all returned to the Washington Navy Yard as contracted civilian Mechanics in the Navy’s newly-created Bureau for Underwater Research.

    And they all lived (those that survived the war, at least) happily ever after.

    Previous Infernal Machine InsideGMT Articles



    Source link