Over the last year or so I have come to the conclusion that most of the wargames rules we use, and not just for Napoleonics, don't work particularly well. By this I mean that they don't seem to represent how battles actually unfolded and were fought. I am not trying to imply that the mechanisms for moving, firing, fighting or morale are incorrect. There are a number of methods available to simulate these basic elements quite happily.

What is incorrect, I think is the way we look at battles from the `bottom-up' rather than the `top-down'. Most rules are far more concerned with the actual manoeuvring and fighting of troops than in examining the process that gets them into the position to carry out these functions.

The basic mechanism that controls how a wargame is fought is the sequence of play. This determines the flow of the game, how and when players can move, fight or give orders to their troops. It is, therefore, the sequence of play which is wrong in most sets of rules and has a knock-on effect throughout the rest of the game.

Take a look at almost any set of rules published since the 1960's and their sequence of play will fall into one of two categories;

1. Simultaneous - Side A & Side B both move Side A & Side B both fire/resolve combats.

2. Alternate - Side A moves then fires/resolves combat Side B does likewise.

Admittedly the actual mechanisms for firing and combat etc. have been vastly improved, but this is more the product of research and development rather than any great innovation.

Consider what is happening on your wargames table when you fight a battle. With a simultaneous sequence, both sides suddenly spring to life and move around, everyone then stops, and all of a sudden every musket/artillery piece open fire at precisely the same moment!

An alternate sequence carries it's own set of peculiarities;

Side A moves and fires all of his troops while Side B stands and watches.

They then swap and Side A waits patiently while Side B has a turn. All very polite but not what actually happens!

Major Problems

There are two major problems inherent with both these systems. Firstly, they don't actually represent how a battle is fought terribly accurately, and secondly (but linked) is that both systems separate moving and firing into discrete activities rather than integrating the two.

A battle basically develops as a series of moves and countermoves in a manner more akin to chess that anything else. The attacker will start off by committing a portion of his army to start his attack, the defender can then respond to this which can lead to further commitments from the attacker and so on (for an excellent description of this process see George Jeffrey's articles in Miniature Wargames No. 21, 22 and 23). Using Waterloo as an example we can see that Napoleon started by attacking Hougoumont, which forced Wellington to reinforce the defence. Napoleon then committed D'Erlon's Corps which was defeated and Wellington committed his heavy cavalry which was in turn countered by Napoleon unleashing some of his cavalry and so on.

What is needed is a sequence of play that recreates this continual interaction. Activities should be alternated between the players within a turn with each side continually having the option to counter the opposition or initiate an action. For example in a large Napoleonic game the sequence might be;

1. Side A `activates' one division and carries out any moving or combat for the units within that division.

2. Side B `activates' a division and does likewise.

This sequence is then continued until both sides have finished activating all of their divisions.

This sequence of events will give a much better representation of a battle but can be considerably extended. The side with the Grand Tactical initiative can be allowed to `activate' one or more divisions before the other side has the opportunity to react; the quality of the division and corps commanders can be affect the ease of activation; Corps and Division orders can allow more than one division to co-ordinate their action; the list is almost endless and only limited by your desire for complication.

Sequences of play along this line have now started to appear in various forms in several boardgames - so called 4th Generation designs (as opposed to most wargames rules published in this country which still seem to fall into the category of 1st generation i.e. basically unchanged since the `60's!). For example, in one game I played recently all of the formations eligible to be activated, for both sides, have a counter placed in a cup. The players then draw one of these at random and that formation then gets to activate and move/fight. This then continues until all of the counters have been drawn.

A game played with an interactive sequence of play gives the impression of a continuous series of events rather than the stop- start sequence usually depicted in rules. This also has the advantage of keeping both players involved throughout the turn, especially if limited reaction firing, moving or countercharging are allowed.

Second Problem

The second problem outlined above, involving the separation of movement and firing into discrete activities can also be solved by changing the way we look at a `turn'.

Most rules seem to allow a unit a certain proportion of the turn for moving and a proportion for firing. If the unit chooses not to fire or move then that `time' is often just `lost' somehow. Either that or some idiot rule which gives a unit half a move if it fires and a full move otherwise or something similar. What is needed is a mechanism where a player has the choice of exactly how the unit `spends' it's time. For instance if a turn represents 20 minutes, then give each unit the choice of how to split those minutes between moving or firing or any other battlefield activity. This means that if the player decides a unit should spend 8 minutes advancing, fire 2 volleys and then change formation then the rules should allow for this.

If both firing/combat are integrated into one activity and an integrated sequence of play are used then your games will take on a whole new character. Instead of trying to do everything at once, the battle will unfold gradually with both sides continually involved in the action. These two systems can also very easily be experimented with using existing sets of rules. Since I am not suggesting that you alter the basic mechanisms for firing or fighting then these can still be used to determine the outcome of various events - all that will change is the manner in which you arrive at them.

Next issue I will demonstrate a simple set of brigade level Napoleonic rules which illustrate both these points.