I hope you found the above thought provoking (and give Route 66 or a derivative a try - let me know how your players dealt with it!). I would not want every game I play to be based on the above, sometimes after a hard week all I want from a wargame is an 'in your face punch up'. Sometimes there are very good reasons why a scenario should 'gravitate' towards the centre of the table, not least ease of play and aesthetics. The problem of the player who hugs the table edge can be rather more vexing. One solution (and I'm sorry if it seems obvious) is to have a large table in relation to the size of the armies and resist the temptation to field 'wall to wall' figures (not easy when you've bought and painted them). Of course sometimes games then 'degenerate' into perpetual probing for the enemies flank. There are no easy answers (or are there? Write now!). However, a regular dose of games in the Derek style at my club certainly helps both our own scenario design and approach to even straight forward tabletop encounters.

This article 'kicks off' the idea of the 'rules forum'. The direction I would like this to take is along the lines of 'discussion papers' dealing with the principles and goals of wargaming (with suggested mechanics and/or scenario where appropriate) rather than attempted explanations of what clause 2, sub paragraph 3 in rules 'X' really means (and how you get the +1 !). I also want to take this opportunity to raise for general discussion some aspects of wargaming which have been vexing my club recently. I have taken a deliberately 'scatter gun' approach, both to cover as much as possible and in the hope of stimulating the maximum response.

Mike Gilbert in the excellent EE&L says that 'he adheres to the company system. It's the only way to go if you want to understand the actual historical functioning of troops - no matter what the era' (EEL 9). Having spent two rather wretched weekends attempting to game Borodino and Austerlitz at the battalion level I am convinced that you have do so at the brigade level (in order to finish the game and still have fun). When I play Napoleonics I want big battles and I want to command a Corps (at least!). As such I should have no business manoeuvring battalions (that's what I have brigadiers for). Put individual battalions on the table and players invariably fiddle with them (and no amount of firm umpiring can really prevent this) and the game becomes a series of tactical engagements at the `micro' level with the 'big picture' becoming lost. Yes, gaming at the brigade level does result in some abstractions but I feel it is worth it. Maybe 'Legacy of Glory' has the answer (I've read but not played) or the EEL rules deal with this (but will we ever see them?). Any suggestions?

I'm also becoming convinced relatively high movement rates solve several wargaming problems. One difficulty with wargaming is the nature of the 'turn'. Yes, we need a structure so that the results of combat etc. can be resolved (unless someone can make the idea of the variable length bound really work) but too often this is treated as a 'decision point'. Each move players can effectively change their mind every 6" (or whatever) and you get units performing extraordinary evolutions each turn as they change facing etc. to get that +1 whilst formations put in bizarre 'go-stop-go' type attacks.

Written orders can help circumvent this but can be rather tedious, especially if playing in an evening. Large move distances prevent this simply by reducing the number of turns available for a player to react in (either attacking or defending) and forcing commitment at what is seen at the decisive point. In addition because the 'shape' of the battle can change rapidly it also encourages the use of reserves both on the attack and the defence.

As part of the above I am generally not in favour of multiple 'range bands', especially for infantry. Units are either 'closely engaged' when combat should tend towards the short, bloody and (tactically) decisive or they are not (in which case there is no 'combat').

Doctrine. How do (or should) you account for this? In many of our 'house rules' there is a -3 morale penalty for 'acting against doctrine'. This is imposed by the umpire when he sees fit (e.g. light horse attempting to charge a Tercio) and has the advantage of covering a multitude of situations which would otherwise be too varied to quantify and list. It does also depend on the players respecting the umpires knowledge of the period being played. In addition whilst this works fine for individual units it is not so useful when applied to whole divisions etc. As an example how often do you see pre 'modern' armies deploy behind a crest, emerging at exactly the right moment to fire on attackers? Possibly part of the problem is that the British legacy from the Napoleonic Wars is that these armies deployed in full view because these 'quaint continentals didn't know any better'. Thankfully this view is now being challenged but is still seen as a 'legitimate' wargames tactic (because it 'works'?), thus demonstrating the 'advantage' of 20/20 hindsight without (perhaps) a full understanding of the issues involved. Yes, umpires can simply forbid such behaviour, but surely a good set of rules should also demonstrate why these armies deployed as they did (and reward them) whilst making them suffer for being out of sight of the enemy, especially when the enemy gain the crest. An 'educational carrot and stick' approach.

Two final questions. What do you prefer (or think works best) - Simultaneous movement or a move/countermove system? Command Control - How should it be modelled (if at all)?

From our feedback forms a large number of you put under preferred rules 'my own'. So, do you agree or disagree with any of this? Do you have any comments or suggestions (or better still solutions!)? The idea of a Rules Forum is (so far) one of the more popular options on our questionnaire, is this what you want to see? Please discuss and return!