THE EDGE OF THE WORLD

We are all aware of the player that uses the table edge as a secure flank for his troops. Fine if this is the sea or an unfordable river etc.Whilst such 'gamesmanship' should be discouraged the same idea is often used unintentionally by other players and even umpires. There is an underlying assumption (or even requirement) that the main action will occur around the centre of the table. Consequently deployment, terrain and initial moves tend to gravitate towards this. But why should this be so? If the table edge (or edge of the world) 'doesn't exist' then the general on the spot must use his judgement as to where the points of concern are. Suddenly 'it' could happen anywhere. Clear? Probably not, so lets have a couple of examples.

I ran a Conquistador game last year where the remnants of a Spanish expedition were given the brief that their forces had been blighted by disease and so had to return to their ships. The Aztec forces were all umpire controlled, working to a pre determined plan and the players controlled the retinues of various gentlemen and adventurers. The Spanish started on the western edge of the table and were told that their ships lay to the east. The players assumed their ship was at the eastern edge of the table and that they would be attacked around half way. This was all sub-conscious but arguably no different an attitude from that of our flank guarding friend.

When the Spanish forces had crossed the table they asked where their ships were (and wondered what sort of a game they had just played). I replied 'What ships? All you can see are more jungles and trails'. With that I removed the Western edge's terrain tiles and moved the the remaining tiles (with troops and scenery) westwards one tiles width. A new line of tiles was added to the eastern edge. Terrain was placed in accordance to my master map which was for a 20' x 10' table (although our available playing area at any time was only 8' x 6').

This pattern of events was repeated as ;onquistadors hacked their way through the jungle, having to twist and turn due to unforeseen obstacles and events. In due course the main Aztec force attacked and was gallantly repulsed by Ferdinand Marcos, Maradonna and his wardog and the rest of the gang but that's another story. The point is that for a while the players has more of a feel for what it is like to be lost in a hostile country rather than more simply having the tactical exercise of crossing a small, bounded table.

The second example concerns a game ran by a fellow `Exile' concerning a routine American convoy in Vietnam. (EDITORS NOTE - This scenario -Route 66' is included in this issue).

The Americans were tasked with resupplying a firebase. The brief stressed this was an everyday occurrence, that enemy activity was low and that they needed to be at the firebase before dark. The table was long and narrow, with the main road running up the centre. Again, without 'cheating' the Americans made their plans on the assumption they would be ambushed around the middle of the table. The US forces moved very cautiously, 'hopping' from fire position to fire position etc. (most unlike a routine convoy). Upon reaching the end of the table the Americans congratulated themselves on their careful plan and waited to be told they had 'won'. They were completely baffled when the umpire simply moved their vehicles back to the start of the road again and moved the odd piece of terrain. This occurred again when the Americans reached the opposite side of the table. Upon being pressed, the umpire informed the players they had another three tables to traverse.

The enemy had started with a local squad in position to ambush the convoy (along the third table). As the moves ticked by they received more and more reinforcements. Had the US simply batted down the road they would have succeeded in their mission (and may not have noticed any opposition). As it was they were so cautious ('gamey'?) that the VC were only missing Hanoi's are defence SAMs by the time the Americans reached the ambush zone.

Of course,you could ask why not simply rule that the US must move at full speed until ambushed. Fine if you merely want a 'fair ambush' scenario but this is not really the point of this game.

A third way to `move the world' is available to those groups which use the 'traditional' green cloth. If this is bigger than playing area then square one corner of the cloth up with the table corner and have the rest of the cloth available for pulling over (and placing supplementary tables under) as required.

THWARTING THE MATHEMATICIAN

Fed up with the player who knows the rules backwards and calculates the odds of every attack before committing to it? He may even know little about the real troops his figures represent (and care less). It's tabletop performance which counts. This can be countered by use of the following:

Don't give the players the rules. Calculate everything yourself and just give the results. This does tend to force the players to think of tactics rather than mathematics but is a lot of work for the umpire.

Give the players written briefs with narrative descriptions of their units. E.g. 'battle hardened but exhausted by recent combat' or 'newly recruited with politically appointed officers' etc. rather than Morale A, Fire +2, Melee 7 . The factors are only revealed to the player at 'the moment of truth' (or could be generated randomly). EDITORS NOTE: A similar scheme was advocated in a recent issue of 'WMAN' and has been used by Richard Berg in his ACW boardgame series. I'm surprised it isn't used more.

There is a strong argument for using this approach at battles such as Edgehill where circumstances dictated that precious little was known about any of the units combat ability.

Don't forget the value of a good lie! E.g. 'The river is fordable', 'The enemy's horse is poor quality' and so on. If the commander on the spot believed this then this is what the brief should say. The umpire reveals the true situation when it arises. Don't forget that some commanders really knew their 'stuff', their briefings should be suitable accurate.

A potential problem is that if you refighting a historical battle the players may know vital information that their 'real life counterparts' did not. Use of the 'disguised scenario' can alleviate this difficulty.

A WIDER CONTEXT

Ideally players are given a written brief for the proposed game. In my format this consists of:

WHO YOU ARE Name, rank etc.
BACKGROUND The historical setting in brief (mainly for players unfamiliar with the period).
SITUATION Immediate setting and strategic background including details of known enemy strengths, deployment and objectives.
OBJECTIVES Your tactical objectives (both for your side and you personally) and victory conditions.
FORCES The only section of the brief most wargamers read more than once.

In order to test a player's military competence beyond the tabletop try the following:

One side should be given tactical objectives which are simply impossible once the enemy's true strengths and dispositions are known. See if the player(s) think beyond the tabletop and manoeuvre in line with the rest of the brief. A masterly retreat may be a 'win' albeit not in line with the original brief. The 'quid pro quo' is can the force which 'cannot lose' exceed its initial objectives and turn a tactical win into a strategic victory?

Victory at the end of such a game should be determined by the umpire on this strategic level rather than the tabletop.

Players can be given individual victory conditions in addition to those for their side. Thus it is possible for a player to be on the losing side but still 'win'. These conditions can be battlefield success for that one player (e.g. if you were playing Jerome at Waterloo, you would 'win' if you took Hougoumont regardless of what happened to the rest of the French army) or linked to society, personal ambition or doctrine. As an (slightly extreme) example, players commanding the English knights at Bannockburn may be given personal victory points for charging solid Scottish schiltrons without waiting for them to be softened up by archery first although in most wargames this could well lead to defeat on the tabletop.

It's a good idea to remind players, at least once in a while, that battles are not 'fair' nor do they take place in an isolated void. A good example of this was WD's 'The Birds are Singing and it's a Wonderful Day'. The player (one at a time) was a British section leader in Normandy. His orders were to recce up a road as far as a farmhouse and bring back a scouting report. The chance/umpire generated hidden enemy ranged form nothing, through a lone German sniper to not far short of a Panzergruppe. It was amazing how similar the players responses were to all these situations and how many assumed a 'fair' game and therefore dug in to fight off the Panzers.

That's all for now. I sincerely hope that other players and umpires can add to the above. I don't see any interest in wargames being 'equal' pointed affairs with mirrored terrain but neither do I see wargaming with umpires as being the same as roleplaying with a GM. However I do believe that the roleplaying world has techniques to offer to our games and take them beyond being a simple 'in your face, punch up'.