Greetings Ben:

In answer to your editorial in issue 2, I have trailed a pike in the Sealed Knot and I can never remember having enough troops available to try either the Dutch or Swedish formations, let alone the Spanish. Probably with our shot on the flanks and our pikes in the centre we used the Dutch method, but once the first shot was fired everything went ape anyway. It is extremely hard physical work in a melee and we were only playing!

I believe battles are not won on the battlefield but finished there. This is based on personally never having fought in any battle but having trained for it over a quarter of a century in the British Army. I have also done a little reading over the years. The Spanish soldier in his Tercio during the Pike & Shot era had the same elan and esprit de corps that exists in most Special Forces today, and I speak with personal experience of the former 16 Parachute Brigade. Trained to the highest standard, fed, clothed and exercised on a regular basis and given the belief that they were the best has been the way throughout history to produce battlefield winners. Notice I failed to mention pay in that brief list, deliberately!

It is my belief that if two identically trained and equipped forces face each other the one with the will to win will triumph. In other words: Morale. From what I can gather when a pike block of Landsknechts faced one of Swiss the latter always had the higher morale and usually won. The Swiss pikemen came from the same canton, trained together on a regular basis and so developed that team spirit and essential esprit de corps necessary to overcome obstacles in battle and win. The Landsknechts were recruited from the various areas and although trained hard together could not have achieved the same comradeship the Swiss had or the Pals Regiments had in WWI.

The organisation behind the Spanish Tercio, in which I include training, was a battlefield winner. Each man knew his job and was highly trained to do it, a professional and when they didn't get paid, they took industrial action! Now how about a rule for units going on strike?

Good Soloing.

Kenn Hart, Yorkshire

Kenn is the editor of 'Lone Warrior', the excellent magazine of the Solo Wargamers Association. In addition to the above Kenn also sent in an ACW scenario for multi-player play or sole play which will probably appear in the next issue (together with details of the SWA).

I generally agree with everything Kenn said. In addition I'd also like to draw attention to what I call the 'Tradition of Victory' (something which Kenn certainly implied). Once troops (or individual units) start winning they tend to keep on doing so in subsequent actions. In the ancient world commentators often stress the importance of giving new troops an easy first victory to start establishing this. The problem is that sooner or later they refuse to recognise when they are beaten or launch an ill judged attack - they become prone to an over confidence which eventually tends to lead to disaster. This behaviour is hard to simulate on the tabletop, simply making such units more prone to 'uncontrolled advance' is not terribly satisfactory in the main - take the example of the Spanish Tercios at Rocroi which stood & died rather than retreat (or surrender) but in no way went 'uncontrolled' or the disastrous attack by the Prussian Guard at Gravelotte - St. Privat. In addition what happens to such formations once this 'tradition of victory' has been broken? Most commentators agree the Swiss were never the same after Bicocca or the Swedes after Nordlingen, in both these defeats the losers self belief led them into trying to force a result form a losing position, leading to comprehensive defeat & shocking losses (worse than if they had been 'average units' who would have known when to give it up as a bad job).

If you have any thoughts on the above, or comments to make on what happens to units in the 'killing ground' (editorial issue 2) then get in touch!

The other side of the coin is that a case can be made that units perform best in their first battle because they don't know how horrible it all is yet (I think Christopher Duffy remarks on this in 'Warfare in the Age of Reason', if he didn't apologise all round). A friend of mine is working on a set of ACW rules where the less experience a unit has the more likely it is to attempt to charge (a reversal of normal practice). See also Command Decision where veteran units (notably British) gain more experience as the war continues (and so shoot better, spot more effectively etc.) But their morale goes down (so that if seriously engaged they tend to go to ground rather than attacking regardless). On this subject I have heard the following (quite possibly apocryphal) anecdote. A German rearguard commander in France '44 said the worst unit to be pursued by was the fresh (& least experienced) British tank regiments. When attacked by the Guards the first tank would come round the corner and fall victim to the anti-tank gun. There would be a pause and the second would appear. When this too was knocked out the third would come round the corner etc. When engaged by a veteran unit, after the first tank was knocked out the unit would pull back & call for air and artillery support. As this was being called in the rearguard unit would pull back to the next position and wait for the advance to resume and start the whole business again. But, if attacked by a 'raw' unit the first tank would be knocked out and then the remainder of the regiment would all charge around the corner at once and overrun the German position.--Editor

Dear Editor:

Following on from Mark Bevis' letter in the September edition about flank sitting and scenarios I have another suggestion for avoiding the more usual encounter battle or 'line up each side and walk towards each other' style.

In 5mm ACW a friend and I have used scenario cards which depend on one side being in a defensive posture and the other an offensive posture. Each card lists objectives in terms of terrain (major or minor pre-defined in general terms e.g. hill longer than 6", large town - bridge over major river) and/or very specific objectives for example.

Defensive:
Occupy a line at least 2 feet wide including at least one major item of terrain. Hold with LOC secure for 6 hours & then retire in good order.

Other examples of defensive tasks include holding all river crossing points, denying the enemy access to the table beyond 12" for so many hours, then retiring on pre-prepared position etc.

Offensive:
Advance onto the table along 2 lines of communication and occupy the town furthest from your friendly edge until dark with intact LOC.

Other examples of offensive tasks include seizing all river crossing points, a recce in force, escorting a supply convoy, establishing an artillery position etc.

In each case frustrating the enemy's objective (which is not known) is an alternative, as is triggering the enemy’s casualty limit (also not known).

Each objective card has also three force levels which are secretly diced for. The higher the force level then the lower % losses the player can take before having to retire.

The defender sets up on a map and the attacker marches on from his selected LOC(s). Sometimes a card allows immediate deployment but this is rare. Usually he has to march in column of route until the enemy is spotted or his objective is reached. The defender also cannot move his pre-deployed troops unless he has sighting information or an objective card which would justify doing so.

While this system does not cater for all situations and depends on scrupulous honesty (or an umpire) it does allow, as far as can be for two players, for some real surprise.

The use of triggering casualty limits means that players cannot just throw in their forces willy-nilly to achieve their objectives. But the partial blind play tends to put the offensive player in a posture that encourages concentration at the point where the enemy is spotted and the use of waves in attack to break through positions in the hope of achieving an early advantage.

Using a 1/100 figure scale & 1" = 200 yards (5mm figures) a brigade typically has a frontage of 2 - 3" in single line, a battery 1/2". A 6 x 4 table is ample for the whole of Gettysberg and considerable for a much smaller encounter. It is usually impossible to hold a line across a table even 4' long. There is always an open flank somewhere, if you can find it, as the attacker. The positioning of batteries can be critical - bearing in mind effective battlefield ranges in this scale are just over a foot for rifled guns. Heavily wooded North American terrain (ubiquitous lichen) also contributes a great deal to surprise encounters and flanking movements.

The use of random movement (modified by divisional & corps leadership & unit experience) also adds uncertainty and can result in a division or corps with its brigades strung out across country.

These approaches can be adapted to suit any Corps & Army level operations in the 19th century where dense force concentrations are less critical or normal to battle or where finding and forming a defensible line of operations is part of the art of command in a highly fluid situation. Often the player who is able to do this first is successful but almost as often the player who successfully finds the open flank is too.

While something of the kind would work with larger figure scales on rather larger tables it is better suited to 5mm and in terrain where line of sight is more than averagely restricted (but movement less so). In smaller figure scales the ease with which table top terrain can be varied is greater which also contributes to uncertainty about the other sides objectives since there are so many more hills and major points of interest to occupy and defend.

The vastness of the terrain compared with the scale of the figures and the armies turns even a fairly unprepossessing piece of terrain into a mighty obstacle which brigade after brigade can find themselves swept up in trying to carry, to the loss of much of their strength and the discomfiture of their commander.

Mike Horah, Hertfordshire

Mike's suggestions make perfect sense to me (and are ideal for players without an umpire). I'd be interested in seeing more details on the rules he uses (and could they be adapted for Franco - Prussian?). From the response so far it seems there are man ways of preventing players anchoring a defensive line on the edge of the table. Rather more problematic is when the attacker sees the defensive line and then creeps along the edge of the table to outflank it. Sensible maybe, but not very entertaining and in many respects unhistorical.

Also along these lines most armies in set piece Napoleonic battles tend to deploy with assorted light cavalry on each wing. Generally these forces tend to watch & skirmish with each other and in the overall scheme of things not much tends to happen of significance. Yet when wargamers get their hands on them they seem to inevitably embark on a series of charges in a desperate attempt to gain the enemy flank and so turn the battle. One player I know suggests getting round this by the brutal (but effective) method of deleting them from the OOB for the refight (they are deemed to be just off table amusing each other). Another possibility is to limit the CinCs 'command resources' so that usually he cannot do anything with these formations as more important units in the centre of things demand his limited attention. Suggestions? --Editor

Dear Editor:

It looks to be a great publication.

1. How about a letters page?
2. Wargaming Forum, please expand it.
3. The inclusion of 'ECW Battle Plans' I hope shows a commitment to articles concerned with the more mundane but essential military subjects such as logistics, field drill, training, methods of command & command structure. It was these very things which limited how generals were able to fight their battles.
4. Chancellorsville. The rules note at the end of the piece was very useful (I use Johnny Reb). Please continue this practice. Please continue this practice. Many scenarios are published with certain rules sets in mind and are unplayable without said rules available.

Keep up the good work.

R. Keane, London

I think a letters page is essential, hopefully all the above (and 'Battlefields' in general) will inspire further correspondence. I think that I have made no secret of the fact that Wargames Forum is a section dear to my hear so I will enlarge it if I can. Nearly every letter has said much the same.....but to expand it I need contributions from people other than Derek Henderson! However, don't view the Forum in isolation, many of the scenarios contain ideas or rules etc. which could be applied to other games in different settings.

I would like to have more pieces such as ECW Battle Plans, but again this relies to a large extent on contributions. Let me take this opportunity to reiterate that we don't see 'Battlefields' as being solely scenario based so if you have a piece on military theory or practice let us know.

With regard to the rules note we will try to continue this wherever possible. --Editor