INTRODUCTION

The following argument has been oft raised but little resolved: In the average wargame - who does the wargamer represent? Who is he actually playing the role of?

I'll admit at this stage that resolution is not the aim of this article but I've taken on the simpler aim of getting players to think about it. Much of what follows has a Napoleonic slant but the principal and lines of argument hold equally true for all periods.

Although the typical game, (2 players, face to face with an evening to complete the game in) takes place at Divisional level the wargamer still likes to be everyone from Army Commander (who'd rarely be there in this situation - but we've all bought those Napoleon figures so might as well use them) down to battalion commander (because he gets to deploy light companies, choose a line or column and so on. He gets his hands dirty and makes the "real" decisions.) Is this because battalion level orders make a quantifiable difference (+1 on the dice etc.) and army level decisions (refuse the left, reinforce the centre etc.) cannot be quantified and so are somehow, subconsciously, less important, even if we know intuitively that this is not the case? Our games risk being a mishmash of command levels which means that no command level is actually replicated with anything that could remotely be called accuracy. (See the Editor's comment in the Forum section on page 46 of Volume 1 Issue 1.)

Therefore, as a starting point for all wargames with pretensions of realism a decision should be made at the outset as to who the players represent and command limitations imposed accordingly. This is easily said and less easily done. Rules' problems arise. It's worthwhile commenting that those commercial rules that do genuinely "position players" are very much in the minority. So although player briefings, where a games organiser provides these, do theoretically place a player in a specific position the rules will still govern what a player needs to do in game rather than character terms. For example it's no fun watching one of your battalions being cut to pieces by cavalry and claiming "Colonel Le Gross should have made sure they were in square. Not me - I'm Napoleon."

Enough general waffle. I'll move on and try to look at a few practical game considerations. To provide a bit of order I'll start at the lowest level of command and work up.

COMPANIES OR SQUADS

In a skirmish game it makes no sense that a player decides upon the exact actions of all of his men. He is usually only playing the part of one man. (Question - who plays the rest of this man?). Even with the authority given by rank he should not control the precise activities undertaken by all his men. Perhaps the interpretation of orders, or chosen interpretation for those out of sight, should be decided by the umpire? A degree of randomness could be built, not so extreme as to become silly but sufficient to prevent telepathic communication. In any case, true heroes, or metal men with nothing more serious to lose than their varnish, manage on their own and don't need others to either assist them or get in the way.

BATTALIONS

Moving upward, at least in wargame terms, we have the unusual phenomena of the battalion or other single unit commander. As mentioned before nearly all wargamers like to exercise this level of command. They decide who and when to fire and so on. It really does seem to be the desire to get one's hands dirty and "do things". In wargames terms though the individual battalion is a playpiece whose smaller actions should be irrelevant. I know of no common wargame where the player even pretends to be in command at battalion level. (Although I do recall a game of battalion commanders suggested by Arthur Harman back in February 1987's Miniature Wargames 45. If you get the chance to re-read this you'll see it's hardly a "typical" game.) Partizan's "Fileleader", "Minuteman" and "Sepoy" come close to this level of command but even so the basic argument remains - games rarely, if ever, are aimed at players being battalion level officers, and quite rightly so. In most games the battalion is one of many under the player's command and therefore the result at the level of the individual battalion is what matters, not a detailed breakdown of how that result was achieved. Does the chess player care how the knight disposes of the pawn? Lance, battleaxe or sword doesn't matter. The pawn goes and that's all that matters. I won't take the comparison too far for obvious reasons but nonetheless there are lessons for the wargamer. Why don't we deem the unit commander to be doing the best possible within the limitations imposed by orders and doctrine and leave it at that? Why must we interfere with his decisions? Unless we are battalion commanders we should not be involved in battalion level decisions.

We should retain our place in the usually quite rigid hierarchy. (Have you ever been in a work situation where the boss won't let go? He or she insists on abandoning their level of command to interfere at a lower level.) Boardgames or computer moderated games seem to come closest to solving (ignoring?) this issue by the requisite "deeming". Even here, with computer moderated games, the players tend to put their figures in the "correct" formations and I for one don't believe that it's all for aesthetics. Why not try a game where the individual units move rather like boardgame counters? They can then be considered as being in the most suitable formation at any given time. If you really insist on trying to catch infantry with cavalry before they form square then make it random with perhaps a competence rating for the commander on the spot. (Where would we be without the Duke of Orange's Waterloo exploits to talk about?)

BRIGADES AND DIVISIONS

The next stage up is the divisional or brigade command. Now we're onto a firmer wargame's ground. Most non-historic games take place in this mythical world of division sized mini-corps. Small enough to purchase, paint, own and fit on a table it's only a shame they didn't exist. Particularly with the troop variety generally seen.

Historical combats (I'd pull back from saying battles) are very few and far between involving forces of this size.

There's not much to be said about this level of game except that Army commander comments apply albeit with less links in the chain of command.

CORPS AND ARMIES

So let's turn to army commanders. An army commander, to a greater or lesser extent, often has greater worries than those before him on the battlefield. Politics start to creep in. Remember the scene in the file "Waterloo" where Napoleon is dictating half a dozen letters simultaneously? As head of state as well as head of the army his situation wasn't typical. Nevertheless all field commanders will have strategic worries and other non battlefield duties even if these consist of no more than reporting on how things are going and ensuring that his career looks secure. In wargames terms however it is safe to assume that these other duties take place off table and between games. Staying on the battlefield then, Paddy Griffith's book "Battle in the Civil War" although on the American Civil War should be of interest to all wargamers, of whatever period, as it presents "the big picture" from start to finish. The army commander's job becomes one of liaising and co-ordinating. It is his job to ensure that all his corps or divisional commanders know what is expected of them and that the army functions as a whole. It is often said that Napoleon never threw a punch smaller than a division but this rarely transfers to the wargames table. Rules rarely seem to be written to make a player a genuine army commander and give him the problems and decisions that his real life counterpart would face. Here boardgames seem to have an edge over tabletop games because of the size of units usually represented. Co-ordination of these larger units is paramount albeit this seems a tad easy at times. Back to the tabletop it seems to me that the co-ordination of units is one of those things that should be so much easier in theory than in practise. The reverse is more often true. Rolling a die for "Messenger has fresh horse and moves at double speed" through to "Messenger killed by stray shot. Message doesn't arrive" seems overly simplified. I don't know what the answer is.

Moving on upwards again. After the control of an army comes the control of several armies. A campaign in fact. Most wargamers would deem this unplayable on the tabletop and something that is better played as either a boardgame or a traditional campaign with map moves and an umpire. These were my thoughts until I played in one tabletop game of this nature. Although not quite aimed at armies moving over a continent Chris Kemp of WD has written an excellent set of rules called "Panzerblitz" which enable a game to be played on the table. Many divisions can be represented moving and attacking across a front of many miles - and a game finished in an evening. A player has to be as concerned with POL and ammunition as he does with strategy. Small scale tactics, quite rightly, do not come into the game. A player's job ends at bringing troops to the battlefield although a lot of wargamers will be relieved to know that they still get to throw the combat dice. The player has to mop up too - reform units and replace casualties. A proper role for reconnaissance units is a feature and wargamers, like me, who buy figures because they are nice will be delighted to see a role for mobile kitchens, supply wagons and other peripherals which become essential. The rules mechanisms are such that there is no definitive troop scale and depending on the toys available any size engagement is possible. These rules take over where the Command Decision rules leave off. To me these latter rules have always seemed to be attempting to reach a higher level than tactical but inevitably fall back on fairly standard low level mechanisms. I don't believe that Chris's rules are available commercially so won't go on any further. Nevertheless it does show that it is possible for wargamers to look beyond traditional games for ways of representing different levels of military conflict.

GRAND STRATEGY AND POLITICS

At the top of the military hierarchy we have strategic planning. Politicians usually with their own ideas of who should be being fought and why. Games replicating this level of war are only playable as committee games. I find it disheartening that so many wargamers that I come across are not interested in this aspect of history. Presumably there aren't enough toys involved. It's a shame that these gamers aren't prepared to give such games a go and just for once find out who’s putting their troops where and why. It might only be a fictitious set up but the rationale is valid and a lot can be learnt about compromise positions, political expediency and so on.

My purpose in writing this piece was twofold. Firstly, a request to try games involving levels of command other than those that you are used to. Widen your horizons. Secondly I'd like wargamers to think about who they are on the battlefield and thus their duties and limitations. By trying to be everyone we risk representing no-one. The danger is that without this "We're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere". Let's avoid becoming military schizophrenics, not accept our wargames' positions without thought and really try to play the role of just one commander.