Dear Editor:

I would like to comment on Derek Henderson's excellent article "Who do we think we are?" While reading the following, bear in mind that I'm writing this from the viewpoint of a 2-player game (forced to by the absence of other wargamers in the region we live) or a game without an umpire.

Probably, I'm not the only one who feels addressed by the key point of Derek's article. Wargaming for many years already with my friend Jan Bruinen, we're always looking for rule sets that bear in mind a balance between realism and playability. Regarding realism, one always has to compromise with playability, although everybody will have his own limits. For me one of the aspects of realism is the point posed by Derek: realize what level of command you personalise in the war-game you play and try to stick to it.

I believe the effect of many good rule sets gets lost by players not sticking to historical tactics and getting too much involved with command lines actually not governed by the rules. Many wargamers I guess can't resist interfering with the executing of orders along the entire chain of command, as long as the rules don't forbid this.

That's what I recognize from Derek's theory. So regarding the point of command I think rules are better when they prevent players interfering with command features which they historically were hardly able to, or by rewarding players who stick to their command.

The latter is the case in the Napoleonic rule set Shako, by Arty Conliffe (U.S.A.). Although not intending to advocate a particularsety, the rules are intended for play on 2 different command levels: Army or Corps level and Divisional level. On the Divisional level there are just 2 command-lines: from the CinC to the Divisional commanders and from the latter further down. On the outset of the game basic Attack or Defend orders are given by the CinC to the divisional commanders. These orders can only be changed by aides who need up to 2 playing turns to have their message received by the divisional commander. The players personalise the Divisional commanders, who in the game deploys his DIVISION.

What is more important however, is the system of Combat Deployment within the rules. Divisions that deploy for combat in a way which was doctrine in the country they originate from, are rewarded by plus modifiers in melee. This may stimulate players to deploy units not in a way that suits them best, since this is a decision being made by the non-existing brigade-general or the also non-existing battalion commander. However this system doesn't prevent players enough from influencing actual unit-deployment, while they are personalising the CinC or Divisional commander. The following is again especially aimed at 2 player-games or games without an umpire.

I would propose to enhance the "Shako-system" by disguising the information so often visible for both sides on the battlefield. With most rules and games the playing area is full with markers that indicate losses, morale-status etc., visible to both players. You might make things more difficult (or 'foggy') by placing a number at the bottom of the command stand of a unit and make a status-list of your army. On this list you can administrate the losses and morale status of the individual units. The point is that when you play the Divisional commander, you are not supposed to have much influence on the deployment of the individual units. Though as a wargamer in a 2-player game, practically you will be obliged to move the units of your division across the table. You may only look at the status-chart of your army for fire/melee/rally purposes and not during the movement-deployment phase. You will need a good memory to remember information on all the individual units. So this may result in committing weaker units to a melee.

This also results in partially achieving the idea that a high-level commander is not concerned with the fate of individual units. The only weak point of this system is that players with an extremely good memory have an advantage over their short memoried opponents. However in the Shako rules, you tend to play with about 15-20 units on each side, making it not easy to memorize all units when the battle is getting to a crisis.

This system works better when more units are gathered under the command the player, irrespective of the period in which the wargame is situated. It also adds more realism to a game, the further back in time it is situated. Of course when you have the luxury of an umpire, many of the things posed above may be governed and controlled by him. There wouldn't be any discussion if wargamers stuck to their role. However like Derek said, that isn't how things work in practice; players like to manipulate "their" units, often carefully painted by themselves.

One important thing before I'll end my letter. For those wargamers who like to emphasize the GAME element, they probably won't care much about the things I posed above. I think they are numerous and I can understand their way of thinking about wargaming. For those however who try to aim at some degree of realism, I hope that the above may give some food for thought. Personally I regard these items as more important to realize with some degree of realism than the often heavenly modified fire, melee and morale mechanisms of so many rule sets.

This leaves me to congratulate Ben and his team with this excellent magazine, which looks becoming a real wargaming magazine. Keep up the good work.

Peter Lenders, The Netherlands

Thanks for the kind words, Peter (and thanks for the scenarios as well). I too am fascinated by the issues of command control and the role of the player. I don't really know the best way of simulating it on the tabletop but I'm constantly either fiddling with existing systems or trying to come up with new ones (much to the irritation of the Exiles). I think the Fire & Fury system has a lot going for it (not the least being simplicity) in the way it locks players out of low level decision making, gives them imperfect control over their units and smoothly integrates combat and movement mechanics. Adding to the imperfect control is the combat system which has quite a wide range of results (I like this aspect a lost as I distrust certainties on the wargames table but some people I game with hate it claiming 'it's all on the dice').

However I do wish it had gone a bit further command control wise. Attempts to adapt the Fire & Fury command system for other periods have not been a total success and so I have looked for other mechanics - notably the idea of limited command points (again this seems to be a mechanic that people either hate or love) which I find tends to compel players to concentrate on what they are supposed to be doing rather than what they would like to do! Meanwhile the debate on command control, role of the player and last but not least the role of the leader rages on. Hopefully there will be more on this in future issues.--Editor

Dear Editor:

The most popular range of figures produced by manufacturers seems to be Napoleonics, yet it is the period that most players do not seem to agree on a standard commercially available set of rules. Most other periods seem to have 2 or 3 sets of rules that the majority of players will play with, but not Napoleonics. A number of clubs seem to have their own home grown set of Napoleonic rules and these are used in preference to commercially available sets.

Is it my imagination or do Napoleonic rules seem to bring out the prejudices of writers more than the norm? Why are so many rules Francophile? Besides Napoleon a number of Marshals were exceptional, but the majority were not - and these were unable to command large forces when Napoleon was not present. At least we do not have Napoleonic DBA so we should be thankful for small mercies.

With rules of all periods, the Americans seem to produce a better quality set of late. They apply a more professional outlook to layout and presentation, but more importantly, in addition to a glossy cover the rules inside are clearer and easier to understand. There are some UK companies that now produce rules with glossy covers (yes I know it increases sales) but the layout is still not up to scratch.

Dave Carpenter, London.

I agree with your point concerning Napoleonic rules - for years I have searched for the 'perfect' set (I've probably got just about every set commercially available) but have yet to find one I'm really comfortable with. Mind you, I've written my own and although they seem to work I'm not completely happy with these either and am thinking of starting from scratch again! Why this should be I'm not really sure, perhaps everyone has more of a 'personal stake' in this period and slightly different interpretations of what they think are the most important factors to represent on the tabletop. I wonder if this is a worldwide thing, or if (for example) the Americans have the same difficulties with their Civil War?

As for rules being Francophile, what's your problem? (alright I have a Napoleonic French army, but in my defence it's only the 1809 Army of Italy so hardly the pick of the bunch). Seriously, you do have a valid point and I would put it down to two things. Firstly, the French are seen as being the winners (the end result notwithstanding) so there is an air of 'historical inevitability' about the period. Secondly, until recently the only real information widely available (in English) on this period dealt with things from a British or French viewpoint (with all the 'emotional baggage' attached - I'm sure someone could write a full article on this). This is now changing and hopefully wargames rules will follow suit.

As to DBA, I rather like this for ancient battles (and think it is a valid concept), but am not at all comfortable with the upscaled DBM or DBR. I do rather feel that it is becoming somewhat 'flogged to death'. I would prefer an equally innovative (but new!) concept applied to other periods rather than a mere rehash of DBA.

As to your final point, again I agree. With regard to presentation this may be because in the USA wargame products are still sold on the 'high street' so presentation is far more important. The industry/hobby is also far more professional over there (which also has price implications). Generally I find US rules far easier to read and understand, not only because they are better laid out but also because the philosophy and intent behind them is far clearer than in UK rules. I could rant on about this for pages - but will stop now.

This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com