Dear Battlefields:

There have been two recent topics of discussion recently at my club - Recon on the tabletop and the influence of commanders.

Regarding recon, it does seem difficult to do this 'properly' in the standard evening game. Normally the problem is one of time, all one can do is send off a scouting unit on a likely axis prior to the main attack and wait to see what happens. If it survives, excellent, throw everything else after it, if it dies (the more likely event - leading to the order to the recon commander'conduct reconnaissance by death') then throw everything forward along another axis and hope for the best. All of this is not terribly satisfactory, although the more ludicrous player tendencies such as unloading the lead infantry from their trucks and sending these vehicles ahead to see what kills them thankfully seem to be a thing of the past.

There is no easy answer due to the time problem - we do not have enough time to make multiple probes and scout out the enemy position before the end of the game. Small rules modifications do make some difference, such as the basic technique of giving designated recon units more chance to spot things etc. I would be tempted to take this further and give such units a greater chance of surviving whatever fire they trigger (more likely to pinpoint where it's coming from, better versed at disengagingunder fire etc.).

An associated problem is the absolute nature of spotting ranges, e.g. it is impossible to spot dug in infantry under cover from more than 5". I know such things are very hard to see but surely there is a chance of the cover not being as good as the defenders believe, seeing the sun glinting off glasses, someone getting over excited and loosing off a shot etc. This also leads to another problem in that the defender, knowing he cannot be seen until the enemy are at 5" (or whatever) always holds his fire to engage not only the most lucrative target but also always fires at the best range.

Perhaps one solution is the marker system used in Route 66 as this seems quite a good compromise between playability and realism, although it can be rather tiresome to prepare and defenders seem prone to losing track of their units. A better way is probably the back to back system for both attacker and defender but this is a lot of work and impractical for most 'fun' evening games.

With regard to the influence of commanders, this discussion came about during a playtest of 'big battle' rules (hopefully leading up to a large refight of Solferino) where the smallest unit is the brigade. Leaders under these rules were responsible for issuing commands and getting their forces into action and for rallying disordered units (to return them to the fray) but had no effect on combat once units were engaged. I'm not saying this is 'wrong' but it did lead to a stimulating discussion between those that favoured the cult of the personality and those who believed firepower was everything. The personality fans argued that of course leaders should influence combat - look at the French Napoleonic doctrine of front line leadership whilst the supporters of firepower declared that at brigade level an individual could not make enough of an impact to alter the overall result in fight between two such large formations. The reply to this was that often a single battalion, or the actions of an apparently insignificant number of men could alter the nature of the battle and that this should be factored in by having a plus one (or equivalent) when resolving combat. The riposte to this was that in an era of long range (or longer) firepower such 'heroic' leadership was out of place and more likely to kad to useless sacrifice. I see the validity of both camps (although am inclined to follow the personality brigade) but am curious what others may think about this.

There was also a brief discussion on command range. In the above rules set all leaders had the same command radius. Here the argument was that just because you have more gold braid than somebody else it doesn't mean you can see/shout further. Alternatively it was stated that senior officers had a larger staff and so could keep in touch with events over a wider area. Another argument (and for me in some respect compelling) is that command radius is not only a function of rank but also of doctrine. Divisional leaders have a smaller command radius because it is not their business to know what is going on outside their divisional area, whilst for a corps commander one a his responsibilities (pefhaps primary duty) is to keep in contact within the components of his formation. In addition command radius is also a function of doctrine, there were 'ideal frontages' for divisions and different command ranges is a relatively simple way of encouraging players to keep to these. The command radius as a function of natural talent is another topic that can be pursued but is perhaps not strictly relevant to the above. Again no right or wrong answers but I would be interested on hearing opinions from outside our little group.

--Peter Tanner, Rugby

Editor: I feel I would be firmly in the personality camp in the above discussions (and supporting the differing command ranges too. I do echo Peter's plea for other comments and opinions. Playing constantly with the same group of people does I think mean you tend to always view things in the same way and play/rules design runs a risk of becoming stereotyped and insular (but then military officers are prone to the same so perhaps it is realistic!). One of the reasons I became involved with Battlefields was to see what was going on elsewhere.

Rules currently do seem to be going through a phase of emphasising 'software' (command control, morale etc.) rather than hardware (weapons, equipment etc.) which is something I approve of (although others I play with are uncomfortable with this). Certainly the style of Exiles 'home rules' have changed radically over the past 4 years or so from weapon type being the crucial element in victory to command/morale as the decisive factors ('bugger what they're carrying - how are they feeling!').

Dear Ben:

I also have an early 16th century Spanish army. With regard to your comments in previous issues I have been using it for the past couple of years and have them WRG, Tercio and Newbury Fast Play with fairly good results. However, I have just rebased the lot for with DBR and under these rules it's a great army. DBR seems to bring out the different methods of all the various troop types and the Spanish army seems very well balanced especially with bloody great earthworks to hide behind!

I am also contemplating an Italian wars campaign at my local club, and the problem of Spanish earthworks also arises. I think the answer may be either to make the Spanish army slightly smaller than the others to compensate, make them have pioneers in order to construct earthworks or have a time of day rule whenever a battle occurs. A diceroll will decide the hour the battle starts, and if its too early, the Spanish would not have had time to prepare defences.

--Derek Stone, Southampton

Editor: "The cartographer speaks! Derek prepares all the maps and diagrams you see in Battlefields. Normally working to a ludicrously tight schedule he turns bizarre and arcane scribblings into clear and concise maps. Anyone needing maps drawn up may wish to get in touch with Derek via Partizan Press to discuss rates etc.

The umpire for our Italian campaign seems to agree with you concerning the size of the Spanish army - I think even the Neapolitans have raised a larger force! Mind you, other players reading this beware - we might be small but we're perfectly formed!

As for rules I guess sooner or later I am going to have to give DBR a try. Up to now I have resisted this due to my unhappiness over DBM. Meanwhile I have just completed a new set of rules for 1490-1550 (a fourth attempt at this period) which are awaiting a playtest- I hope they work. Suggestions from other readers concerning this period welcome, be they on rules, tactics, organisation and doctrine or whatever!

Dear Ben:

I would like to raise a point concerning rules mechanisms for armies composed of troops with suspect loyalties. My main interest is in the Irish armies of the 1641-1653 period. All armies in Ireland had the problems of suspect loyalties and commanders working to different agendas. Whilst English armies suffered defection and mutiny, this did not normally occur in the heat of battle. Irish generals on the other hand had semiautonomous units nominally under their control. This not only led generals to suspect the loyalty of their troops, but also led units to fear they might be sacrificed. Alasdair MaColla's Scots - Irish elements in the confederate armies of Taaffe and Preston may have met destruction due to internal divisions.

But how do you account for this in the rules? Dividing an army in two with separate players will simulate separate interests and works well but it is impractical to have two commanders for an army that scales down to 150 - 200 figures.

Adjusting morale factors to account for a possible reluctance to follow orders is unfair since the Scots fought well at Knockanoss and Dungan's Hill.

The only mechanism that works for me is the use of sub generals. By introducing a probability of non compliance with orders (1 in 10, 1 in 6 etc.) you simulate the potential unreliability of these troops without affecting their combat performance. It also makes generals wary of relying upon them at the crucial moment. A less satisfactory rule is to introduce a morale penalty for troops which are reluctantly following orders.

The problem of allies and the problems a command is common to all periods, but I feel it is often overlooked. Often where it is included the allies are simply downgraded in combat performance at the start of the game.

Sean Sweeney, Dublin

Editor--Sean first wrote to me in December on this matter. Since then we have exchanged a couple of letters and in the interim Sean has devised some rules modificalions for 'Forlorn Hope' (what a fine set of rules these are!) to cover the above - see Wargames Forum this issue. I have reprinted his letter because I agree that it is a vital subject which is too often overlooked in wargames and hope to hear more on this matter.

A good set of command rules which address the above can be found in 'Poleaxed', although these cover the late medieval period, I think the command/order system could be adopted for any battle up to approx. 1700. Other ways of covering this is 'casting' of players and giving them individual goals and objectives (see previous issues of Battlefield as well as the scenario Mark Antony in Parthia in issue 1. I find that splitting armies of 150 - 200 figures amongst anything from 2 to 5 players to be no real problem. If I ever get time I'll write up Kilsyth and feature Derek Henderson's infamous 'Commitee Rule.'

Dear Ben:

We recently played a variation of the 'rolling tables' Vietnam scenario (Ed - Route 66 in issue 1. I umpired a mid 1943 German breakthrough on the Russian front. Four players took a German mixed company each, and I let them get on with it, mostly attacking empty space until table 2. It worked pretty well overall.

Cheers, Mark Bevis, Burnley

Editor-- Thanks Mark, I'd always hoped that players would take Battlefields scenarios and adopt them to different periods etc. Anyone else had a go?

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