What is more important - war or game? Or so they have equal importance? What sort of a part should dice play in rules? All these are part of a single basic question which has come up for "discussion" at Southend Wargames Club and the wounded are now recovering nicely. A fellow member and I were the main movers of the discussion and we can still play amicably together! (although the debate became quite heated at some points). I will call my fellow member "Ted" to protect the guilty -- it's not his real name. Ted had been involved -writing some rules for mid and early 18th C. games, which have also been adapted to the Napoleonic period. They are designed to give an uncomplicated means to mediating a game and fill the bill quite well. They adopt the "flexible timescale" approach (a bound represents an indeterminate amount of time during which a unit does an unspecified amount of activity or nothing at all) and have firing "hits" determined by obtaining a certain score or lower on a ten-sided die (one per gun model or infantry sub-unit firing). Thus, total casualties scored can range from zero to quite a lot.

The rules usually used for Napoleonic games at Southend and developed at the club over a period of years, result from considerable study of drill manuals, by myself and Richard Partridge of "Age of Napoleon" magazine, and use dice to modify casualties either side of a figure we arrived at as an "average" or "reasonable" figure. They also utilise a fixed time-scale bound during which time it is assumed a battalion can perform certain functions (move, change formation, fire, etc.) If a unit moves it has insufficient time for as much firing as if it had remained stationary and can move only a certain distance, related to the period represented by a bound.

I maintain that the flexible bound, as used in Ted's rules, creates anomalies which promote dissent and argument. For example: A cavalry regiment charges an infantry battalion which fired earlier in the bound (brigades are activated by cards drawn by the umpire and a constituent unit activated and moved/fired prior to being attacked by a second unit is allowed to defend itself).The battalion may fire again at full strength.The reasoning behind this is that the bound might be occupying 30 minutes of real time and the battalion could easily have reloaded. It is my contention that this should allow other units on the battlefield to conduct 30 minutes worth of activity, a contention hotly refuted by Ted - and who's to say he's not right? Ted's argument is that the discrepancy can be, as he puts it "dialogued", i.e. various explanations -- all quite feasible -- can be put forward for the other units' not doing 30 minutes worth of activity. However, the dialogue seems to comprise the umpire's rationalising a decision rather than putting forward a case and debating it with the player (this would probably make a bound last a couple of weeks at our club!). What do you think?

Now to the Dice

I don't have any special case to make against the "roll a six to hit" school -- Donald Featherstone based many of his rule sets on it and I have played to such rules many times. I do not, however, derive so much enjoyment and satisfaction from games using this type of system. Where I have the problem is that throwing half-a-dozen dice which can all indicate hits or all indicate misses is turning the exercise into more luck than skill. I accept that war might well have been rather like that, although I have my doubts, but I would like to see my skill at manoeuvring and tactics in the game, rewarded by a modicum of success (and vice-versa) than be at the mercy of the gods of fortune. Otherwise, why bother to learn the tactics and take the trouble to spend time manoeuvring. I like to see dice modify a result a little one side or the other of a "norm". I am not saying that my preference is correct or produces a more historically accurate result, simply that it makes for a more enjoyable game for me.

Which brings us to the other aspect of my original question. Do we want historically "accurate" wargames or merely enjoyable ways of passing time? There is probably no way of being certain what actually took place until someone invents a time machine, of course, and fighting battles on a table-top, with the - . "eyes in the sky" syndrome, is a million miles = from reality. However, by researching battles -. and developing rules which produce effects similar to those described in the reliable literature, I believe a little more understanding of tactical theory and historical events achieved.

Probably, the question is better phrased as "Do rules with (well-researched) detail provide a better representation of historical warfa­re than those with 'back-of-a- postcard' simplicir. and which produces the more enjoyable game?". The answer will probably depend on ­the personal preferences of those playing but if I spend time and trouble getting my miniatures' uniforms accurately painted, would like to think I'm going to do more thar participate in a game of "Risk" when I set them up for a battle.

Hopefully, this is all contentious enough stuff to prompt you into reaching for pens and paper (or PC's and Word Processors) and put me in my place. Perhaps I shall at least have stung Ted into writing action!