In the past few years, we have witnessed a number of innovations in wargame design. Few techniques have introduced new levels of realism and often enhanced the enjoyment of the games in which they were employed.

The subject of this article will be one of these innovations which has cropped up but has never been discussed at any length. The only reference to it has been in "Designer's Notes" and other such articles regarding name design, though only in somewhat general terms. The innovation I speak of is that of the cohesion factor.

A fancy definition of the cohesion factor would run something like this: "the cohesion factor is the ability of a unit to stick together in combat. There are a number of things which influence this ability. We shall call these "the elements of the cohesion factor."

THE ELEMENTS OF THE COHESION FACTOR

There are five basic elements effecting the cohesion factor. These are organizat inn, disposition, morale, type, and function. Organization can be defined as the availability and condition of the unit's sub-units. How many on the unit's firepower - but it will also affect a unit's cohesion. An example of this would be the unit which is deficient in support units, such as the Italian armored division in WWII.

Disposition is also important (or at least it used to be). Once upon a time, units were deployed in formations which were more or less dependent on cohesion. Nowadays formations are no longer used. but disposition still has a subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) effect on a unit's cohesion,

Morale is an element which at times is a staggering effect on cohesion. At Thermopylae, the Spartans stuck together to the last man. Compare this with the behavior of the Persians at Arbela, who ran from a much smaller force in terms of numbers.

A number of things affect morale, such as espirit de corps. situational factors (supplies position, number, unit function, etc.) and individual leadership.

The Fourth element, type, has to do with the effect the inherent physical characteristics of a unit have on its cohesion. No matter how well a cavalry unit may be organized, no matter how brave its men might be, it is still a cavalry unit and thus is limited in its ability to stick together.

Finally, we have function. Function is the condition of a unit when performing any of its tasks, such as garrison duty, antiguerilla operations, movement, conventional combat, or reserve duty. Thus, a unit which is caught on the march, undeployed for battle, will have little cohesion.

PAST USES OF THE COHESION FACTOR

As I have stated before, the cohesion factor is a concept which has cropped up from time to time in name design. One of the most outstanding uses has been in the S&T tactical games, one of which is better known as Panzerblitz (now by Avalon Hill).

As we all know. the CRT is built around two conditions, dispersed and eliminated

The idea here is that the loss of morale and the confusion of the unit's organization caused by combat, will disperse the unit, eventually to such a degree that the unit will be worthless. This is a negative outlook on the same thing we have been considering, inasmuch as dispersal can be considered the opposite of cohesion.

Another, somewhat different use of the cohesion factor is the Anzio Strategic Movement Rule. The rationale here seems to be that a unit not entering combat or forced to disengage will not have to deploy itself in such a way as to impede traffic and thus may attain maximum road speed. Such a unit would be quite vulnerable if attacked (Road Mode in S&T'S El Alamein). This would seem to show the effect of function on the cohesion of a unit.

Another twist to this idea is the use of column and line formations in games of the musket era, particularly Deployment and also in a Chancellorsville variant that appeared in an early issue of S&T. The combat factors were different for different formations, but so were the movement factors. This idea, then, comes more under disposition. than function.

Finally, some mention must be made of the rationale for a total elimination CRT which states that it is not necessary to incapacitate a large percentage of people to destroy a unit. All that would be needed is that the unit be disorganized and panicky, which is reminiscent of the Panzerblitz idea, only on a divisional scale. We should, of course, take this idea at its word, but, one wonders whether that's what Charlie Roberts had in mind when he constructed the first Combat Results Table.

THE HISTORY OF THE COHESION FACTOR

Thus far, we have ignored one important element of the cohesion factor... type. Of all the elements of the cohesion factor, type is the most constant. and therefore the most useful for a historical discussion of the role of cohesion in warfare. Dispositions vary from engagement to engagement. Morale and organization are only semi-constant since organization can be changed (and usually is) a great deal, while morale is a capricious factor at best. Function is often constant inasmuch as different units are designed for different duties, but still it is often subject to change for the induvidual unit. Type on the other hand, has a constancy which lasts for centuries on end.

The importance of the cohesion factor has varied from time to time, increasing when tight formations were used, and decreasing when looser formations prevailed. Thus, the phalanx depended more on cohesion than the Roman cohort. In this case, the difference was that the Greek spearmen had to present an unbroken line of spears to be most effective, whereas Roman swordsmen were more flexible.

The history of warfare concerning the cohesion factor can be divided into four periods: ancient (up to 378AD), medieval (3781450). Rennaissance (1450-1650), and modern (1650 to the present). While the first three periods were similar technologically, the difference in the importance of cohesion was great, although the resemblence between ancient and Rennaissance periods is striking. The modern period might be called the "period of change", since the role of cohesion has been changing ever since its beginning.

Ancient armies generally consisted of three main arms: infantry, cavalry, and missile troops. Some armies had even more types such as elephants, while others consisted of only one or two arms. Generally speaking, it was the aforementioned three which bore the brunt of the fighting, eventually evolving into modern infantry, armor, and artillery.

Infantry in ancient armies was employed in tight massive formations, highly dependent on cohesion. One reason for this was the relative helplessness of the individual infantryman. Infantry, if caught in disorder, could be ripped apart by better organized infantry (as at Marathon) or be ridden down by cavalry as at Adrianople.

The cavalry, on the other hand, was much less dependent upon cohesion... one reason being that a man on a horse was less vulnerable and had more speed and strength at his command than the foot- slogger. Speed, not order, was the chief strength of cavalry. Even so, with all other things equal, the more orderly body of cavalry would triumph.

The missile troops were the third arm present in ancient armies. The nature of the weapons used required a loose formation which gave the men room to shoot and a clear line of sight. Because of this, a cohesive, or at least, tight formation reduced the efficiency of such units. Morale, as always, did its part but it must be remembered that a missile unit would be torn apart in a melee, no matter what its dispositions were. The advantage of a loose formation was that it gave the missile troops a chance to try to hold the enemy off, and to run for the lives if they failed.

By the fall of Rome, however, it was plain that the rules had been changed. The missile troops were about the same but the relationship between the infantry and cavalry had been changed radically. As a whole, infantry became a disorganized rabble sharing the fate of their ancient counterparts the infantry of Cannae, Thermopylae, and Adrianople. The cavalry was more powerful and less orderly than before. The knight's motto was, "Get at the enemy yesterday!"

To such troops, cohesion was an unknown word. Too often, battles turned into deluxe jousts. Teamwork was at a minimum and more often than not a segment of a unit would advance far in front of the main force (as at Hastings) in search of, greater glory. In this context, the very idea of "sticking together" becomes laughable.

As we all know, however, things didn't stay that way. As history turned a full circle, events reminiscent of the ancient period began popping up. In a sense, man was merely picking up where he left off, reliving old ways of life, and doing things- as they had been done a millennium ago. Nowhere was this more evident than in the conduct of war. Machiavelli proposed an Italian army based on the old Roman legion. The Swiss revived the Macedonian phalanx, while the Spanish organized swordsmen to fight the Swiss pikemen, much in the way the Romans fought Pyhrrus. All this repetition notwithstanding, great changes were being pioneered in the art and science of war. The difference now was in the missile troops. They were now fighting with an unprecedented effectiveness due to the advent of the longbow and firearms.

It is sufficient to say that the development and improvement of missile, weapons was the catalyst which eventually drove all other arms from the field or modified them beyond recognition. The road from longbow to arquebus, from arquebus to flintlock, from flintlock to rifle, and from rifle to machine gun was a slow one, and it can be said that the cohesion factor as it was once known died with a bang.

Seventeenth and eighteenth century battles were pretty much matters where you tried to break down the enemy's formation and morale and finished it off with a charge that would break the enemy's back and throw him into confusion. The early 1800s were also something like this, with Napoleon carrying these tactics to their logical conclusion through his skillful use of maneuver.

The Civil War, the Franco-Prussian War, and World War I brought an end to the old ways, sending tight formations into oblivion. Dispositions were still important but held a different meaning. Cohesion had been slowly supplanted by its antithesis: dispersion. Armies concentrated more firepower on an area using less men, thus increasing the territory covered by their armies. This trend has not yet stopped. The dispersal of forces is even more important now than during WW Il due to the rise of nuclear and guerilla warfare.

A CONCLUSION OF SORTS

Now we have defined the cohesion factor, outlined its uses in game design and its role in military history. So what? For what purpose? Well, when I originally wrote this article some two years ago, the concepts of the cohesion factor in game design were pretty new and relatively unknown. Now there are a number of games which use the cohesion factor directly in their design. Even so, there has as yet. been no article, aside from this one, which deals with this subject directly.

Thus. if there is a "purpose", or some such animal, to this article. it would be to orient the game designers among this magazine's readers into thinking in this direction. Although the cohesion factor is just one among many factors to be considered in a game's design, it is one which lends itself to increased diversification in that game's design. In other words, fellas, let your imagination go wild. As far as I'm concerned, that's what game design is all about.