MORE ON HISTORY VS. ROLES

Two dispatches from the field in the Fall, 1993 issue prompt me to put in my two cents worth on the subject of tournaments and rules for the ancients period. William Litvak made some good points about the importance of history in wargaming. He laments the abundance of historical tournament play at conventions. May I suggest, however, that the hobby is broad enough to harbor those who have an interest in history and like to play games about it and those who just like to play games.

Although, I cannot imagine anyone in the hobby who does not have some interest in the historical background of what they are playing. There are some, however, who really enjoy a head-to-head matching of wits using rules derived from historical material. Do we look down our noses at chess players? They play a very abstract war game with little historical relevance. Considering the few members of the hobby who actually attend conventions, the few of those who do come to enjoy a tournament perspective, should be allowed to pursue their interests. They support the hobby by coming to the convention, subscribing to magazines, and supporting the figure makers.

Thus, while I myself, cannot understand why people like day long, wargame tournaments I ask that the rest of us leave them to it in peace. The other dispatch, from Sam Maxwell, at first glance seemed to be exactly about what Mr. Litvak was concerned with—not enough history and too much how to win. Indeed, our illustrious editor took Sam to task for being concerned with the quantitative aspect of DBM. Dick thanks that ancients gamers are concerned only with the "gamesmanship" advantage of modifiers and point values of various aspects of rules and not their historical meaning.

I believe Sam has presented a well reasoned question about the rules. After all, are not rules (ancients or others) an attempt to quantify historical events and technology into a verbal model. We may not want to think in such terms, but rules are just simulations with various degrees of verisimilitude ( i.e., closeness to reality) of human processes. If the writer has simulated, with numbers and procedures, the process well, then we get a game that feels like the historical events.

Sam is making the point that the modifiers assigned to warbands who are Gauls and others who "rely on an impetuous and ferocious collective charge to sweep away enemy foot. (DBM p. 6) do not result in situations that he thinks are historical. Thus it might be argued that Sam is actually questioning the rules based on his knowledge of history. Is this not a very appropriate undertaking for gamers, or do we accept rules as given, "take it or leave it?" Perhaps Sam made the mistake of using the language of numbers to make his point.

Some who are more history minded would prefer to see a narrative argument. I suggest it is useful to discuss rules in the language of rules, that is in quantitative terms. My games with warbands have produced the same results that Sam identified. Gauls seem to defeat Romans more often than they did in history. Maybe if the Gauls had generals as good as the Romans, they would have won more often (or if the Romans had generals as bad as me, we'd all be speaking Celtic).

It may well be the case that once the capabilities and procedures of ancient warfare are quantified into a model for a game, the Gauls become better than their historical counterparts. Keep in mind that if the rules of game always led to the same results as history, there would be little reason to play the game. Sam's question, then, might be seen as the following. In the simulation of ancient warfare known as DBM the rules for the kind of troops represented by Gauls do not produce results we might expect based on historical events.

Sam then makes a good contrary point that perhaps he (and me and others) has not learned the rules well enough yet to understand how to be successful with the opponents of the Gauls. A helpful view is presented in a recent Spearpoint article by Bruce Meyer. He writes, "The subtlety comes after only a few games. The ever fierce Romans did not fare well early on. Players were used to just lining them up and walloping whatever came along....In just a game or two, people quickly learned that regulars had to use their quality and maneuverability ... Now we have games that hang in the balance and usually turn on a difference of only a few bases.

I am willing to give Phil Barker the benefit of the doubt and keep playing with rules as written until I feel I know the full depth of possibilities. The unit modifiers are at the very top of the model and are familiar to all who have played DBA. Many new concepts have been added (terrain, army lists, training, etc.) and these may give the balance that Sam and I feel is lacking. The impetuousness of irregulars is a bit complex. Maybe we should play with the rules as written for a while longer and then re-evaluate. In the meantime, let us continue to discuss the rules in print without fear of being called unhistorical number-crunchers who (as Dick Bryant says) dissect a set of rules in an appalling manner. - BOB BEATTIE, Ann Arbor, MI

Reply from Phil Barker in #66 Dispatches From the Field

MIDDLE AGES ARMY COMPOSITION

I appreciated Mr. Coveney's comments in Issue 64 about the evolution of army composition during the Middle Ages. He rightly points out the increasing role mercenaries played during this period. This was especially true for the large English expeditions of the Hundred Years War and other campaigns where the feudal terms of service were not long enough to be useful.

The emerging role of mercenary troops was an issue I intentionally left out of my earlier piece, as it seemed outside the scope of the issues I was addressing. Mr. Coveney fills in many of the gaps in the earlier material.

I could quibble with him on several specific, but relatively minor points. However, at this stage in the dialogue it seems like a rather obscure discussion. The original issue, as I recall, was whether it is "impossible for a commander in a real or simulated setting, to give orders to a banner of battle of knights in a feudal army in the field" - that is whether an adequate command structure existed in Medieval armies to allow their simulation in wargames.

My differences of opinion with Mr. Coveney are largely secondary to this issue - and probably inevitable. It reminds me of what Barbara Tuchman says about trying to study Medieval history in her forward to A Distant Mirror, The Calamitous 14th Century. She writes, "It may be taken as axiomatic that any statement of fact about the Middle Ages may (and probably will) be met by a statement of the opposite or a different version....No age is tidy or made of whole cloth, and none is a more checkered fabric than the Middle Ages. One must also remember that the Middle Ages change color depending on who is looking at them." I couldn't put it better than that. - PHIL JOHNSTON, Fairport, NY

APPRECIATES DR. BUNKER'S ARTICLES

It is not often that I find myself writing to The Courier, but I felt that I had to do so in regards to your recent article "The Age of Mercenaries in Historical Miniatures Simulating War as Business" in issue number 65 rather than merely sending in my Volley Fire.

I found the article well done and thought provoking. I enjoyed it very much. I hope that it will be further elaborated upon in future issues.I suppose you will get the flurry of erudite letters disputing your points as you did with your article on Medieval Warfare, but that belies the point. (Well, about the battle of Cresole or Dreyse or some other battle. What about Gaston D'Forx, or Pescara, or the Great Gonzalo). Where else could you draw such debate? I don't think it would occur in the classroom (even on a graduate level).

The era you covered in your article is one of my favorites be cause of the wide variety of troop types involved (only the Ancients has as many) and the color. It also provides some semblance of tactical competence over the Medieval period.

However your article was a tease. Just how do you simulate such activities on the wargame table? I really would like to see the rules that you use or even the role-playing system. - H. LIEBSON, Watertown, NY

THEY DIED FOR GLORY - A CLARIFICATION

Pat Condray reviewed three rule sets about the Franco-Prussian war in the last issue. The excellent article that will hopefully bring a little more interest into this era of wargaming. I especially liked the photo of Dave Waxtel's troops at Cold Wars '93 showing the pile of dice behind the Prussian skirmishers. A picture is certainly worth a thousand words!

One of the rulesets reviewed by Pat was they Died For Glory, by Dave Waxtel and Bob Burke. There were some misinterpretations of the rules that had a major impact on his 'test game' and should be clarified. It was nice to see Pat state his prejudices up front in his review, so I will state mine. I think a ruleset must simulate the correct style of warfare for that period while still being easy to play.

As the leader of the 'Texas Playtest Team' listed in the credits, I am in a position to explain much of the design philosophy that went into the rules (where there is some!) and to correct the critical errors made in Pat's game.

They had far too few troops for this game. We use a division per player. Pat had a few battalions per side. The only way to truly appreciate the Prussian artillery is to stare at an entire corps' guns. Why were 25mm frontages used, but with l5mm movement and ranges? It was odd to read about that happening when Pat mentioned how important frontages vs. range was to him.

Pat said French artillery fired first, which is not correct. All artillery fire occurs at the same time. Perhaps they were firing the artillery during the infantry fire phase, which occurs at the same time. Perhaps they were firing the artillery during the infantry fire phase, which occurs simultaneously during the opponents movement. Since the Prussians move first in the turn this could explain the error.

Pat also thought artillery fought too well in melee. This is not true. Since an artillery battery of six guns is represented by a three-crew model which means they fight with two dice, they don't have more than a prayer of beating a battalion with eight to fourteen dice. One more thing about artillery. Its morale is always a '5' which means you can only fail by rolling a six. Engineers can replace crew casualties as long as the battery wasn't wiped out, but this doesn't effect morale, as the losses have been replaced.

Chassepot fire is an important French advantage for this period, as is the use of the Mitrailleuse. The split ranges of 12" and 18" have the effect of placing the Prussians under fire sooner than the French. All this means is that the Prussians have to go prone to avoid the effect of the fire, or move closer to get within their own Needlegun range. Part of the French advantage is simulated by the sequence of play, which allows then the chance to decide on foregoing any movement in order to fire twice. The Mitralleuse actually has a longer effective range than the Chassepot (15" vs. 12"). It is interesting to note that Mitralleuse fire is in the Infantry fire phase, which means it can fire twice!

There were no infantry melees in the test game. If that had happened, they would have found the larger Prussian battalions fighting more effectively against the French. Also, the French fire would have a significant chance of forcing the Prussians prone. Please notice that you can be forced to go prone, which is an important 'Command and Control' rule in this game. It's the soldiers that make this decision, not the generals (i.e. players). While going prone is never prohibited, it is sometimes mandatory. Prone skirmishers are much more difficult to hit (even from canister - you get what you deserve!). But they can't move without standing up and being shot at again. Skirmishers also interfere with movement and that is one of the reasons the voluntary fullback rule exists - to clear them out of the way.

Pat mentions that towns are not important in They Died For Glory. This is true in the sense that there are not strategic rules for the game. It is difficult to hurt units in towns, however. With artillery, you must fire on the building; and for each hit on the structure, you put one on the unit. It takes a large amount of artillery fire to reduce a town or building, but it can be done (especially by a corps of Prussians!). The importance of towns should be stressed in the victory conditions of the scenario.

Items such as morale ratings, command radius, not allowing cavalry to dismount, the French not being as good in melee, and modifiers to combat and morale are all subjective. l do not agree with them all, but they can always be modified to suit the game. The most important rule for me is also the most subjective. If French infantry pass a morale test with a '1' on the die, then they must charge the nearest Prussian if they can reach it in one turn (two movements). This simulates that the best defensive plans can be ruined by your junior officers!

Finally, Pat seems overly concerned with the effectiveness of cavalry. He admits that the one successful charge against infantry in the test games should not have been as devastating. A study of the Franco-Prussian war will show the many glorious charges by cavalry (mounted, not dismounted) of both sides and how they ended in self-destruction. In one battle the Prussian infantry didn't fire on the French cavalry, but cheered their bravery! This would not have happened had they considered it a threat. A player will not commit cavalry in this manner if he is always allowed to dismount it and use it effectively. They Died For Glory simulates well the futility of the cavalry tactics used in the period. Also, the charge distance for heavy cavalry was misquoted. Since cavalry cannot shoot, they always move twice, giving them double the movement quoted in Pat's review.

That's it for my criticism. They Died For Glory achieves the goal of being as easy to play and realistic simulation of the battles fought during the Franco-Prussian war. At least I wouldn't have wanted to be there! - CLAY SMITH

EDITOR'S NOTES

I received several lengthy rebuttals to Pat's review. They come from proponents of each set of rules, So rather than take up 4 pages with this letters column, I will put them all together for an article next issue - DICK BRYANT

Three Roads to Paris
Rebuttals to Three Roads