Your friendly editor, Mr. Bryant, requested that I jot down some thoughts on generating wargame rules. In the pages of the PW Review, I’ve jotted down many such thoughts, and my efforts focus mainly on gaming sequences and movement mechanisms. In other words, I concentrate on the gaming system; my desire is to produce a game which keeps all players continually busy and interested in what’s going on. Are these games “historically realistic”? Certainly not! Are any miniature table-top games “historically realistic”? You’ve got to be kidding! Despite the magnificently painted uniforms of your Napoleonic Cuirassiers, or the good-looking painted shields of your Athenian hoplites, as soon as you start tossing 6-sided or 10-sided or 20-sided dice to determine combat outcomes, or command factors, or unit morale level, then, as far as I’m concerned, you’re in la-la land. About the best you can do is to mimic the battlefield results of history. When a unit takes sufficient casualties, odds are that it’ll retreat. What odds? When your English Civil War cavalry contact a formed enemy infantry pike unit, odds are that the cavalry will get beaten off. What odds? And when your Napoleonic 9-pounders fire cannister into a square, odds are that it’ll cause much more damage than when firing ball into a line of infantry. What odds? How much more damage? From the above, you can see that I’ve a much jaundiced view of “historically realistic” rules sets. The tables and charts that I generate for my rules sets will set up different probabilities and odds factors than those set up by other gamers. In general, all the rules sets will ‘go with the flow’, i,e., the statistically expected results will occur in statistically expected fashion, but your statistics are not my statistics, and so, don’t shout “historically realistic” too many times when you’re near me. With the above as a preamble, let’s get down to business… let’s discuss sequences. As I stated above, my basic goal is to keep the participants busy… keep them moving their troops… allow lots of opportunities for fire and movement. No one should be penalized by having to sit and wait and wait and wait at table-side until his units are called into action via the sequence. When you gin up a sequence, you have the option of selecting a move-and-fire system, or a fire-and-move system. If you choose the move-and-fire sequence, this, in effect, extends the weapon range of the troops on the table… by moving up before firing, their weaponry can cover that much more territory. For smaller scale tactical games, I’d go for the move-first-then-fire sequence. For larger scale games, involving battalions and brigades, I’d opt for the fire-first and-then-move system. And note that these phases do not have to be assigned to only one side. The actions of the sides can be interspersed with one another. You can have Side A move, then Side B fire, or, perhaps, simulataneous fire by both sides, or have artillery fire first, then small arms… there’s no end to the permutations involved. Formalized sequences Look at the basic boardgame sequence a Side A move b Resolve combat from Side A’s movement c Switch sides In this sequence, Side A moves up, and, shouting “I gotcha!”, smashes into Side B without any response from B. Side B simply waits, and gets his licks in when he becomes active... if he survives. I term this a “gotcha!” sequence. I’ve seen this type of sequence still used in a couple of current rules sets. In the early seventies, when I broke into wargaming, my favorite sequence was the simple a Side A move b Side B fire c Resolve melee resulting from Side A’s movement d Switch sides Here, Side B has a response… he can attempt to drive Side A off by firing. But note that Side A still maintains a “gotcha!… on his movement phase, he can move up to B, and place as many men or stands or units as possible into contact in readiness for the melee phase, and B is powerless to prevent it. I’ve heard it said that the above A-move/B-fire sequence “discourages aggression”. Why move up when you know you’ll instantly be potted? I’ve tried out the system in both ways (A-move/B-fire and A-fire/B-move) and, in truth, at table-side, there doesn’t seem to be any difference. The players lose themselves in the tactical situation, and aren’t too interested in how the sequence runs. What they are interested in is how fast up the field they can run their troops. There are a couple of popular, current rules sets which add yet another phase to the “gotcha” system. Here’s the 5-phase sequence for the half-turn. a Side A move b Side B fire c Side A fire d Resolve melee resulting from Side A’s movement e Switch sides Note this is a sequence employing A-move [phase (a)]/ B-fire [phase (c)] which works well for the battalion or brigade level game. But it’s still a “gotcha!” sequence. It should be noted that the series of DBX games employs just this type of “gotcha!” sequence. And I’ve never stopped wondering how grown men could assert that this type of sequence provides the ultimate in “historical reality”. The above sequence is the one used in the American Civil War set Fire And Fury (FAF), and for years, I’ve maintained that not only is this a “gotcha!”, but that the phasing employed in this sequence is completely inappropriate for a set of rules purporting to cover the horse and musket era. My reasoning stems from a look at the time span of the turn. FAF’s complete turn, which encompasses two cycles, 10 phases, of the above listing, is stated as being in the order of 30 minutes. In the horse and musket period, preparing a musket for firing was a time consuming effort. Each man in a unit had to load powder, tamp, load ball, tamp, prime, and fire. A unit that is advancing must spend most of the time during the turn in simply moving up… it can not devote as much time to the firing procedures as can a unit emplaced in a static, defensive position. In other words, if you move, you have fewer opportunities to fire… and this is exactly what the above sequence does not portray. Instead, it allows both sides the same amount of fire power during the half-hour turn… they both fire at full effect on both halves of the turn, regardless of whether they’re emplaced or moving forward. Alas! It is my sad duty to relate that Napoleon’s Battles (NB) also has a half-hour turn, and it also uses the FAF sequence as listed above. During the time span of the turn, all units have equal fire power. That old standby, Column, Line and Square, tried to implement a simple solution to this problem. Each infantry unit was given two operations, or actions during the turn. It could move up 6 inches on both actions for a distance of 12 inches, or it could use one action for a 6 inch move and use the other for firing. Which meant that during the span of the turn, if a unit fired, it could not advance as rapidly as a unit that did nothing but move up. But this solved only half the problem. An emplaced unit still was permitted to fire with only one of its two actions. Which meant that the sequence, while slowing down the firing/advancing unit, still provided both sides with equal fire power. The CLS solution is a linear one - move-twice, or move-half-and-fire. But there doesn’t have to be a linear relation between moving and firing, as long as the fire power of an advancing unit is lessened when contrasted with that of a static one. But how much is “less”? Here is where I again resort to stating that my charts and factors in reducing fire power will be different from yours… but, at the least, they’ll both contain provision for a reduced impact on the enemy. My proposed solution for a sequence applicable to the horse and musket era is to give the active side a number of “actions”, wherein each action permits him to either fire a volley or move a certain distance. In other words, in the first phase (a) of the above sequence, Side A receives, say, three actions. If he’s advancing, he can move up for all three actions, while, if he wants to have a wee bit of cover fire, he can advance for two of his actions and fire for one. The point is that he must sacrifice fire power for movement. Contrast this with the response of Side B, who is emplaced in works, and has no need to move. When he becomes the active side and receives his three actions, he can whang away at the opposition… he’s got the maximum amount of fire power. Way back when, Avalon Hill had a sequence (introduced around the time that Panzerblitz appeared). This was also used in the sci-fi game, Ogre a Side A move b Side A fire c Side A move mobile units d Switch sides This made mobile units (tanks) more powerful and enabled an “over run” phase to be added in, but note that the sequence was still a “gotcha!” one… poor Side B had no response to Side A’s actions. Of late, my own sequences have contained the following 7 phases for the half turn. a Side A moves all units b Side B fires c Resolve melee stemming from Side A’s movement d Side B moves mobile units only e Side A has “opportunity fire” f Resolve melee resulting from Side B’s mobile unit movement g Switch sides In the first phase (a), Side A moves all his units… whether foot or cavalry or tanks or armored cars… a set distance. For my gaming purposes, I use a set distance of 10 inches. But if all units move the same on this first phase, we’ve got to give Side A’s cavalry or tanks or armored cars another phase during which they can outdistance the infantry. This is done when his opponent becomes active on the second half of the turn. It’s on this half of the turn that Side A switches and becomes Side B, and it’s here on the fourth phase (d) that his “mobile units”, i.e., his cavalry or his tanks or his armored cars, will gain their additional movement distance. In effect, the mobile units have a split move, allowing them to react to the opposition’s actions. Note that splitting the movement of the mobile units as I do (in my 7 phase listing), can still lead to a “gotcha!” effect. When Side B’s mobile units close to contact on the fourth phase (d), the opposition is caught flatfooted and needs to have some sort of response. This is what the fifth phase, (e) provides. Side A is given a limited amount of firing to defend himself. I term this “opportunity fire”, because not all of Side A’s units can open up and blast away, as was permitted Side B in the second phase, (b). One of the methods that I use to provide limited fire power is to use a “clock die”. Side A selects his first unit to fire, does so, and tosses a 10-sided die. This toss is his “clock number”. He selects a second unit to fire, does so, and tosses the clock die a second time. Each time he fires, he keeps accumulating and adding his clock numbers until the total equals 12 or more. When he reaches this point, this is the last unit permitted to fire. What’s interesting about this system is that while Side A is guaranteed to be able to have two units fire (you need at least two tosses of a 10-sided die to reach a total of 12), if he’s really lucky, by tossing a series of low numbers, i.e., “1’s” and “2’s”, he can blast away with a number of units… and neither side knows in advance how many. Now let’s look at “emergency responses”… opportunities outside the normal range of the sequence to give a side the capability to respond to the opponent’s actions, i.e., to fight back against a “gotcha!”. NB does this rather neatly, providing two “out of sequence” opportunities. First, during your half of the turn, when you are the active player, you may hold your cavalry back, marking them with a reaction chitty. Then, on the second half of the turn, when your opponent is the active side, you can have your reacting cavalry charge out as desired. A second emergency “out of sequence” response provided by NB permits infantry units, anytime they are contacted by enemy cavalry, to toss a die to see if they can form square. Another set of rules, Howard Whitehouse’s Science Verses Pluck, deals with the British colonial era and permits British troops to react, that is, to attempt to react, whenever native units materialize out of the sand dunes and charge in. The Brits can form square and fire. To my mind, the above described reaction capability doesn’t go far enough. If infantry can attempt to react to a charging cavalry unit by forming square, and the Brits can react to native units bursting in on them, why restrict an emergency response to these two instances? For example, if, in NB, the cavalry charge in, and the enemy infantry, in their “emergency mode”, form square, why can’t the cavalry commander, also suddenly faced with an emergency, be allowed to try and abort his charge? Similarly, if a unit in column of route along a road is suddenly attacked on the flank, why not permit the column commander to attempt to form up and fire before contact? If I were the column commander, I’d certainly consider this an “emergency”. In other words, why not enable a side faced with an emergency… any “emergency”… to attempt to react? The standard answer is that, if we did so, we’d have no more flank attacks, no more advantages, no more surprises. But, having asked the question, let me offer my own solution. I permit a limited number of “emergency responses”, i.e., a limited number of out of sequence reactions, within the turn, to both sides. The opposing commanders can individually define their own “emergencies” and react accordingly… but, since the number of responses is limited, they can’t be too free with their reactions. Each side is provided with, say, three Reaction Points (RP) for the turn. The RP provide a sort of “local initiative” to a unit commander… they permit him to respond in an out of sequence fashion when he deems himself in trouble. If, for example, one side’s infantry unit, now in line formation, is suddenly being charged by enemy cavalry, a player may do the following: a. He allocates one of his RP to the situation, indicating that he’s sending an emergency order to the infantry commander... the adjutant rides out, or the radio message goes out over the aether, or the courier is on his way, etc. The player now has two RP left. b. Having sent the order, did it arrive successfully? The chance to do so is 80 percent… a toss of percentage dice of 80 or under says the order was received and can be acted on. And the infantry unit forms square. c. If the 80 percent toss was failed, i.e., the order never arrived, another order can be sent out… a second RP can be devoted to the situation. I permit a maximum of two orders to a unit per phase… there’s only so much a player can do to help out his units. And note the player, because of this second order, is down to only a single RP. d. The cavalry commander, suddenly faced with charging a square, can now allocate his own RP to attempt to abort the charge. The interplay of RP occurs anywhere within the turn, as long as the players have RP in their inventory. If a player decides, in mid-sequence, to suddenly call on one of his infantry units to issue a volley, it is perfectly permissible to do so. What the player has done, in effect, is to declare his own emergency, and, in a sense, by using up an RP, has penalized his side when and if a true emergency appears. On occasion, the half turn can be expanded to devote an entire phase to the use of RP. Here’s my previously listed 7-phase sequence, expanded to 9 phases. a Side A moves all units b Side B fires c Reaction cycle d Resolve melee stemming from Side A’s movement e Side B moves mobile units only f Side A has “opportunity fire” g Reaction cycle h Resolve melee resulting from Side B’s mobile unit movement i Switch sides This sequence inserts two separate phases, (c) and (g), solely for the use of RP. Each phase contains a “reaction cycle”… first one side uses an RP, then the other, until neither wants to use his RP. Perhaps a side has run out of RP, or perhaps, he wants to save an RP for a subsequent phase. Note that the RP phases occur just before the resolution of melee. This permits a unit to attempt to respond to an emergency situation produced by an opponent’s move. And it must be noted that RP are, in essence, a “bonus” for a player… he should be forced to decide where and when he wants to use them, and allocate them only to critical situations. In some of my rules sets, I’ve gone hog-wild and overdone the RP… provided too many of them… and the presence of an overabundance of RP completely negates the reason for their existence. There should always be too few of them. On occasion, I’ve introduced even more phases within the half-turn than the above listed eight phases of (a) through (h). Phases for supply, for administration, for casualty evaluation, and so on. The problem here, though, is that there are only so many reaction and response and movement and firing and miscellaneous phases that can be introduced before the game slows down. Remember my initial comments on the necessity of keeping the players busy, and their units moving. When ginning up a formalized sequence such as the above, bear in mind that keeping the participants busy is prime. Now, let’s look at some not-so-formalized sequences… those implemented using cards to govern unit movement. Card Sequences These are sequences that, in part, take control of the player’s units out of his hands. The first of these appeared in the 1980’s, when the British colonial effort, THE SWORD AND THE FLAME, introduced the use of a 52-card deck. Pull a card, and if it’s red, one British unit moves… if it’s black, one native unit moves. After all the units moved, the same type of draw was used for the firing phase… a red card permitted a British unit to fire, while a black card let a native unit fire. And after all the firing routines were completed, melee resolution began. This proved an instant success with wargamers… as the cards were drawn, since the cards did not refer to specific units, any red card could be used to have a British unit respond to a threat. And then some authors, thinking that if a little bit of a good thing was good, then a lot of it would be wonderful, set up card-governed sequences in which each unit was listed on a card, all the cards of both sides placed in a single deck, and only when its specific card was drawn, could a unit act. Desperado, Age Of Reason, Battleground, Pig Wars, Brother Against Brother, and On To Richmond come to mind. I’ve participated in games with these rules, and there seems to be little emphasis on “doing” and a lot of emphasis on “waiting”. Much of the participants’ time is spent in waiting for their unit’s card to be drawn, then, when it finally appears, pushing their troops forward a wee bit, and then settling back at table-side, waiting and waiting and waiting for their unit to become active again. For one-on-one presentations, this type of single deck sequence is fine. The solo player on each side always has something to do. For a multi-player game, the single deck sequence has always appeared inappropriate to me. In essence, the single deck sequence is a “gotcha!” one. A lucky run of the cards will permit one side to run circles around the opposition, while the poor guy has no response. I realize that if one side has a run of cards, that later on in the card draws, the other side may get his own run of cards. But to me, the existence of two silly instances doesn’t justify the existence of either. My own approach to the card sequence, when specific units are to be listed on each card, is to give each side its own deck, and let the cards be drawn alternately. In this manner, each side is assured of a response every other card. It may not be the response he wants, i.e., the unit he desires, but at least one of his units will move and fire. And I must note that I don’t use this type of unit-listing-per-card with multi-player games. For one-on-one games, it’s fine, as both sides continually keep busy. For multi-player games, it produces too “lurchy” a sequence for two reasons… first, one player moves a unit, then another player moves a unit, and then another, and all the while, the majority of the participants simply sit there and wait. Remember, “lurchy” is okay for one-on-one play, or solo games, while it’s not so hot for multi-player setups. Another problem I’ve seen with these specific-unit card decks, is that some of the rules sets allow a “gotcha!” situation. The listed unit moves, and the opponent simply stands there. For example, Battleground allows a unit to move and contact an enemy unit, and the close assault phase is resolved instantly… there’s no provision for the enemy to react… he’s at the mercy of the active side. In one Battleground game in which I participated, when my unit’s card was drawn, I moved all my men up for hand-to-hand combat, and managed to surround and contact one poor unfortunate enemy figure with 5 of my own men. Alas! The umpire took pity on the poor fellow, and only permitted me a 3-on-1 “gotcha!” The same situation exists for PIG WARS… simply surround and overpower the helpless enemy. One final note on the 2-deck, alternate-draw card system. If, say, both sides have 9 units, then both sides have a 9-card deck, one card for each unit. But what happens if Side A has 7 units, while Side B has only 5? Here, I’d give Side B 2 “buffer cards”… a buffer can simply be a blank card for Side B… he’s penalized by not being able to move anyone. Another type of buffer is a card applying to both sides… perhaps a supply card, permitting both A and B to bring up supplies, or a reinforcement card, permitting both to bring in reserves. Out-of-the-ordinary Sequences Cross Fire (CF) appeared some years ago, and I thought that this was one of the most innovative sequences ever crafted for a wargame. CF is an initiative game, in which one side, call it Side A, moves its units until the opposition, Side B, calls out “I can see you!”, and attempts to take a pot shot at Side A’s moving unit. If Side B is not successful, Side A continues to move. If Side B is successful, then he begins moving his own units until Side A is able to call out “I can see you!” and fires. There are no defined movement distances… a side can continue to move a unit indefinitely until the loss of initiative occurs. Firing ranges are also unrestricited. At some point during Side A’s initiative, instead of moving, he can attempt to fire at one of Side B’s units. If he’s successful, he keeps the initiative, but if he fails, the initiative passes to Side B. The CF sequence works great for one-on-one games, but it becomes awkward to implement for multi-player games. For example, if there are three players on Side A, and they have the initiative, and each moves a unit, and one of the units gets hit, do all three players lose initiative simultaneously, so that it passes to the opposition? Or does only one of the three lose initiative? I’ve tried it both ways… and been unhappy with both results. CF is a skirmish game, and I’ve also tried to upgrade it to a large unit game, with no success. One of the key parameters in the success of the CF skirmish system is the fact that movement distances are unlimited. But with larger scale games, say, with battalions, it makes no sense to permit a battalion or a brigade to continue to dash all over the field until its side loses the initiative. One of my friends developed a WW2 game he calls Sturm, a “reaction” game. Basically, the Sturm sequence allows the active side, Side A, to move and fire all of his units, after which, Side B moves and fires all of his units. But it’s far from a “gotcha!” game. Sturm uses a “reaction deck”, one of whose cards are drawn whenever one side does something to “stimulate” or provoke the enemy. Four specific instances are listed: Side A close assaults Side B Side A fires on Side B One of Side A’s units moves within 15 inches of one of Side B’s units One of Side B’s units, within 10 inches of one of Side A’s units, retreats In each of the above cases, Side B is the “stimulated” side, and the card that is drawn lists several responses for the affected unit. It may fire, it may hold, it may advance, it may fall back. Sturm grades units into “crack”, “regular” and “green” - and the card listings reflect the appropriate response of each of the grades - a crack unit will, most of the time, fire, and rarely fall back, while a green unit will not want to trade fire with the enemy. What makes Sturm shine is that the reaction sequence doesn’t end there, with the draw of a single card. It continues until one of the units breaks off the encounter. What develops is a series of fire fights as the active side moves and fires. For example, if Side A is the active side, moving and firing his units, consider an infantry unit of Side A’s, that fires on one of Side B’s infantry units: a. A’s infantry starts the sequence out by firing. b. Having been fired upon, B’s infantry draws a card to determine its reaction. Assume it returns fire. c. But now, A’s infantry, having been fired on, draws its own card. Assume the card mandates that it fires back. d. Back to B’s infantry, which, having been fired on for a second time, draws a card. Assume the card states that B’s unit will again return fire. e. Once again, A’s unit, having been fired on, draws a card. Assume the card says that A’s unit will hold. f. The fire fight is over, and Side A continues to move or fire the remainder of his units. Each move or fire may trigger even more responses from Side B During these exchanges, each unit takes casualties, evidenced by placing casualty figures beside them, or plopping those wonderful casualty caps (yuch!) on them, or simply recording losses on the unit data sheets. The reaction sequence is not endless. Sturm permits a unit to respond or return fire three times during one exchange of fire, i.e., draw a card a maximum of three times - if there’s a fourth impact, the unit must withdraw. Note that the Sturm action-reaction sequence produces all sorts of interaction between the units on the field. Not a “gotcha!” to be seen! During Side’s A’s active phase, his actions can produce all sorts of responses from Side B. And thereby, unfortunately, lies the weakness of the Sturm sequence. Simply put, there’s too much going on on the field. For a one-on-one game, Sturm is excellent. It falls apart for a multi-player game - there are too many unit-on-unit responses across the battlefield, it’s hard to track them all. Another out-of-the-ordinary sequence involves Piquet (PQ), which uses a card-governed system. To me, as it is played, PQ is equivalent to one of the waiting-waiting-waiting games I mentioned in the discussion on card sequences. In short, as played, it’s not one of my favorite games. But, in the same light, the potential for the PQ system as derived is unbounded. PQ gives each side an “action” deck of some 30 cards. There may be three “infantry move” cards, an “artillery reload” card, several “cavalry move” cards, a “resolve melee” card, and a lot of “straighten your lines” cards, and a buncha others. Each side tosses a 20-sided die. If Side A’s die is a 16, while B’s die is a 7, then Side A gets the difference in points and gets to draw 16-7, or 9 of its cards. Side A turns up his first card… if it’s “infantry move”, he can designate a unit and move it, but this costs him an additional point. Each infantry unit he moves under the auspices of the card costs him a point. Which means that he can’t really enjoy all of his 9 original points. When Side A is finished, the 20-sided dice are tossed again, and the high toss receives the difference in points and can start drawing cards. But note the weakness of the PQ system: a. One side, via a series of lucky tosses, can continually win the initiative and keep on drawing cards. His opponent can do nothing… he can be “gotchad!’ to death. b. I term the “action” deck an “inert action” deck because of the distribution of the cards. There are, it seems to me, too many non-action, comparitively useless, cards… “straighten your lines”, “deploy”, and so on, and too few actual move cards. The combination of (a) and (b) above go against my primary goal of keeping the players busy and their units moving. I’ve thought that if PQ simply switched initiative each turn, it would make for a “better” game. Thus, have Side A toss a die for his initiative points, and then have Side B toss for his. That way, a side would be ensured of getting to move some troops each half turn. And note that I placed the word “better” in quotes. My “better” is not the PQ advocate’s “better”. PQ supporters say that their sequence reproduces a true “fog of war”. Neither side knows who is to move, or who will win the initiative, or how many troops will move. I can’t argue the “fogginess” aspect, but having sat in on, and witnessed, around a dozen PQ games, I’ve seen too many gamers sitting idly at table-side, waiting to move troops, all the while, of course, thoroughly enjoying the “fog of war” aspect immensely. To my mind, as played, PQ’s waiting-waiting-waiting sequence is not an enjoyable one. I’ve always thought that card-driven sequences provided excellent vehicles for orienting a scenario or a set of rules to specific goals. Cards can be inserted in the decks for a variety of circumstances - a given card can state that a unit may move an additional 5 inches, or fire twice, or that a player can point to an enemy unit and have it undergo a morale test. Another type of out-of-the-ordinary sequence is to intersperse card draws with formal movement. For example, within the turn, after the active side, Side A, moves, then draw a card for some sort of special action or function. The card can apply to Side A only, or to Side B, or to both of the sides. It can provide for additional movement, for supplies being brought up, for an artillery barrage, for reserves to appear, and so on. Once the function listed on the special card is completed, it’s now Side B’s turn to move in the formal sequence, and after he’s finished, another special action card is drawn. And in Conclusion I prefer, when at all possible, to use card-governed movement systems, because of the surprise factor (fog of war?) produced by the random draws. Unfortunately, most of the time, when dealing with a multi-player set-up, this precludes use of the cards. Why? Because of two reasons, first the “lurchiness” aspect, and second, the “gotcha!” result. In general, when ginning up a sequence for multi-player participation, I will go to all lengths to avoid “lurchy” systems, i.e., first one side moves a unit, then the other side moves a unit, then the first side moves another unit, and so on. The “move-one-unit-at-a-time” sequence is excellent for both solo play and for one-on-one play, but with a lot of participants at table side, the sequence should provide for all of ‘em to keep pushing their troops up the field, and this type of system produces the very opposite. Most of my current multi-player rules use the “split move” formal sequence I described previously, one in which a side’s mobile units get their additional move sometime during the opponent’s half of the turn. Years ago, Ned Zuparko wrote an article in which he described what I term the “still photograph” aspect of wargames. At the end of a movement phase, we take a snap shot, we stop all motion, and pause to permit opposing units to fire or resolve melee. But this “pause” isn’t really a pause in terms of what’s really going on on the table-top. The visual presentation may seem to tell us that my unit is coming in on the flank of your unit… but, in truth, your unit commander is preparing his unit to adjust and receive the flank attack. The pause is solely for our, the players’, convenience, and we stop the action to let us reference our charts and firing tables. Unfortunately, when the action stopped, it appeared as if your commander was caught unawares… and so, the poor guy, and his unit, suffers. That’s why I’m an advocate of the reaction system - some sort of sequence to let the little people on the table respond and react to the situation at hand. Back to Table of Contents -- Courier #87 To Courier List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2003 by The Courier Publishing Company. This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com