LIKES JEFFREY'S BOOK I'd like to briefly comment on Mr Jeffrey's book. After seeing Mr Jeffrey at Origins 82 (attending all his lectures and his wargame demo), I came away deeply impressed. I anxiously awaited his book at the time, and I'm happy to say I was not disappointed. I find it the single most important book to the hobby of wargaming. Yes, it has flaws (sloppy editing; not enough material on cavalry and artillery or light infantry tactics; absolutely nothing about cannister fire); however, these all comparatively minor flaws. The book has answered most of the questions I had always asked (e.g. squares), while at the same time opening me to an entirely new perspective on the era. If one combines Mr Jeffrey's seminars at Origins '82; his article for EE&L "The Fire Power Syndrome", and other contributions to that excellent journal; and, finally his book on Napoleonic tactics; then, one must surely agree that Mr Jeffrey's has contributed more to our hobby in a short period of time than anyone I care to think of. Finally, I eagerly await Mr Jeffrey's rules on the Napoleonic Wars. If you would, could you please tell me when (or about when) his rules will be published? Also, how much will it cost? -JIM MAURO, Applachin, NY Mr Jeffties, VEB (Variable Length Bound) rules are in their fourth rewrite. The problem being how to present such a new approach to gaming in a way that is easily understood, moves smoothly and is eminently playable. The hope (not the goal) is to have them by Christmas 1983. -DICK BRYANT YET MORE ON FORMED VS. UNFORMED In Vol. IV No. 3, George Jeffrey responded to my comments of a few issues before regarding the effects (if any) of a unit being formed on its morale. George originally stated back in III/5, that being formed is a physical, not a mental state, and that there is, accordingly, no reason to award morale points to a unit simply on the basis of its physical state (i.e. whether or not it is formed") By way of clarification, George stated in IV/3 that by "formed" he means "deployed in its natural fashion for "fighting". It seems to me this contradicts what he had said earlier: would not a unit deployed in an unnatural fashion for fighting tend to feel ill at ease, less selfconfident? if so, doesn't the physical state have an affect on the mental? George's example in IV/3 concerned skirmishers and close-order troops: each would feel "formed" when deployed in their proper respective formations. True again, but as I noted above, putting them into strange or unusual formations would weaken their self-confidence; their mental state would be affected by their physical state. Asked for my definition of "formed," I would reply "under control". A unit put into unnatural formation is simply not going to be as much und . er control of its leaders, as anyone who has ever been in a marching band, the military, etc. will attest: too much confusion, too many questions, doubts about whether everyone will do his part properly, etc, In the long run, however, whether or not George and I ever agree on the word "formed", the important thing to bear in mind (it seems to me) is the question of morale in the first place - what affects it, its importance in operations, etc. Toward that end, George's writings have been of major importance to the hobby. Lest anyone mistake our little debate, I want to point out that I consider him one of the foremost thinkers/writers/creators in the hobby today (at least, he will be as soon as he gets all straightened out on formed vs. unformed). Let me close by apologizing for the delay in my reply to his reply, but I moved about the time the Nov. - Dec. issue came out, and it never caught up with me. (I just bought a copy over the counter). Subtle hint to the editor. - CHRIS JOHNSON, Herndon, VA I don't think Chris and I are far apart at all. I too define formed and unformed in terms of control. Control, however, or the lack ofit at one level, is not necessarily detrimental to morale. in my own games, for example, the realeffect of being unformed is that the commander cannot get his orders obeyed until the force is formed again (ie, they can only do one thing at a time). By 'being in their proper formations' I meant formations that they would recognise (eg, column, line or square). I didn't mean 'the right formation for the job' (which is a value judgement only possible after the event). Thus, to me, being 'unformedreally means, in the context of the tactics of the period, being 'between formations' if you like. Now the fact that a unit (say) is temporarily 'uncontrolled' at battalion level while changing formation does not mean that it is not being controlled at a company level (which it is). As an example, take the 42nd at Quatre Bras. in the middle of forming square they were attacked by French cavalry. Unformed, as a battalion, the morale of the soldiers held because (if you like) they were 'formed'at the company level. Not only did their lack of unit formation fail to unsettle them - they formed the square and then sorted out the French cavalry that were in the centre of the square. Had they been less sound troops, they might well have broken while changing formation - but they would have done so whilst 'controlled'by their company commanders. This distinction perhaps is clearer at grand tactical level. Can we seriously consider a brigade, forming line of battle from grand column, morally upset if attacked during the maneouvre? After all, although the brigade is unformed, each battalion is formed, and under the control of its commander. The problem for the brigade commander would be quite simply that the brigade was in a muddle, Neither in one grand formation or another when its deployment was interrupted, he would take time to sort it out. That is what I mea n by'unformed, and I doubt if it really differs from Chris' definition. My example of the Dutch-Belgian battalion at Waterloo showed two things. First, that they were 'formed' in line (and therefore would suffer no moral penalties under most rules) and second that they were very frightened (and so should suffer moral penalty). Finally, may I thank Chris for the spirit ofhis comment. No one, least ofall me, has the prerogative of being right. It is only by contributing our points of view, andpooling our ideas, that we have any hope of understanding the process of war. Personally, I have too many people to thank for their considerate treatment of my own ideas ever to reject someone else's ideas unconsidered, or to take offense because people think seriously enough of my opinions to comment on them.-- GEORGE JEFFREY LOOKING FOR NAPOLEONIC MUSIC Do any of the readers know where onecan buy recordings (record or tape) of French Napoleonic Marches? - TOM SEMIAN, Pgh, PA. If any reader knows ofsuch recordings, please advise THE COURIER and we will print the address of the suppliers. - DICK BRYANT Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. V #1 To Courier List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1984 by The Courier Publishing Company. 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