AN ALTERNATIVE GAME MECHANISM
If you weigh in the balance the proportion of any set of rules that is devoted to combat compared to the paragraphs covering the constraints on command, you've got to ask if the balance can be right. I guess most wargamers are, like me, most interested in generalship, yet when it comes to the rules we get sucked into writing about shooting and melee to the exclusion of most everything else.
I want to take this opportunity to share with you in very brief outline an alternative approach which is starting to take shape within the Wargame Developments Group in the UK. At WD's 1982 Conference, Andy Callan came up with a game mechanism for the Dark Ages which, with hindsight, inferred that the key activity on the battlefield was not the actual hand to hand combat, but the way the clan leaders psyched up the aggression of their followers and bullied them into some semblance of formation.
I like to think my contribution was to suggest that this insight had potential for other periods, including Horse & Musket (I'm a Seven Year War buff), if one could set aside the stereotyped structure of typical rules based on shooting and melee tables and morale tests. As a result I have spent the last 12 to 18 months working on a set of rules based on this idea which now produce, I believe, very acceptable games both in terms of their period flavor and in terms of playability.
Each battalion/squadron commander has 1 point of leadership, each brigade general 2 or 3, and a division general an average die. The opening rounds ofa game are occupied bringing units up to a sufficient state of readiness for brigade commanders to have the option to advance. This requires each unit to have 5 points of aggression (max 10) and 4 points of cohesion (max 10).
An advancing brigade requires most of its leadership to Offset the loss of cohesion attributed to maneuvering/deploying; a unit will less than 4 points of cohesion stalls.
For the firefight phase, no figures are removed, but units lose points of either aggression or cohesion or strength (the latter factor cannot be offset by spehding leadership points). Trained skirmishers can also cause loss of leadership points. If any of the three factors falls below 2 points then the unit will shuffle back.
The rules are structured so that foot units require a superiority of aggression and horse parity to advance into contact. Melee is decided simply by comparing the points tally of one of the factors: initially this will be aggression, but thereafter it is more likely to be cohesion or strength. Melee winners hold their ground, but all others back off. Rout is automatic if any one of the three factors hits zero. Contact is renewed if either or both sides have the requisite points still in hand to continue advancing.
As will, I hope, be clear, drastically simplified rules for shooting, melee and morale testing are used, whilst on the other hand a problem of record keeping is created. It will be no surprise that I use a PC for the job! I don't always know the true status of my own units and the PC is programmed to play Enemy in solo games and tell me nothing about the enemy units.
in terms of play, I find the approach makes the player largely preoccupied with how to spend the leadership points (on which units, and on aggression versus cohesion) with simplification of the combat rules reinforcing the switch of attention. I tend to believe that wargaming requires a suspension of disbelief that explains the importance of matching rules to one's individual temperament: I hope these ideas will give some Courier readers new food for thought.
THE "CONVENTION MIND"
As a fairly recent subscriber to your august journal I would like to make a few salient observations. The annual "theme" idea, the new section dedicated to skirmish gaming, the perceptive reviews and especially the encouragement given to new games structures and approaches are all excellent. All Good Stuff, I'd say.
Let's look at what's not All Good Stuff, which is the prediliction of much of the wargames world with the "equal points/Paragraph 19 Subsection IV!/Normans against Assyrians/My new trick is-/personally I don't read history books -" ethos. Obviously, The Courier reflects the attitudes and requirements of wargamers at large, but I'm very uncertain as to the wisdom of experienced gamers giving advice on "how your Macedonians can best deal with Teutonic knights gone impetuous", or give judgements on the more tortuous aspects of Mr. Barker's latest effortto defeat those of his readers most bent on distorting what he originally meant. I believe that this hypercompetitive, and only vaguely historical form of wargaming, with its laughable pretence of "seriousness" is really quite dangerous to the development of miniature gaming. The "traditional" table game badly needs new insights and innovation; to straightjacket the hobby into a legalistic form, in which research and historical interpretation are best referred to higher authorities, does not appear likely to encourage either more realistic, or more enjoyable, forms of wargaming.
Let me give two examples of approach to ancient wargaming, since it is with ancients that one tends, to encounter the "convention mind":
1) I own a miniature Late Roman Army. At this period the Romans had developed a flexible tactical system designed to deal with a variety of opponents thrown against the during the Migration Period. The failing population of the Empire resulted in a dangerously high level of recruitment of unreconstructed barbarians, while political decay meant that troops' loyalty was frequently to province or general rather than to the Imperial institution. Thus I'm able, in my wargaming, to explore a variety of features ranging from skirmishes in Pictland to troop mutinies to diplomatic games involving the senate, as well as appropriate "set battles". Any game structure that seems appropriate for a particular topic may be used.
II) I own a miniature Late Roman Army. It's great because the infantry have several different weapons and are good value for the points plus you can deal with most armies, even the Chinese though I did have some problems with a 2,500 point Crusader force last week. Edward Gibbon? Who's he?
Most of us fall somewhere between the two examples, I'm sure. I'd submit that it is the first of these we should aspire to, by working towards a coherent understanding of that it is we are attempting to recreate, and then taking a flexible line in order to best analyze our subject in a game form. The second, however, is what we should discourage; this kind of wargamer is a beginner who has remained so, playing chess-like games of enormous technical complexity and conceptual idiocy. He's no fun to be with either. As long as this kind of argamer is seen as the "standard" wargames hobbyist, a lot of good people will lose interest in military gaming, or prefer to chase Orcs rather than Sarmatians. Which seems a shame.
As you state, the two extremes in the ancients hobby are the "historical" wargamer and the "gamer" wargamer. You have accused The Courier of serving the "hyper-competitive gamer" to the detriment of the "historical" wargamer and the ancients hobby. Let's look at the facts. I took over as Ancient Editor in Vol. V No. 2. That issue's ancient article was by Jim Birdseye, who discussed his novel basing system used in his rules "Blood and Iron". He discussed how his system more accurately reflects historical formations. In Vol. V No. 3 the ancient article was Jim Vidlak's translation of the Latin work "Arrian's Array". That issue also saw the start of Alexander's Tent, an attempt to improve our knowledge of ancient warfare. Vol. V No. 4 contained a nice article on six historical battle formations, complete with original sources. That takes us up to date with this issue. None of these articles fall into the category you have accused us of. You have to go all the way back to Vol. V No. I to find a type of article you were complaining about (Phil Barker using just over two pages to explain some of his rules). In this issue there IS a WRG "gamer" tournament article, and you will see an occasional WRG "gamer" tournament article in these pages because, let's face it, the vast majority of ancient gamers use WRG. They buy the magazine and deserve quality articles in their area of interest. And one WRG article every three or four issues does not seem too extreme to me. It all depends upon your perspective. The Courier has, and will continue to endeavor to strike a balance between the extremes. - KRUSE SMITH, Ancient Editor.
CONVENTION FEES
Having run a few local conventions (7+) and worked on one major one I feel I have a bit more insight into what it takes to run or work a convention than most gamers. I cannot speak for all conventions but in most cases any advance fee paid to the convention by a gamemaster is returned once the event is run or cancelled legally. This is only a deposit to insure that the gamemaster or host shows up to run his or her event.
Most conventions require the gamemaster to register like everyone else because he is collecting a game fee from the players. This fee is usually enough to cover basic operations costs and possibly any damage to their equipment.
Many people feel that the people MAKING IT at the conventions are the manufacturer, or the host group. This usually isn't the case. Generally speaking the group making out is YOU!!
Sorry Chris, but I can't agree with you on this one! It's one thing to expect a boardgame organizer or role-play game organizer to make back his entry fee & advance fee. He will have event's with 20x players, each paying $3-5 to enter (some of these events have 150-200 players in them at $5 per head!). He can even tell these players to bring their own games! Little or no expense to him. Compare this to the miniature event organizer who can handle only 6-8 players in his event and must supply all of the figures (not considering Ancient tournaments, e(c.). Many conventions (Atianticon, for one) want him toput on 3-4 games so he can handle a total of 24-32 players. That's OK but they want him to put up 3X or 4X the "honesty fee" which in this case would have been $120-$160. Do you want to pay a convention $160 to help them be better even if you get more back? The "host group" of a recent East Coast convention split a profit of $50,000 or more I am told by people who should know. They do a lot of work & deserve what they can get but not at the expense of the game organizer without whom they would not have a gaming convention - only a dealer convention. - DICK BRYANT
MORE NAPOLEONIC MUSIC
One (source) in Paris (is) Les I nvalides. It is Vol. 1 "Marches et Refrains de l'Amee Francaise - La Monarchie - La Revolution - L'Empire." This cassette is also in the Catalogue: Disques Serp, 6, Rue de Beaune, 75007 Paris. It contains Ca IRA, Chant do Depart, Marche de la Garde a Waterloo and 28 more.
Two U.S.A. records are "Marches Militaires Francaises" VOX-STPL 513.270 and "French Military
Marches" Olympic-6131
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. V #5
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