Sam's article makes a proposal on how to mesh MGs and Miniatures. It suggests that the two types of games can aid one another. If this happened what would such a game look like? Here is one possibility. Sam suggests that the game could be used to cover situations like "opportunity fire." This seems like a good problem to model a system on. Another situation where standard rules often don't work is in night battles. Either case involves an "absolute" like "If I see you I can shoot you." So the real challenge of the soldier is to "not be seen." It is amazing how easy It Is to not see something that is right in front of one's face. How often do history books talk about well trained armies that were "surprised" by enemies. Some troops, like commandos, base their whole attack tactics on surprise. But this doesn't always work out, and when it doesn't, heavy loses are sustained. An MG can be used to resolve these type of situations without a ton of new or special rules. The "God save us from the Fury of the Northmen" PBM did just that. The Vikings were landing in England. The Saxons could not make a move to meet them until the Vikings were ashore and word had gotten out about it. It seems reasonable that the exact same procedure could be used for a Napoleonic game. ACTION: The Highlanders march up the hill with their bagpipes bellowing. RESULT: The Frogs don't see the cavalry charging on their flank, because 1. The Highlanders are a loud and noisy target. 2. If they are not stopped the Highlanders will over run them. 3. The smoke of the cannon conceals the cavalry. To which the French player might counter argue ... ACTION: Yes, the Highlanders advance. RESULT: But ... the artillerists are able to swing one gun around to fire at the charging cavalry. Because... 1. Cavalry on flanks are as dangerous to survival as the Highlanders. 2. The French soldiers are seasoned veterans. 3. They will try to stop both attacks. A few short die rolls later, and the question of whither the French battery is surprised is resolved. Now absolutes on fire casualties can come into play. Standard rules on morale and fighting could best handle the next part, but if one wanted it could all be resolved by arguments. I ran a battle like the one described above in 1988. The game was a replay of Admiral Nelson's attack on the Canary Islands (the battle that he lost his leg iIn). The crux of the battle was for the British to get ashore without being seen. This was done by making arguments that the various critical actions of the advance (like manning the long boats, etc.) happened. The Spanish side could not argue for anything but regular troop movements until the British were spotted. BUT the Spanish could make arguments that caused the British headaches. 2000 Sailors and Marines stand ready to man the boats. Yes, and they are accidentally give straight rum rather than grog (so they are drunk) The Landing party mans the boats and head to shore. Yes, and they make a lot of noise (because they are drunk) and get heard by the fort guard. The game ended in a British loss, but in the last argument of the game Nelson opted to retreat rather than try again the next night. In the historical battle he tried again the next night and ended up losing a leg and the battle. Sam's idea seems to fit with my idea pretty well and could produce some interesting games. So what would It look like? First of all it is unnecessary for the matrix to cover every possible event. Matrix arguments might best serve miniatures games by resolving highly unpredictable human factor problems like: 1. fighting, 2. morale checks, 3. desertion, 4. and the condition of troops after a long march or siege. It would still be useful to have the "absolute" matrix that Sam talks of to resolve such Issues as marching speeds, rates of fire, and casualties (le when do you need to make a morale matrix argument). Sam uses a form of "absolute" matrix in his "Battle Group" game. The information is placed down on cards that look at only one type of vehicle. Each card holds a matrix of numbers that tell exactly how a unit/vehicle will work. As such Sam's focus has been on how each vehicle differs. Thus it follows that he would think to make a matrix for each type of troop. This may be the way to go but there are also other possibilities. Since the one common factor about actions in war is that humans do them, then a matrix to resolve certain critical issues needs to mainly deal with humans and how they work. As Sam correctly pointed out, a gun may kill anything It "sees" but if the crew fail to see, then they can not kill. It might be just as effective to have a matrix that handles each critical issue. These need not be big matrixes. They need only to give basic ideas why things happen and some clear results of success and failure (that can possibly be used as system shift to change the "absolute" matrix that will mechanically resolve the situation). Since the one common factor about actions in war 15 that humans do them, then a matrix to resolve certain critical Issues needs to mainly deal with humans arid how they work. As Sam correctly pointed out, a gun may kill anything It "sees" but if the crew fall to see, then they can not kill. It might be just as effective to have a matrix that handles each critical issue. These need not be big matrixes. They need only to give basic reasons why things happen and some clear results of success and failure (that can possibly be used as system shift to change the "absolute" matrix that will mechanically resolve the situation). A game that was built like this would consist of a number of "absolute" matrix cards. These would spell out how to mechanically resolve combats (what Calum Delany called prescriptive rules). The game would also have a number of verbal matrixes that would be used to resolve specific Issues like morale checks, gaining surprise, etc. (which could be more of a descriptive set of procedures since It requires there to be reasons for an action to happen). The game would be run very much like a normal miniatures game with the exception of the arguments being made. My guess is that these type of rules would make for highly unpredictable results. It sounds fun. I get the sense that Sam and I are looking at this problem in different ways but I would bet that if the two of them were meshed together, it might produce a neat game. If you have any ideas on Sam's or my article work them up and write in. There is a lot of potential development here. Back to Experimental Games Group # 11 Table of Contents Back to Experimental Games Group List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1991 by Chris Engle 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