Paul provides an example of his system in action. It's 1775 - It's Bunker Hill. Let's game it out 1) The Americans have a force of some 3,000 militiamen. Assuming a ratio of 1 CV in the scenario design per 1,000 of this troop type this gives them a CV of 3 The Americans also have artillery superiority over the British +1 The Americans are dug in behind fixed defenses +2 Total CV =6 2) The British have regulars 2,500 = As they are a mixture of long service veterans and trained professionals, the Scenario rates them as 1CV per 500 men. This gives the Brits an initial CV of 5. 3) The British decide to attack. Howe orders his men to concentrate on one part of the enemy line, bringing the ships of the Royal Navy in Boston Harbour in close to bombard. Once one part of the militia breaks, the rest should flee without firing a shot like the rabble they are! Average argument = giving +2 to the British if successful. 4) General Putnam argues that the British attack bogs down in the same in old manner. Officers are picked off by riflemen, and the British lack the tactical finesse to do any more than press forward in the same old close order manner against fixed defenses. They get nowhere. Strong Argument = giving -1 to the British if successful. Both arguments work! final CV outcome British 6 (=2 and -1) Americans 6 Bunker Hill is a tactical draw, but a strategic American victory as the siege of Boston holds. General Howe can try again however, next turn! Casualties: Casualty base is 2d6, each side loses 3d6% of it's forces. assume 12% each of the lowest side. each side loses 1CV. So, 250 British are killed or wounded and 300 Americans are killed or run away home. Maybe(!) General Howe needs to find a way of fighting the Americans in the open via his next MG argument. That battle would have been British 5 American 4 More if Howe got himself some more cannon. IMHO the outcome of most battles is decided by the balance of forces and strategic situation that leads to the engagement. Get the main MG Arguments right and the Conflict Arguments are secondary! BTW: You'll note I've moved back to the differential CRT, as opposed to a ratio one. This, I think, should depend on the number and strength of units in the game. A scrud type scenario, which usually sees between 5-8 units in a combat, would work best as a ratio game. Games with typically 1-2 units per combat would benfit more from a differential CRT. John Kantor Are you going to handle all battles as a single combat resolution like this and change the size of the units to match - i.e., corps/division for Gettysburg? Or with a battle that large, would you break it down into stages (initial contact, main effort, and disengagement) and/or "battles" (left, right, center)? Marcus Young I agree with John K that without an extra die roll the possibilities are too limited in scope. Just say you were playing the Italians in Paul's example, and you knew you were 3 behind and wanted at shot at victory. You would then have to come up with a Argument that got you at least another +4 to have any chance of winning, so you are likely to attempt a far-fetched strategy just to give yourself a shot at victory. If, however, each side rolls 1D6 and adds it to their combat factor, then the Italians will have some (albeit slim) chance of repulsing the British attack even with no additional modifier. Thus they are more likely to consider a more reasonable +1 or +2 Argument to nudge the odds in their favour, rather than an all-or-nothing mega-Argument with a 1-in-6 chance at best. This will make for a better game, as everything does not turn on whether the inferior force throws a 6. In terms of the casualty system, I would question its utility in game terms in view of the fact that the system is based on units and CVs, rather than men. It would thus be far more meaningful to quote losses in terms of CV points lost, rather than percentage of strength, as the latter is meaningless in systemic terms. Paul writes: 4) General Putnam argues that the British attack bogs down in the same in old manner. Officers are picked off by riflemen, and the British lack the tactical finesse to do any more than press forward in the same old close order manner against fixed defenses. They get nowhere. Bunker Hill is a tactical draw, but a strategic American victory as the siege of Boston holds. General Howe can try again however, next turn! Casualties . Casualty base is 2d6, each side loses 3d6% of it's forces. assume 12% each of the lowest side. each side loses 1CV. So, 250 British are killed or wounded and 300 Americans are killed or run away home. I realize that the above might be intended to apply only to the "refight" of Bunker Hill and not the actual battle itself, but I feel I should make a few comments and demonstrate the possession of Brendan Morrissey's Osprey book on the subject. Actual casualties were evidently in the order of 1,126 dead and wounded on the British side (about a third of the force committed), and 400-600 dead, wounded and captured Americans, with hundreds more deserting to run off home. This the "refight" figures are well below the mark casualty-wise. According to Osprey, the Americans had over 4,000 men on or about Breed's Hill (where the battle actually took place), as the battle went on accumulated this number again on Bunker's Hill, and had more troops still marching up in support. Most of the American frontline was on top of a hill in fortifications. The British had around 3,500 men, and had to act quickly before the Americans brought up their massive reserves and threw the British back into the harbour. Operating in a fairly confined space against a more numerous opponent entrenched on a hill and with the need for a rapid victory, British tactical options were somewhat limited. Even so, the British plans was not to simply to charge up the hill, but involved first operating against Charlestown on the American south flank (successfully) and the rail fence and fortifications on the northern flank (unsuccessfully) whilst making a feint on Breed's hill. A full-scale attack was then organized on Breed's Hill, which was successful. The British achieved entirely their objective of recapturing Charlestown Peninsula, and continued to occupy it with the establishment of a permanent camp after the battle. Although British casualties were high, launching an amphibious assault against superior numbers garrisoning fortified heights is never easy. The Americans were so thoroughly defeated and demoralized that even though their reserves were greater in number than the entire British force and had fortifications on Bunker's Hill, they simply ran away rather than attempt to fight, many not stopping until they had returned home. Charlestown peninsula was thereafter not available to the Americans as an artillery platform. It was the eventual installation of heavy guns on the Dorchester Heights to the south-east of Boston (Charlestown was to the north-west) that ultimately persuaded the British to depart (as the harbour was now of little use to Britain and so Boston was of little use as a base)- it had nothing to do with any non-existent American success at "Bunker Hill". All the Americans had shown in that battle was that they were capable of putting up some sort of a fight provided their numbers were great enough and they were defending fortifications. Chris Engle As the editor of this piece I can take the last word. Paul's method of running a battle seems perfectly fine to me. Battle is a thrilling conflict, that features heavily in most wargames. BUT! Matrix Games allow us to do so much more. Conflict – as a concept – is not just men shooting at one another. It can mean men staring at one another trying to decide if they want to shoot, or people serving in a Mosque business meeting trying to decide how to celebrate Eid el Adha, or a boy asking a girl out on a date, or trying to climb a mountain. It is a broad concept. What I've seen happen to role play games over the years is to fall into the trap of combat. They often end up being elaborate fighting/magic/fencing stolen goods games. The old joke about "Sex in D+D" was just that – a joke. No one felt comfortable role playing a love scene (especially teenage boys!) Matrix Games give more emotional distance so that games can comfortable get into areas of life previously ungamed. So let us cheer Paul on in developing his system but at the same time not lose sight of how much more conflict is. Back to Table of Contents -- Matrix Gamer #24 To Matrix Gamer List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2001 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