Once again let me say how much I hope this method of sending things to Hal be e-mail, its of my not being able to include maps. I also hope that putting something together and eng it to Hal as soon as I receive a copy of MWAN will be acceptable. I would also like to low touched I am to see occasional mentions in the letters (as in the comments from Michael G and David North in # 110 which arrived today) of people making use of any rules ideas. Let me emphasize that they are always rules ideas meant to be altered and adapted by one and all in ever way they like. So, to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear when (as I mentioned in the article that appeared in 108) I intended to re-fight the battle of Grenada at the local war-games convention What went wrong (or realistic--if I wanted realism I wouldn't have had a nervous breakdown Gulf of Tonkin--never let realism get in the way of a good game). To re-cap: in 1779 the Admiralty dispatched a fleet under "Foul Weather Jack" Byron to hurt the knavish tricks of the "frogs" in the New World (the French having the temerity to start the rebellion of the ungrateful colonists--doubtless out of King Louis's great love for individual liberty and human rights. Foul Weather Jack had earned his nickname honestly and the fleet was dispersed (some of the ships reinforcing Howe in New York and saving Newport, Rhode Island for the crown) but finally on 6 July of 1779 the (reassembled) British under Byron fought the French fleet (under d'Estang) to action. Byron knew that the French had sailed, but to capture it but he operated under two unfortunate pieces of misinformation--he believed that he outnumbered the French when, in fact they outnumbered him (26 to 21) and he believed that he could defeat the French while the British garrison held out when it had actually dy surrendered. The.basic at-start situation was represented on the table top by one narrow edge being land and having the British fleet enter from the northeast corner with the wind being from the The French fleet was anchored in the southeast corner and the long east edge represented vest shore of Grenada. When John and I re-fought the battle we each commanded a fleet. We both had quite a lot and were busy and active throughout the game. Problem number one at the convention was the British fleet was divided into 3 squadrons and the French divided into four to allow for seven participants. Seven participants is good, but (if the game plays out like a typical historical century sailing ship action) most commanders are not going to have a lot to do. Why? Commanders of rear squadrons rarely got into action at all or if they did they simply ranged long range ineffective fire with the enemy. Historical? Yes! Lots of fun at the convention? Not exactly! So only the leading squadrons ever got into action. That would have been bad enough but is made worse by problem number two--the wind. In one of the late, great Patrick O'Brian's ("The Ionian Mission") the prospect of a great sea battle with the French Toulon fleet is aborted because the wind changes direction. This is disappointing in a novel but much worse at a games convention. If I may digress, as someone who has been gaming for over a quarter of a century, I have had me convinced of the validity of the "Simon one third rule," that is to say, if there is not at a one third chance of something happening, players don't want to bother with it (note that Wally Simon remains a committed devotee of ten sided dice, his own application is more a 30% rule). Similarly, there are some people who, if a chance of something happening is h over two-thirds would rather have it automatic (doubtless gamers in a hurry rather than obsessed with dramatic die tosses). Violations It is true that many sets of rules violate this principle. "As Per Margin" itself has a one in 6 chance of a hit at long range, but a 3rd rate ship of the line will normally be tossing 4 dice the rules are designed for fleet actions, so that a fleet firing at long range has more than a one I chance of having something happen. To take a more extreme case is the age of sail rules "Heart of Oak" by Jon Williams. I admire these rules tremendously and will readily admit that were a great inspiration to me when I was developing my own rules for the period (as were Tony Bath's etc.). For fighting individual ship actions or for a group of players familiar with the rules who want to fight big battle (with a squadron per player) I think they would produce a splendid game. They do, however, frequently violate the "Simon one third rule." For example, a French ship wants to fire Dismantling shot at a target at extreme range: first it must check to see if it sets itself on fire (5% chance), then it sees if it gets a hit (10% - 20% for Dismantling shot means it gets a hit only on a natural 100, which is a critical hit) and if he gets his natural 100 he rolls again, having a 24% chance of bringing down a mast (normally it would be only 4%, but this is the only place where Dismantling shot helps--note that it is still under 30%). Now the ship wants to tack and has a 5% chance of being taken aback--by the way the turn sequence would have begun with a 2% chance of a change in weather--if the wind has risen to a point forbidden by the ship's current sail setting there would be a 10% chance of a mast falling and so on. Let me say again that I really admire these rules, but I would not want to host a fleet action at a convention with players unfamiliar with the system! After this long excursus, what about problem two? Well, using the "Simon one third rule," it seemed that the obvious change of wind direction would be 1 - wind backs 1 point counter-clockwise, 2-5 = no change and 6 = wind veers I point clockwise (wind speed was rolled each turn, thus averaging out to a wind speed of 7). At the convention game of Grenada, the wind direction was all over the place, somehow always preventing ships from getting into action and the speed dropped to a point that made Trafalgar seem like a gale force in comparison. The players were polite to me, but obviously deeply disappointed. Evidently drastic action was called for. Henceforth wind would be checked only every fifteen minutes. In "As per Margin" the first ten turns are 1.5 minutes each, the rest of the turns fifteen minutes each. This allows me to use realistic sailing ship speeds for the beginning of the action and to abide by the universal belief that all the firing of he ships' guns "killed the wind," which device allows for a realistic time to elapse for a fleet action to be fought. This may sound strange, but it works quite well (I basically stole the idea from the first version of John Hill's "Verdun"). Times for wind change checks are easily noted on the turn record card. Stability Next time wind speed would have to be more stable. Both of these points are tricky since there were some historical actions which were decided (Rodney & de Grasse at the Saints) or aborted (Howe and de Guichen off Newport, Rhode Island) by changes in the wind. Sailing ship rules which do not allow, for weather changes are clearly at Lult. Conversely, to have an entire game at a convention aborted by fluky winds does not make for a good game or happy players. What might be desirable in a campaign game between two players is not necessarily a good thing at a convention. Along with this, rather than tossing at the beginning of a game for the speed, a reasonable average speed (based on what was known of the historical action when possible) would be assigned (subject to change according to the regular rules for changes in wind speed). As the disgruntled players (some of whom were good naturedly trying to cheer me up) assisted me in putting away little balsa ships. I promised that "next time" I would do the Battle of the Nile. Before going on to the Battle of the Nile (or Aboukir Bay), let me say a bit more about the campaign between in the Caribbean between Britain and France during the unpleasantness that we parochially refer to as "The American Revolution." Although this was theoretically part of the "The War for American Independence," it was largely a matter of big ships and small landing forces in a colonial amphibious war and the Americans had neither the ships nor men available, nor were they interested in helping France obtain more sugar islands. Spain, the other Bourbon empire. was theoretically a part of it, but she was no more interested than the Americans in helping the French, and was even less interested in helping the American colonies than the French were. Spain was basically interested in kicked Britiain when she was down (what better time could one find?) and preferred to use massive forces to occupy former Spanish territories in Florida and engage in Net another fruitless siege of Gibraltar. A really fine little campaign could be put together for the Caribbean. When the hurricane season arrived, the big ships that required a re-fit returned to Europe and the rest transferred to the American coast. Limiting the British land forces to garrisons for New York, Charleston. and Yorktown (also Newport, Rhode Island--let the British player decide if lie wants to abandon it because he has too few forces to defend it) would keep lani operations to a minimum and make the fleets the key element (as arguably the) in fact were). "As Per Margin" is really designed for fleet actions between the British and French and this campaign probably presents the most balanced situation possible. In the Seven Years War. the French won the first naval action (no ships were lost on either side, but the French kept Minorca and the British executed Admiral Byng) and for the rest of the war the French ships appeared at sea only in flight from British ships in "General Chase." In the Great War from 1793 to 1815 the French fleet was usually blockaded in port and brought to battle as soon as it escaped. Gaming blockades is about as boring as conducting them. What is distinctive about "As Per Margin" is that, unlike most age of sail games, there is no writing of orders. The turn sequence is designed to favor the British unless the French succeed in their tactics--keeping in line and doing so much damage aloft to the British that no close action occurs. This means that the rules are not adaptable to situations where the tactics and skill of the opponents are more equal. But back to promising to do the Battle of the Nile at the next convention. What I had in mind was that there was a lot of action at the Battle of the Nile and I thought that everybody ought to get a chance to do something. In addition, I had lots of information about the battle, there was a manageable number of ships and the French fleet being at anchor meant that very young or inexperienced players could be involved without having too many things to keep in mind. Once again, a trial game seemed to be in order. Back to MWAN #111 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2001 Hal Thinglum 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