As a follow-on to the previous article [MWAN 127], I can claim, with one magnificent sweep, to have materially improved the quality of my entire collection of 15mm SYW figures. This happy state of affairs has been brought about by the relatively simple expedient of withdrawing all of those figures painted by your acryllically challenged author. The entire army lists have been decimated, none more so than the Austrian Cuirassiers, who lost eight out of thirteen regiments. I have said it before, and I will say it again, albeit through tightly gritted teeth: enthusiasm is no substitute for talent.
If I may digress for a moment, in the midst of all the depressing action regarding headcount, I must confess to being sorely tempted to 'double-up' on the use of generals, certainly until the `urgent' units are replaced. At present, I already have lots of beautifully painted and based Essex and Old Glory generals, all of whom will no doubt be delighted to be brought into action, even if circumstances dictate that this action is under a nom-de-guerre.
Digression over, and back to the main thread of the topic. I have stated that large bodies of troops have been withdrawn from my army lists. They have not, however, been physically removed from their storage boxes so, for the time being, I can postpone further heartache in the matter of how to dispose of them in the most cost-effective manner. The reason for keeping them in place is purely to do with keeping the unit space allocation, and has nothing to do with the scurrilous rumor that I just can't bear to part with them. I do hugely enjoy making up new configurations of armies, with the accompanying research, and the upside of this exercise is affording massive opportunities in this regard. I will, no doubt, be returning to this subject in the future but, for the moment, let us move on to other matters.
As I write, I have not yet seen a copy of the `new' publication, so I can only wish our new Editor every success with the project and add my thanks and best wishes to what I am sure is a flood of tributes to Hal. It is certainly not an original observation that he is a thoroughly nice man, already too rare a commodity, who has given of himself in full measure to our hobby. There is a lot more I could say on this subject, but it begins to read like an obituary and, thankfully, Hal is very much still with us and long may this happy state of affairs continue.
As a result of a recent conversation, I was asked to explain the mechanics of solo wargaming in the Seven Years War period. The question was actually phrased in terms of, did I not get bored or tired by moving up to thirty units a side as two lines inexorably approached one another?
Addressing the issue of tiredness first, the situation is not as bad as it may appear since one side or the other usually finds an acceptable defensible site and ceases its forward march to await the enemy. This, obviously, reduces the number of movements, from that point until contact, by approximately half. The approximation is caused by alignment adjustments by infantry and artillery as a result of the configuration of the advancing enemy and by the inevitable fidgeting of the cavalry on the flanks. When one line halts in the battle position it has accepted, an estimate can be made on how many moves it will take for cavalry contact to take place, giving due consideration to the intervening terrain. The next consideration is when the stationary artillery will commence firing. This actually happened most often at maximum range but, in wargaming terms, it is typically delayed until effective range is reached. Let us assume that the answers are, three move distances toward the enemy, As an aside, it is worth pointing out that any part of the line obstructed by terrain should be moved first, since it will cover less ground in three moves, and the rest of the infantry should move accordingly to maintain alignment. It can be seen that the number of stand pick-ups made by a solo wargamer is not very different, even although he is operating both armies. Two wargamers, playing on the same layout, should be halting at the end of every move to allow for tactical modifications, on one side or the other. Even if one player halts at what will be his final position, his opponent still only completes one move at a time.
On the matter of boredom, this is surely a cause for the exercise of a little imagination. Personally, I could not be bored with the sight of two well turned-out lines of cavalry and infantry converging, but each to his own. If you are playing on a four foot wide table, and an infantry move is about six inches, then, each army starting from the table edge, after four moves both infantry lines will be in contact, even allowing for normal terrain delays.
If this still seems too long and predictable, even given a random spread of terrain, throw one die for each line at the end of its move turn. Odds, and the line continues moving next turn; evens, the line is stationary. Each commander is free to halt his advance on any line of defense which his army is passing through. This allows for a level of uncertainty in that, even if the `best' position is on his far side of the table, clearly he still has to reach it before his opponent. In the case of a stand-off, where both sides are voluntarily stationary, either the army with the greater battle imperative advances or both withdraw to fight another day. The permutations on this theme are endless, and it would take the contents of a small rain forest to examine them all in any detail.
A couple of alternative suggestions were then proposed, which served to indicate that at least the imagination process was functioning, even if the concept of linear warfare had got mislaid. The first suggestion was that a die be thrown for each unit along the table edge and multiplying the throw by three inches to determine how far on to the table the unit should be placed. Once it was pointed out that this would be a largely wasted exercise, because the next couple of moves would be spent in the army getting back into line, the questions had to be asked as to how the units had managed to get themselves so out of line in the first place? For most of the Seven Years War, armies travelled in column until they received evidence of the presence of enemy artillery in position. Cavalry patrols and/or advance guard activity would generally have made the commander aware of the enemy but, for the most part, infantry columns would not form into line until they approached the extreme range limit of the enemy artillery. What would serve as reliable evidence? Having direct line of sight of the enemy battery, or having the regimental standards carried away by roundshot, might be taken as a fairly reliable indicator.
The second suggestion, while bordering on the bizarre, produced a great deal of hilarity. The plan was that stands, representing heads of columns, should be placed at random on the terrain while the player was blindfolded. In order to minimize the tsunami effect of a careless forearm, the placement should be made vertically. This gave rise to mental images of all the heavy artillery firmly in the centre of a deep, fast-flowing river, and cuirassier regiments crowded on the flat top of a church tower, to say nothing of line infantry in the middle of a forest. I am sure that everyone will be able to envisage their own placement horror story, whatever period they wargame in, since the amusement to be had is independent of tanks in trees or elephants in marshes. Should this unit be classed as disordered...? I'll say!
Back to MWAN # 129 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 2004 Hal Thinglum
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com