CHANGE FOR THE BETTER Uncle Duke
Finally! I've been waiting for more years than you can count for a magazine to have the guts to change to a color magazine. It's about time!
This hobby, and you know I've been a proponent of this hobby for over 30 years, needs such a media vehicle. We have the excellent British Magazines, but we have needed a North American version. The advantage with MWAN Magazine is that it won't simply be a picture magazine, but one full of content.
Well done, and thank goodness someone's stepping up to the plate!
DEALERS OVER GAMERS - A BAD THING FOR MWAN Robert Piepenbrink
You've been at the helm less than a year and already you've adopted an editorial policy that favors dealers at the expense of gamers. Let me explain the facts of life.
I don't need castings. I have about 3,000 30mm Napoleonics left in Indiana, and so many 20mm and smaller that I tend to count by footlocker rather than by figure. But let's concentrate on what I'm buying and painting nonetheless:
I'm adding some dismounted cavalry to my 54mm ACW.
I have a small army of Spencer-Smith 30mm Age of Reason figures. (SpencerSmith no longer sells plastics as the molds
I have an army of the old "comic book" plastics out on permanent loan.
I could potentially add some Old Guard to my 1/72 Napoleonics.
I'm doing 1/72 SYW and AWI, and need Revell Austrian Dragoons, and Airfix British Grenadiers and Washington's Army.
I've got the cadre of an ECW army in 1/72, but need more cavalry.
I've got a 5mm FPW army under way.
I've probably spent more time in the Tennis Barn of the Host Resort than Ye Ed. Except for the H&R FPW, tell me where I buy any of the above. Oh, that's right: the lines are out of production and dealers won't sell them, unless I get lucky and find some of the Revells from Minute Men. But the same people who don't like the flea market are also griping about "letting" Minute Men rent table space.
Yes, I know it costs money to attend a show. I've been in a small business myself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you feel that you're not going to make back table rental, transport costs and wages, surely the correct course of action is not to attend? It's not as though HMGS has tables going vacant at their present rates. I continue to wave my olive branch. I will order today any printed material on the strength, organization, uniforms and standards of the Percy Tenantry Volunteers during the Napoleonic Wars. Once the strength and uniform information are mine, I will buy castings immediately at 1:20 in 30mm scle. (I call them large "25's" or "28mm." I've been at this for nearly 40 years. Don't you think I know what a 30mm casting is?)
As regards carping about the games available at Historicon, I've done a bit of that myself. But could we focus on the games and not the terrain for a bit'? HMGS conventions are not put on to provide photos for the magazines. Give me clear simple rules, an attainable objective and a skilled opponent, and I can put up with some really badly painted castings and primitive terrain. I'd rather not, but first things first.
As for photocopying rules out of MWAN, there's no point if they're grown almost to commercial size. What happened to the 14 page rules by the likes of Stafford, Glidden Panzeri and Costea?
Give me short rules. Don't mess with my flea market.
SHORT AND To THE POINT
8.5x 11" makes more sense.
DOESN'T LIKE CHANGE Jim Seery
I suspect the request for feedback on size change is very much like those meetings we were called to, before I retired, to "get feedback from the shop floor". After the better part of an hour we were told "well, thank you for your input but we can't do a thing about it because the plans are all ready for implementation". I suspect that you're plans are already in place and the comfortable mish mash format that I've enjoyed so much will soon be replaced by slick pages, glossy pictures and professional writers. Needless to say I don't like the changes you've already made and propose to make.
CONCERNED
I have subscribed to MWAN since 1989. My immediate gut reaction to your proposal to change it to a regular magazine sized format was very negative. MWAN's "flavor" has changed over the years, especially as Hal Thinglum changed printers and gradually went to a more consistently presented format. After reading the several issues under your management, it is quite evident to me that it's overall "flavor" will never be the same. This is inescapable as Hal is no longer publishing it and it is now much more professionally published.
So the folksy, everyday guy aspect of it is gone and will stay gone. I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't one reason that you haven't received many letters - the old time MWAN subscribers are still coping with the change and just don't feel comfortable writing the new editor. Changing MWAN from its present format to a regular magazine will just further this. This is not necessarily bad as the old MWAN is gone and the new one is still developing its own flavor.
I read the bulletin board messages on this topic that appeared on The Miniatures Page, especially your few messages. You indicated in one that the new format would have 80 pages and have only 80% of the content as the present format. You then commented that the remaining 20% was always the hardest to get (implication being it was too much trouble to bother with rather than we long term subscribers wouldn't miss it). If this is truly your intent, should I expect my subscription rate to decrease by 20% to account for getting less content`? ... I didn't think so.
I have seen several USA wargaming magazines come and go that were the size you're suggesting (Historical Wargamer being the one I most regret seeing fold). The Courier has managed to stay around, but has become noted for its unreliable publishing schedule. Are you proposing any changes to the MWAN publishing schedule due to distributor and merchant reasons? Why do you think MWAN will succeed in this arena when other magazines have failed?
I have seen too many wargaming related companies fail once they decided to switch from purely a subscriber/mail order base to getting a wider audience through distribution and merchanting. My main concern is that MWAN is about to embark on a similar voyage where the captain and crew discover the world really is flat, but only when they fall over the precipice.
I am renewing my subscription in the hope that a short term loss (getting less content for my money) will turn out to be a long term gain (a wider audience for MWAN and more people submitting articles). I've gotten over that strongly negative reaction and will hope for the best. My concerns are expressed above and I hope they remain just that ... concerns.
I wish the new MWAN good luck and hope the new staff finds the world is round after all.
No PROBS!
As a long time subscriber, I don't have any problems with a format change. The content is key and if you go to a colored glossy, it may well do better to sell the hobby to others especially those who have grown up with colored products, specifically, the GW crowd. The move would likely be a good idea.
Thanks for asking our oninion!
Change Will Do Us Good John Gleason
I've been reading MWAN Magazine for many years, and have been advertising in it for a short while now, too. I can see only improvement with a switch to the more "normal" magazine format. Color is always a plus, but getting it where it can be purchased and read is essential for growth. I've always wondered if the digest size has hurt the potential and I think this will remove that obstacle.
I say "Go for it!"
WAB COUNTERCHARGE Chris Hahn
"Let's make it an even three cents ... "
Very much to my chagrin, I discovered too late (is not that always how it is though?) that I had not been very thorough in my reading of WARHAMMER material. There I was, sitting on the couch watching Navy lose to Notre Dame while thumbing through the Armies of Antiquity supplement of WAB. How could I have missed the new game rules on page 46?! To quote Mr. Simpson, "D'oh!"
My apologies to the readers of my WARHAMMER article for this error. However, and not to try to put any kind of spin on my ignorance, I think the cavalry counter charge rule as listed on page 46 is too restrictive. I think counter charging should always be an option for the mounted arm, irrespective of their movement allowance. As for Cataphracts, well, these cavalry didn't really "charge" as much as they lumbered toward the enemy line, did they? As for the striking first determination, roll 1d6 per unit or side involved. Finally, as to cavalry counter charging infantry, well I think I spelled out this situation in my original comments.
Anyhow, please forgive this rather gross error. I guess it serves me right for trying to do too much writing for a single issue. Lesson learned.
Format Change (general):
I do like the present format of MWAN. There is a "solidness" to each issue and a collection of 12 or 18 issues looks very nice on my wargaming book shelf. However, I can appreciate if not fully understand the economics and market forces behind the idea of a redesign and format change. I gather then, that the number of pages would be reduced by quite a bit. Looking over the September issue of WARGAMES ILLUSTRATED, I see it runs to just 64 pages. Do you see MWAN then, moving to a monthly publication schedule?
I think the idea of adding more "punch" with color photographs and color advertisements is a very good one. However, it is curious - perhaps it's just me - but when looking over the August and September issues of both WI and MW, compared to the April issue of WI, I found that photographs seem to "replace" content. That is to remark, the text seemed ancillary to all the photographs (whether staged shots or pictures of wargames in progress). I don't think this is a good direction. Maybe I just received two issues that were particularly heavy in color and photos? But I think the probability of this happening in both British glossies at the same time is very low. Anyhow.
Overall, I would support the decision to move to a "normal" sized magazine. However. I would "argue" for a careful balance between photographs and text. I think I would miss the aforementioned feel of the present version of MWAN. There is a familiarity to it, of course. And, in contrast to the "normal" magazine style, the MWAN "book" can take a little more "abuse." (I'm not saying that I put a few copies in some Samsonite luggage and left the gorilla have his fun ... I'm just saying that the current edition of MWAN is more durable; more weighty. It's more of a journal, really.
This brings me to the second part of these comments about format and style.
MWAN is an acronym for Midwest Wargamers' Association Newsletter. The new addition of "magazine" to this title is, I think, confusing. I mean, can a bound issue be both a newsletter and a magazine? If the new magazine style or format is ultimately adopted, I think you and your board of officers should think hard about changing the name of the publication.
Is MWAN limited to just those wargamers in the Midwest? I don't think so. If anything, this journal is more of a national effort, if not international. (Witness the contributions from Donald Featherstone.)
In my first real-world job, I worked as an editorial production manager for an international trade magazine. This was eons ago, and the technology has changed by leaps and bounds, but I have a few comments, opinions or even ideas.
What about changing the title? How about something like - Journal of American Wargaming (JAW) Journal of American Wargaming Societies (JAWS) Miniature Wargaming Wargamer's Digest
Okay - the first two titles are rather ethnocentric, but I think the acronyms are very good and memorable. In addition, the creation of departments like "Foreign Affairs" would relate developments and happenings in other countries: UK, Australia, Italy, etc. The third title is very close to one used by the Brits, but is more of a verb than it is a noun. The last title suggested was one used by Gene McCoy - way back when. I don't know if it would be possible to resurrect it for these purposes. Again, all this is dependent on your decision respecting format change and adoption of a new title. Looking over the page advert on 119 of this current issue, I see that most title are period or theme specific. (Most, not all.) MWAN is more "broad-based" which is another reason for considering a title change. It's not just about or for wargamers in the midwestern region of the United States.
Format Change (specific):
Following, please find some comments that are intended as constructive only and that go back to my days of editorial production.
- 1. I think that the cover information should be moved onto the table of contents page.
2. The table of contents page should be more descriptive. What about adding the names of authors to this page as well as a sentence or two about their contribution? Perhaps the contents could be arranged or formatted by departments? This might end those "problems" of double-entries on the contents page. For example, in Issue 131, there are two titles listed for page 106.
3. Perhaps move the list of advertisers to the back of the book and make it an Advertisers Index?
4. Your editorials should have a better title, Don.
5. Your cohorts should also have more interesting titles. I think the regular readers are aware of who sits behind these desks.
6. What about including head-shots of each editor? (You, Michael and Kathy.)
7. Full-justified text is a little hard on the eyes. I wonder if you might reconsider this format? Left-justified and allow for indentation of paragraphs, too?
8. Lose the underlined titles of articles and op-ed pieces. Allow larger type to be used for these primary titles - like 36pt? Subtitles could be at 18pt.
9. The "section" titles in each article seem a little "funky." They are the same size as the main title, and the first letter of each word seems to be of a larger sized type than the rest of the letters.
10. "Departments" should have the same style or, be very different from each other. Here, I am referring to Letters, Sutler's Wagon and Wargame Clubs of the World. (I could determine no other departments - Figure Reviews; Book Reviews; Terrain "corner"; Modern Update; even something like Movie reviews - [Alexander is due out in November].)
Ten items may seem like a lot, but again, these comments are based on my quick review of the present issue and perhaps, on a little bit of nostalgia for the Hal period. There may be something left from my days as a production manager, too. Anyhow.
"Egg on my face"
Hindsight being what it is (perfect 20/20 vision), I should like to go back and rewrite the adaptation I offered in issue 131. [Cohorts & Courage] This is based on the reading of ROMAN ARMY AT WAR: 100 BC - 200 AD, by Adrian Keith Goldsworthy. Note to myself, albeit after the fact: Always, always invest the time and money in securing as many resources as possible before starting out on a rule writing/adapting campaign.
In the Fusillade column appearing in this present issue (it's nice to be able to correct myself in the same issue; it's a little odd too), I mentioned Sophocles when suggesting the possible "benefits" of computer wargames set during the ancient period. Sophocles was a Greek poet and well before the time period I was thinking about with regard to the simulation. My intention, hamstrung as it was to get the column to the offices of MWAN, was to emphasize the possible tangential interests that might develop.
As an aside, recent episodes of "Decisive Battles" have reported on the campaign of and against Queen Boudica, as well as the Battle of Qadesh in 1274 BC. (Aired on 15 October and it was pretty cool to see chariots driving into the Egyptian camp but then getting bogged down.) This EgyptianHittite struggle being the first battle to be recorded for posterity. [Friday nights at 8 p.m. CST on the History Channel; repeated on Saturdays at 12:30 p.m.]
In this same column, I offered the complete guess as to what the numbers are for participants and practitioners of this hobby. Counting the clubs listed in Issue 131 throughout these United States, I arrived at a total of 266. Guessing again at an average number of 8 wargamers per club, I arrive at just over 2,000 bodies. However, the MagWeb page lists some 75 publications dedicated to the hobby. I wonder what the subscription or issues printed totals are for all these magazines/journals for 2004. Pulling another guess of let's say 600 subscribers per publication, the figure grows to something in the neighborhood of 45,000.
The question was inspired by reading Mr. Consentino's notes, specifically the mention of demographics and mean or average incomes based on period of interest. I wonder where he found this information? I wonder if there has ever been a kind of poll done to determine the number of wargamers (distinct from fantasy gamers) in the United States.
I recently sent away for the August and September issues of WARGAMES ILLUSTRATED and MINIATURE WARGAMES. These magazines have changed quite a bit - at least it seems to me. I have an issue of WARGAMES ILLUSTRATED from April of this year, and it's excellent. Perhaps it's just me, maybe I'm getting old or am just too set in my ways (whatever they might be) but ... I found these new issues to be rather heavy on pictures and light on text. To be certain, the pictures are not a "bad thing." And yet, when the reliance seems to be placed on photographs as opposed to text, things are out of balance. Pictures and text should reinforce each other; should balance one another. While the pictures are stunning; in the end, the product proved to be less than an interesting read.
SO MUCH BETTER! Matt Simms
While I love the magazine as is, I am very excited to see the change to the new format. There's no question that it is the way to go. Those that don't think so are still probably steamed that we have to drive cars instead of riding our reliable horses!
A CORRECTION OF FACT! Lori Brom
In the article, Pardon My Chaos or How Did We Get Here? by Robert L. Coggins in MWAN 130, Bob states, "That is, until 1981, when Scott Bowden and Jim Getz' Empire III became the first set of commercial rules to brake (sic) with the strict simultaneous movement sequence of play."
I would be remiss if I didn't remind everyone that two years prior to Empire III, Larry Brom's The Sword and The Flame, published in 1979 by Yaquinto, stepped beyond simultaneous movement by its innovative use of a standard deck of playing cards to determine the Random Sequencing of Unit Movement and Firing. And 25 years later, it continues to do so.
In those ensuing years, many of TSATF's random concepts have been adopted, modified and refined in numerous other creative new rule sets. As a matter of fact, many gamers have said that TSATF has been responsible for bringing FUN (that Fword!) back into gaming
HOT-BUTTON ISSUES James Manto
In the last issue you guys touched on a few hot-button issues. At least they appear to be hot-button issues judging by the traffic on The Miniature's Page. Bringing these topics up for discussion is important to the health of the hobby and I thought I'd put in my own three cents worth.
New Format
The old digest format fits in my lunch cooler very nicely, whereas magazine size will get bent, but on the whole I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Cheaper production costs, higher advertising revenue, larger pages for photos sound like good reasons to me. I would have liked to see more or bigger pictures of Mike Cosentino's "55 Days at Peking" game and the monster 20mm "Operation Market Garden" game a few issues back could've benefited from more pictures as well. As long as the content stays in the same rambling enthusiastic vein as before I think the new format will be a winner.
Flea Markets
This is a tough one. But since dealers at HMGS shows are starting to get annoyed and may drop out it needs to be dealt with. I think limiting the flea market to Sunday would be a mistake since many gamers use the flea market to finance purchases in the dealer area. However, people that give out business cards and take credit cards are obviously running a business and aren't who the flea market area is intended for! The HMGS staff has to rigorously enforce the rules and accept that perhaps someone who years ago was a legitimate flea-marketer has evolved into a part-time business and now needs to be moved into the dealer hall. Another option is to price the flea market tables so that if one sets up a stall for the entire convention, they cost the same as renting a dealer table for the entire convention. Most flea marketers don't need a full table for the full weekend so they can be charged a fraction. Figure out how many business hours the dealer hall is open for and divide the booth rental accordingly. Charge the flea marketers the hourly rate divided by 1/4 or 1/2 or full table. This way "Wally Wargamer's Painting Service" setting up shop in the flea market for the weekend will end up paying the same rate as the businesses in the dealer hall. But Larry Leadhead who just wants half a table for four hours to clear out some long unused games and minis from his closet can do his business, pay his hourly rate and then spend his profits in the dealer hall. As additional incentive, if the dealer hall gets to stay open longer, then the businesses will be encouraged to set up shop in the dealer hall rather than trying to sneak in as a flea marketer.
Slick Packaging
I'm of two minds on this. Granted one has to spend money to make money, and Games Workshop has demonstrated that packaging does a lot to sell wargames. I don't even like their games and I find myself tempted. So for product that is to be put on a shelf and compete for attention within a store or dealer area at a convention, games manufacturer's do need to bring their packaging up to a new level of graphic design. But we have to recognize that most of the businesses in our hobby are run as hobbies themselves by fellow wargamers after work. They may not have the money to invest in full colour boxes for their figures.
A half-measure would be for the business to design full colour labels for each product code that can be applied to a uniform card board box. This might prove cheaper than full colour box art. I think for these smaller businesses who do most of their business via mail-order a better investment would be a good website with pictures of ALL of their figures. How many miniatures websites out there just give the potential buyer a catalogue listing without any pictures to show what the figure looks like? Too many. In this case the website IS the 'packaging' for the figures, the actual order can be popped into a ziploc baggie and mailed off to the customer. Too many times I've gone to a website and found it hard to navigate, or not all of their lines are listed and not all of the figures are pictured. I may be looking for a knight in a particular helmet, or I may want a rifleman in just the right pose, or maybe I want some Volksgrenadiers in overcoats and field caps. Can't tell if it's what I want with just a bare listing.
So I think the smaller manufacturers should take a dual packaging approach and have professional boxes for product sent to stores, but for figures sold mail-order they can be in any old bag and the money saved can go into their website.
Anyway guys keep up the good work and keep pushing those buttons!
I CAN HARDLY WAIT! Scott Cameron
I would like to commend you on your proposed changing of the format of MWAN. While it is an excellent publication in it's current format, I can see it becoming a superb one in a magazine format. The opportunity to bring this publication to the masses via distribution to major print media outlets(read: book stores) should not be missed! In fact, it is my firm belief that by changing the format to magazine size and including colour photos we can help to entice non-gamers into the hobby. I would say to the skeptics out there, "relax!", Don Perrin is not one to let the quality suffer! If anything, this change will greatly improve the publication. I can hardly wait for the change to take place!
EVEN THE COVERS ARE USEFUL! Stuart Asquith
Thank you for kindly sending me another super issue of MWAN Magazine.
I must say that Ed Meuller's piece on the Nine Years War caused me to ponderwhat a great period!
Interestingly, in one of those amazing twists one experiences from time to time, I had been looking (unsuccessfully, given my limited resources) for some fairly basic information on Chinese flags c 1860s to add some to my lovely 20mm plastic Boxers (by Streltsi?) that I had recently painted as Chinese pirates for a colonial setup I shall one day play. Then Issue #129 arrived and right there on the front cover are eight or so flags clearly shown-problem solved!
Keep up the good work and thank you for sending copies-they are greatly appreciated!
A REQUEST FROM BACK IN JANUARY Henry Wirth
I would like to hear from anyone having a home grown set of rules adapting Warhammer Ancient Battles for SYW and/or Napoleonics. I would love to see such a set published in MWAN!
Editor's Note: I found this letter in a pile of paperwork from when Hal had the magazine. My deepest apologies for taking 11 months to get it into print!
FEARS ABATED Donald Featherstone
I am very impressed with the job you are doing with MWAN. I had feared itshabitual charm might decrease a bit when Hal ceased running it, but your are equalling his excellence!
CLARIFYING MR. MANTO'S CONCERNS-A RESPONSE Robert L. Coggins
For those who do not have the time or inclination to read his letter in response to my article "Pardon My Chaos," according to Mr. Manto: Rules have structure and therefore cannot be deconstructionist. The turn in Napoleon's Battles was not designed to be holistic. Brigades look and act like battalions. The rules are poorly designed because brigades and armies do not have flanks and it was the "poor rules design" that led him to lose a cavalry combat. And, I almost forgot, I am a liar. At least he did not accuse me of shooting Cock Robin.
The structure of the rules has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are deconstructionist. All rules, even Code Napoleon, have structure. It is what the rules are designed to do that determines whether or not they are deconstructionist. Code Napoleon, Piquet and Grande Armee, have rules that presume to vary time, which is a constant, by the use of a variable, activity or a die roll. When rules do this, they deconstruct a constant, time, and are, therefore, deconstructionist. And, when rules deconstruct time it is impossible to understand how they measure those things on the battlefield that are governed by time - rates of fire, movement, etc., which some believe connect the game to history. Free kriegspiels or matrix rules are no different. Depending on what they are designed to do or what the umpire desires to do, they may or may not be deconstructionist.
Mr. Manto is correct when he says that stochastic means random. When Jim Getz used the term in his response to me I checked it in the "Word" thesaurus. It stated that stochastic meant stirred or stitched together, which when considering that Jim and Scott took a foreign tactical system and inserted it in the grand tactical turn seemed logical to me.
As each performs a different task, Mr. Manto's belief that simply because the sequence of play is located within the turn it must measure the passing of time in a linear fashion is a logical fallacy. Neither is the sequence of play necessarily inseparable from the turn.
Code Napoleon, which is arguably unplayable, has a sequence of play and no turn and Grande Armee has a sequence of play within the pulse (the turn), which is located within a sequence of play the (grand tactical) turn, which, according to Sam Mustapha, measures time.
Which leads me to rhetorically wonder, if the pulse does not measure time then does time does not exist in the world created by Grande Armee. And if time does not exist within that world how can activity be sequenced in a linear fashion within the pulse? And, if it cannot, is the pulse then holistic?
As best as I can discern, because he disagrees with the holistic design of the Napoleon's Battles turn or the fact that the sequence of play has nothing to do with the measurement of time, Mr. Manto wrote that Craig Taylor and I are dissemblers - a fancy word for liar. Yet, after branding us liars, he provided no evidence, other than his strong beliefs, to refute that the Napoleon's Battles turn is holistic - which, it is.
As best as I can understand from his question, "when is it the appropriate time to shoot my artillery?" and his statement following it, Mr. Manto appears to believe that when his artillery fires in the sequence of play must in some way measure the passing of time, or the sequencing of activity, within the turn.
The Napoleon's Battles sequence does not have a distinct artillery fire phase so the artillery fires within the "fire phases" within the turn. To the extent that all effects are immediately applied, all activity or events involving those units is assumed to have occurred after the fire phase. However, because the turn is holistic, there is absolutely no presumption as to when any particular unit fired within the 30 minute turn. Thus, the answer to "when is it the appropriate time to shoot my artillery?" is, in a holistic turn fire occurs when the designer deems it appropriate within the context of the sequence of play.
I was surprised that Mr. Manto resurrected the rather tired claim that infantry brigades look and act like battalions - a claim that has existed and been responded to for over fifteen years. To the best of my knowledge, wargamers use miniatures because they enjoy the aesthetic experience, or the look. In recognition of this, Craig and I designed the brigades to look like battalions in order to provide a pleasing look on the tabletop.
Additionally, as the multi stand brigades are able to assume different formations, they act as easily recognized ciphers (think playability Mr. Manto), which allow gamers to quickly identify the brigade's preparedness to meet certain threats vs. its ability to move on the battlefield. That the frontage of a deployed brigade, the depth of a brigade in column of march or the footprint of a brigade in attack column is very close to that occupied by his counterpart on the battlefield was by design, not accident.
Mr. Manto's belief that infantry brigades act as battalions could not be more incorrect.
In a battle, a battalion is a single entity, which has mass and form. For simulation purposes it is presumed to occupy the space it takes on the tabletop (especially the frontage). Conversely, a brigade is a flexible combination of numerous battalions, located within a mostly vacant brigade footprint, which are quite able to respond to known threats, such as a flank attack.
For those not familiar with the rules there are two types of combat, fire and combat or combat contact. Fire combat for infantry brigades, is a compilation of long-range volleys (over 100 yards), skirmish fire and supporting (off board) artillery fire. Combat contact is a combination of short-range volleys (under 100 yards) with and threat of hand-to-hand if not actually hand-to-hand combat.
Whether or not these battalions, within the defending brigade's footprint, were effectively deployed to meet that any one threat is determined by the outcome of the combat, or a die roll. A good outcome indicates that the brigadier did his job and a bad outcome indicates he did not or that other things intervened to prevent him from doing so - smoke, the lay of the ground etc. The outcome of a any attack is therefore left to the die because the gamer, at his level of command, is not able to control the maneuver of battalions within the brigade. Ergo, for the purpose of combat, there are no flanks.
However, as an infantry brigade may only fire to its front, it does have a flank for the purpose of fire. This is extremely important because within the sequence of play the non-phasing player not only fires first but all effects of that fire are immediately applied before the phasing player fires or resolves combat.
So, while the sequence of play does not presume to simulate the battlefield experience or measure time in a linear fashion, it does presume to model the burden on all senior generals to properly prepare attacks in order to deal with the response of the defender.
Be it flank or frontal attack on an army, the rules were designed to model what occurred. As an attack proceeds, units involved in combat become burned-out and command becomes jumbled to the extent that eventually the attack, if not reinforced, peters-out. Keeping in mind that in Napoleon's Battles we are talking about brigades rather than battalions and thousands rather than hundreds of yards, as the defender moves brigades to form a new front the so called `flank" attack will no longer be a flank attack.
Even Napoleon did not put great faith in the ability of a flank attack to succeed on its own. Rather he used it to draw his opponent's reserves to form a new front (the event), at which point under the best of circumstances he launched his mass of decision at the hinge or weak point in his opponent's line - frontally that is - to achieve a breakthrough.
The higher up the chain of command a set of rules places the gamer, the more towards the norm the results trend. This is because, the more units involved in an event the more statistically predictable it is. Due to this, outcomes on the grand tactical battlefield are more statistically predictable than outcomes on the tactical battlefield, where there are far fewer units.
In the Napoleonic era, division generals but most especially brigadiers did not have the authority to "interpret" their orders on the grand tactical battlefield. To the contrary, on the grand tactical battlefield, division generals but most especially brigadiers did not have the authority to interpret orders. In recognition of this, the rules make it impossible for a brigade out of command of a senior general to move and even division generals are severely restricted.
The idea that a brigadier would not advance his brigade because he misinterpreted his orders, whilst the entire division or corps all around his brigade, is in motion is mostly fantasy. As the vast majority of orders to division and brigade were delivered by, if not the senior commander, his aides or staff, they were always available to "help" those who were confused.
Indeed, the staff and aides to senior generals were expected to assist in performing the tasks necessary for a brigade or division to move and/or attack, such as marking the line of march and scouting the enemy position, etc.
All of the stuff about interpreting orders at the division and brigade level is the invention of designers to address the problems of the simultaneous movement sequence of play and thereafter to address the perceived problem of the so-called helicopter general.
On the grand tactical battlefield, it is the senior generals who had the rank and authority to interpret their orders and in Napoleon's Battles it is at this command level that the gamer is placed. Indeed, wherever a set of rules places the gamer in the command structure, he should always has the authority to interpret orders - else there would not be much of a "game."
What have you done with my cavalry? In all combats in Napoleon's Battles, only one unit is designated as the modifying unit to which the outcome (casualties) for that round of combat is applied. As cavalry is required to bounce disordered from a round of combat in which the opponent is not routed or dispersed the second unit cannot possibly have been routed and as the second unit was not the designated unit, neither could it suffer any loss. Yet, in Mr. Manto's example both of his brigades were routed.
So, despite the fact that he played a very important rule incorrectly, he blamed "poor rules design" for the defeat of his cavalry. Mr. Manto once again returns to the lack of flanks, this time cavalry flanks, to buttress his argument that the rules are poorly designed. So, let's have a look.
On the battlefield, a regiment or brigade of cavalry would deploy no more than 50% of its squadrons in the first line. The remaining 50 to 60% of the squadrons would be held in reserve at least 200 yards to the rear (not without coincidence this is the precise scale depth of a cavalry stand in the rules).
This was a sufficient distance to keep the second line from being swept away should the first line rout but close enough to allow the reserves to protect, support or follow up the combat of the first line. In addition, the second line squadrons were also in a position to redeploy to meet any flanking attempt - such as Mr. Manto's.
To guard against and discover such a stealthy tactic, brigades would regularly deploy "flankers" or staff and aides to see what was going on. So based on the norm or average performance it is assumed that the brigadiers, who are beyond the control of the gamer, are performing competently until the die roll determines otherwise.
Mr. Manto's job, as a senior commander, is to understand his environment and to decide where and when to commit his cavalry. Part of that environment is based on the percentages which as an experienced senior general, he is expected to be aware of. Indeed, the rules credit that all gamers come to the table with either a background in Napoleonic warfare at the senior command level or sufficient knowledge of the percentages in the rules to understand the environment they create.
Craig and I devoted a great deal of time researching the range of possible fire and combat outcomes in order that they simulate as closely as possible, given our individual prejudices, the expected outcomes on the battlefield. One thing that was striking is, regardless of the advantages, it is difficult to predict a sure thing on the battlefield if the unit being attacked is in good order. The other was without a tactical advantage; an attack on a disordered unit (3 to the die roll) does not necessarily guarantee success. Because of this we restricted the die roll to a maximum of "10" and a minimum of "I." Thus, if a cavalry unit in good order is attacked by an opponent, ]*fit rolls a "10" the worse outcome would be that both sides will bounce disordered. We designed it that way because that's the way it was. All off this is, with a little thought, transparent to the extent that a little thought would show the way.
Yet, Mr. Manto, by his own decision, appears to be unfamiliar with cavalry combat on the grand tactical battlefield. Neither did his decision appear to reflect that he was familiar with the percentages in the rules which represent the battlefield.
As a senior cavalry general he should have been aware that it is always better to maintain reserves than to commit too many units to a combat, the outcome of which is beyond his control. Nor was he aware of the increased chance to rout his opponent by committing an extra brigade vs. the downside of losing control of both brigades to win one combat.
For had he routed his opponent he would have had an very good chance of losing control of both of his brigades, putting them out of action for from 30 minutes to and hour and 30 minutes or one to three turns.
Thus, confronted with a worse case outcome than even the rules allow, Mr. Manto blamed the rules. Yet it was not the rules that made the decision to commit two cavalry brigades rather than one. Mr. Manto did that all by his lonesome and it wasn't in his stars either.
Finally, while I had hoped to stimulate a discussion of the merits of one concept of rules design vs. another what I got was unsupported beliefs and misrepresentations of Napoleon's Battles, combined with some spleen venting that had absolutely nothing to do with design theory. It is no wonder that most designers, who are far more experienced than I, refrain from writing articles for MWAN. More's the loss to the readers.
Years ago Fire and Movement adopted a practice of submitting such letters to designers for vetting. This prevented the misrepresentation of rules in print and depending on the content gave the editor the ability to determine whether or not a critical letter had merit. Had MWAN such a policy, it would not have taken many pages and a good deal of time to respond to and clarify Mr. Manto's letter. I most earnestly recommend that MWAN adopt the same policy.
Editors Note: I am sure Mr. Coggins will he pleased to note that Mr. Manto is, in fact, a published rules author and his latest set, Legion & Empire, appear in this issue of our magazine!
Back to MWAN # 132 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 2004 Legio X
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