This article is written to explain some changes in the rules of Johnny Reb (JR) that we play in our club and I would suggest for yours. First of all, let me say that I am a great admirer of John Hill (the designer) and his rules set. While I have some problems with the rules as written, I don't believe that the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. I have four points which I will address and try to give good reasons for the suggested changes. The first of these changes is march column movement. The rates which JR has for skirmish vs. march column, creates on the game field among experienced JR players, a situation which 80% of the time, units advance to the battle in skirmish order. The reason is that skirmish order, besides it's formation benefits, moves on average much faster. To correct this situation, I propose that march column rates be adjusted. The rate I suggest is: Unit Road Open Broken Rough Infantry 18/24 12-16 7/9 2/3 Cavalry 30/36 16/20 8/10 3/4 Very Light Guns 30/9 No Change Light 24/6 No Change Heavy 20/6 No Change Very Heavy 18/3 No Change Extra Heavy 12/2 No Change This allows the infantry to move at one and one/half MPH in normal march column down a road and 2 1/4 on a forced march. As you can see, this still provides plenty of "dither time." You may have to jump it a lot more if you want to represent a determined force march such as A.P. Hill's march at Antietam, A.K.A. 4.5 mph -- 50" per turn. Might I add over one of the most hellish roads you'll ever encounter! The one other thing that may have to be added as a result of increased march movement is strategic orders for the unit involved. The next point is the effect of skirmishers on combat. John has made it that fire from a skirmisher has it's effects halved. The skirmishers received the benefit of half casualties. This, in effect, cancels out the firing deduction and leads to the weird situation of a line of infantry causing identical casualties as a skirmish line opposing it. There is one more factor hurting skirmishers, that being that their increased frontage would allow two lines to concentrate fire on them and giving two for one losses as a result. What I think John was trying to represent was the volley fire effect. The problem is that while this was not completely gone; the mini-ball rifle had greatly increased the effectiveness of aimed fire. So much that in fact that the volley fire's main effect would have been psychological. Considering these factors I suggest that the rule be changed from skirmish fire being halved, to down one table (the same as extended line). The result of this is a situation where you have got to chase off those pesky skirmishers, or look for cover; rather than calmly shoot it out with them. Remind you of something? The next point I would like to bring up is the effect of cannon. John has created a game where infantry is king and artillery is an after thought. I am not the first to notice that cannon create far fewer casualties, as a percentage, in JR than they should. My answer to this is simple, and not original. Since each section represents two guns, double the effect. If you do this, casualties to a gunner represent the loss of one gun effectiveness per crew member killed. The rule where you need two hits to silence a gun section is thrown out. Box cars thrown for parrots destroy one gun, not a whole section. A point here: if Parrots blew up once every 36 firings, mass desertions would have quickly developed whenever an artillery crew member was assigned to a Parrot section. Try this rule out and I think you will like the results. The final point I make is one which is probably more interesting than useful. This is the leader casualty chart. It is far too bloody. It is a fact that according to this chart, the life expectancy of a general in a bomb shelter with one hundred foot concrete walls and the entire world's armies protecting him, is 81 days. In that time he would also have suffered two heavy wounds, two light wounds, and a stunning (no doubt by thinking he was safe) wound. You may want to shift the officer casualty table up one column and extend your leader's life expectancy to over one year; but I'm willing to live with the system as is just for the color it brings. I would suggest the results of the hit be modified to have two stuns, two light wounds, one heavy wound and one spectacular death. This is the end of my discourse; I hope the changes I suggest will yield more satisfying historical results. Back to MWAN # 20 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1986 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