I suppose we are all familiar with the analogy that gave Jackson his nickname of "Stonewall." But suppose that the statement had been "there stands Jackson like a battalion of the grenadiers!" Obviously. our historical literature would have heen less colorful since "Grenadiers Jackson" does not exactly roll of the tongue like "Stonewall Jackson." However. one might argue that "Grenadiers Jackson" would have represented a more accurate analog since Jackson's troops undoubtedly fought more like a battalion of the grenadiers than a pile of rock. The point of all of this is that there may be a clue in this analogy analysis as to how tactical combat resolution can be made less complex in wargames.
I came to all this while pondering Brother Featherstone's combat resolution techniques. For those of you not familiar with the manner in which Don goes about resolving tactical combat, let me briefly summarize the process. If the enemy is in the correct formation, position, and range to bring fire upon our formation, their fire is assumed and you, the target, cast percentage dice against a predetermined point. If you make your point, you are fine. If you do not make your point, you may suffer some form of morale loss and drop a point of combat effectiveness. If you go to zero combat effectiveness the unit is removed from the table.
The point is adjusted to reflect the capabilities of both the firer and the target as well as for the terrain circumstances. etc.. Since it cross reference table is provided for finding thc point, this is a very fast and efficient method.
However, there are things which I am uncomfortable in this process. First, as implemented, it is scenario dependent. All the match-ups that are possible must be predetermined and then the table must he constructed.
Secondly, there is only one range for each weapon type. Third. your enemy's performance does not impact you except in the average as reflected in the construction of the point table. Fourth, the level of performance, reflected in the point you cast against are known and unchanging.
Let me be the first to say at this point that none of these "discomforts" are major. Don's system has the admirable advantage of working, which is rare enough in wargames. But like Don, I can not help tinkering with a rule system just to see what Can de done, and starting from a solid foundation foundation is a big advantage. I would like to see if we can make it more general and add a few more bells and whistles without sacrificing all of the simplicity of the basic concept.
In the following discussion I will use the unit classification nomenclature that we used in Empire, that is, from best to worse: Old Guard, Guard, Grenadier, Elite, Crack, Veteran, Conscript, Landwehr, Trained Militia, Untrained Militia. These classes represent groupings of units that tend to perform identically.
Mix Periods
Say Stonewall's brigade is Conscript, with a rating up one level for standing on defense, up one for terrain advantage, and up 2 for having Stonewall directly attached. Now we have a brigade fighting as, you guessed it, grenadiers.
Complexity seems to grow out of modifiers--usually applied to probability. The trap in this is that because we dividie it into one percentage point, we tend to include everything we can think of. Soon we are on a roll with zillions of modifiers to consider, remember, and add together. If we only increase or decrease the classification level, perhaps we would not be so inclined to create so many modifiers.
Range [1]
-
Effective +0
Ineffective -2
Leadership [2]
- Charismatic Leaders
- Leading Unit (Attached)
+2
Commanding Unit (Within 6") +1
Good Leaders
- Leading Unit (Attached) +1
Uncommanded Units -2
Cover [3]
-
Advantageous + 1
Highly Advantageous +2
Situation
- Defending [4] +1
Infantry in Square vs. Cavalry +3
Infantry in Square vs. Infantry -2
Infantry in Square vs. Artillery -3
Infantry in Column vs. Artillery -1
Cavalry vs. Infantry not in Square +3
Cavalry vs. Infantry in Square -3
Attacking from Flank or Rear +3
Attacked from Flank or Rear -6
Notes:
- 1. Range is used only in firefights and bombardments. Two ranges, effective and ineffective. would be defined for muskets, rifles. and each artillery poundage.
2. I have listed two classes of leaders, the implication is that there are really three. In addition to charismatic and good there is average which receives noinodifier. There state of "Uncommanded" is intended to reflect a situation in which all command has broken down.
3. Cover would be related to the unit and what the circumstances are. For example, a unit standing behind a creek would be considered to have no cover advantage from fire; but highly advantageous cover if close assaulted from the other side of the creek.
4. Applies only to infantry defending against infantry or artillery attacking from the front, or unlimbered artillery defending against infantry or cavalry attacking from the front.
Care will have to taken in not allowing units to be over modified. For example, I don't think any circumstance should result in Untrained Militia ending up fighting like Old Guard, that would not be within the realm of their capabilities. We would need then to define a performance ceiling for the various classes.
I would not be inclined to define performance floors. Things could always get worse in combat and we should probably let things drop as far as the circumstances dictate. Thus Old Guard attacked in the flank or rear will fight as Conscript Line. This gives them a chance to perform a miracle (compared to less august units in the same circumstances) but makes them human.
Another Option
Another option that can be introduced here without adding too much additional complexity is to increase the uncertainty of all players about the exact performance class of a specific unit.
I have always found it rather objectionable that everyone knows exactly how a unit is rated. This should be an uncertainty for both commanders. Obviously the very good and very bad units were more predictable in their level of performance (although the bad units probably had more upwards mobility than the good units did in the negative direction). But the units in the middle had a wide range of performance, from goat to hero. Why not wait to determine the exact level of a unit until its first combat? The following table could be used:
| Base Class | 1-5 | 6-20 | 21-50 | 51-80 | 81-95 | 96-100 | Ceiling |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Old Guard | GRD | GRD | OG | OG | OG | OG | OG |
| Guard | GREN | GREN | GRD | GRD | OG | OG | OG |
| Grenadier | ELT | ELT | GREN | GREN | GRD | GRD | OG |
| Elite | VET | CRK | ELT | ELT | GREN | GRD | GRD |
| Crack | CONS | VET | CRK | ELT | GREN | GRD | GRD |
| Veteran | LDW | CONS | VET | CRK | ELT | GREN | GRD |
| Conscript | TM | LDW | CONS | CONS | VET | CRK | GRE |
| Landwehr | TM | TM | LDW | LDW | CONS | CONS | GREN |
| Trained Militia | UTM | UTM | TM | TM | LDW | LDW | ELT |
| Untrained | UTM | UTM | UTM | UTM | TM | TM | CRK |
For example, the first time a Crack Line unit faced combat, it casts percentage dice and gets a role of an 86 this translates into a rating of "Grenadier" which is that unit's base class for the game. (The "Ceiling" column shows the maximum class to which a unit can be raised by the addition of modifiers, as we discussed previously.)
This cast should be unmodified to resist the temptation to stack a battalion of officers on top of a unit the first time it enters combat. (Not that anyone would do such a thing.) But given that we now have defined the unit's new rating what does that do for us? Here it reduces to a question of how you view the combat process. Do you believe that performance was relative or absolute in determining the outcome of a combat?
If you feel that performance is relative then there would be several defined levels of performance, such as Heroic, Gallant, Admirable, Proper, Poor, and Despicable. Each performance class would have its own distribution of probabilities to achieve each level, perhaps like those listed for two of the classes in the following table:
| Performance Level | Old Guard | Crack Line |
|---|---|---|
| Heroic | 50% | 10% |
| Gallant | 30% | 20% |
| Admirable | 20% | 30% |
| Proper | NA | 20% |
| Poor | NA | 15% |
| Despicable | NA | 5% |
Any unit fighting as Old Guard, would have a 50% chance of Heroic performance and no chance at all of anything below Admirable. Conversely, a unit fighting as Crack Line has the possibility of any of the levels of performance, but on average it will be Admirable.
Combat is resolved by each side casting its performance and then comparing the results. The number of levels difference is translated into results. This can again be done as a simple table lookup:
| Levels of Difference | Firefight | Close Action |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Draw, No Effect | Draw, Both Lose 2 |
| 1 | H: -0 L: -1, Back 3" | H: -1 L: -2, Back 4" |
| 2,3 | H:-1 L: -2, Back 6" | H:-2 L: -3, Back 8" |
| 4,5 | H:-2 L: -3, Back 12" | H: -1 L: -4, Breaks |
| 6 | H: -1 L: -4, Breaks | H: +1 L: -6, Breaks |
Thus a firefight in which the performance difference was 2, would result in the high unit (H) losing 1 point of combat effectiveness; and the low unit (L) losing 2 points of combat effectiveness and being forced back 6". In a close action, a difference of 6 would result in the high side gaining 1 point of combat effectiveness (juiced up by the road kill) while the low side would lose 6 CE and break.
Obviously this table can be modified to reflect different scales and types of combat (for example, you could add columns for skirmish anack and artillery bombardment); as well as, fewer or greater numbers of performance levels (instead of six levels you might want to use five or seven or ten, although I would not want to get too many).
If on the other hand, you feel that performance is absolute, then each class of unit would have a probability of achieving a winning level of performance. This could be different for each type of combat, perhaps as follows:
| Type of Combat | Old Guard | Crack |
|---|---|---|
| Skirmish | 95% | 67% |
| Firefight | 80% | 40% |
| Close Action | 95% | 35% |
| Bombardment | 95% | 50% |
It is important to understand here that one most consider not only the unit's likelihood of "winning," but also of not "not winning." For example, Old Guard have a high percentage for "Skim-fish" not only because they were fairly decent at skirmishing, but more impo~tantly because they would not be very intimidated by other skirmishers and therefore must have a low probability of not winning. You must consider both sides of the coin. (The probability for winning at Bombardment for infantry may seem incongruous, but I will discuss how this fits in latter in the article.)
In this form of the mechanic each unit casts to see if it has a winning performance for the type of combat in which it is involved. The two units then compare the result. There are only four possible outcomes: both win, both do not win, A wins and B does not, B wins and A does not. The meaning of these combinations will depend upon the combat.
If both win, then the combat continues with equal but moderate losses to both sides. If both do not win, the combat continues with light losses to both sides. If one side wins and the other does not, you have a clear victory/defeat situation with appropriate results.
Note that this concept can be applied even in situations such as artillery bombarding infantry at long range through creative definition of the possible outcomes. You just need to determine what a "win" is for a specific unit in each situation. For example:
| Artillery Performance | Inf/Cav Performance | Artillery Result | Inf/Cav Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wins | Wins | Continues Fire Can Close 1/4 of Range | Loses 1 CE Holds Position |
| Wins | Doesn't Win | Continues Fire Can Close 1/2 of Range | Loses 2 CE Falls Back 4" |
| Doesn't Win | Wins | No Fire Next Turn | No Effect |
| Doesn't Win | Doesn't Win | No Effect | No Effect |
Artillery that wins can continue to fire and can move to close the range either by a quarter or a half of the current range. If the artillery doesn't win, it must sit and can not fire the following turn if the target won, or fire if the target did not win. Here the definition of "win" for the infantry or cavalry is that it either gets fewer loses (if the artillery also won) or does not get fired upon the following turn (if the artillery also loses). You do not have to be in a situation where you can directly impact the enemy in order to win. Winning may be in restricting what the enemy can do to you.
Is this a system that would work? Experimentation would be required and modifications would have to be made, but would reducing the number of modifications impact on the "realism" of the game? I think we could safely put most rule sets on a little weight reduction plan.
Back to MWAN #84 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 1996 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