Many of you know the feeling. "If only these damned rules had such and such in them, they would be great!" Or better yet, "I don't like these stupid rules, but everybody's using them, so I have to as well...."

As Medieval editor for The Courier, I get to review many new sets of rules. Some are interesting, others are not, but the fact is I have not found a set, and this includes WRG 7th, that I have really felt conveyed the correct feel of Dark Age/Medieval warfare, with the exception of Howard Whitehouse's Long Serpent Viking naval game, and Richard Davidson's homebrewed rules.

Dave Armer and I tried to work on a set of rules about ten years ago, but WRG 7th appeared and that was that. They were much too complicated anyway, even for our tastes. Dave Ottney and I also tried our hand at a set of Crusader rules about five years back, but got bogged down and gave up on these as well. Try and try again?

A while back, I attempted to do a set of campaign rules (appearing in this issue of SAGA). As I worked on them, I thought that a GOOD set of tactical rules for miniature battles would also be nice and began to work on some concepts (based to a certain structural extent on my ACW set, MISTER LINCOLN'S WAR which I began follow up on some more.

Framework

The framework of the rules set which I have been developing these long months is finally in place. With the playtesting of God,Wealth and Honor, there is the distinct possibility that they will be available by HISTORICON next summer. The intention at this time, is to present and play them at Lancaster in July, unless some unforeseen problems arise between now and then.

These rules are meant to provide a fun, exciting, and mentally stimulating game of warfare in the Dark Age/Medieval period, from 451-1500 A.D. I have opted to not include the pre-fifth century period as army systems of organization, tactical doctrine, philosophy of war and sheer size of earlier forces were very different from those which these rules are intended. Unlike most other rules of the pre-gunpowder era, I firmly believe in period specifics, and to attempt to cross too many centuries results in a set of rules with little 'feel' for the actual periods replicated within them.

The bottom line is the period feel. Medieval warfare emphasized leadership, morale and skill at arms. Any rules attempting to cut it in this period have to provide for the variables of leadership, army quality and the vagaries of orders, terrain and tactics. I have never felt that any of the popular systems, primarily aimed at the Hellenic/Hellenistic and Roman periods of history, really did justice to the 450-1500 period.

New Rules

With this in mind, I began to work on God, Wealth and Honor. Strangely enough, they first evolved into a set of ACW rules Mister Lincoln's War, which were extensively playtested last year and this at several conventions across the country. The basic mechanisms of play have remained in place. The main focus of each set of rules was to have them make tactical common sense. In God,Wealth and Honor, if you charge your mounted knights into a solid line of long spearmen, you will fail over 95% of the time. I always feel that good rules allows any gamer, from any period, to be able to sit down and play and win the game using good tactics, not a knowledge of the rules.

When the rules run the game (a common complaint about WRG 7th and a growing one about the increasing minutiae with DBM), not sound tactical sense, it results in the turning off of a lot of gamers, hence the popularity of 'postcard' rules, i.e. DBA. These simplified rules are not what I look for in a game because of the over-reliance of dice to decide the more complex problems of orders, morale and combat. I hate dice directed systems whereby you win or lose on a good or lousy die throw. True, chance has a necessary place in any wargame, as it does occur in real warfare, but certainly it has much less influence than most rules allow. If you are a rotten general, it is not right that the dice can rectify that! You should have to learn to be a better tactician, not a better rules-lawyer or dice roller.

Many factors determined the eventual outcome of a Medieval battle. Army morale and the quality of your troops, enhanced or reduced by the leadership level are the three most important tangible elements of success or failure. Armor, weaponry, tactical position and the psychological value of perceived superiority/inferiority are four more elements which must be considered in determining battle outcome. All of the qualities can and should be involved in any attempt at replicating Medieval warfare on the wargames table. God,Wealth and Honor has all of this and more.

These are tactical rules, limited to the Dark Age/Medieval period of 451-1500 A.D. In respect to the nature of warfare in this period; smaller armies (usually 3-8,000 men per side); bloody and decisive results (40% leader casualties and an attrition rate of from 20-100% for the armies involved); great reliance on 'good ground'; and the overwhelming importance of leadership in God,Wealth and Honor provides the infrastructure with which to work. Now for some examples of what I am trying to accomplish.

Dancing Figures

Existing rules allow stands of figures to 'dance'. If moving, the moving player can often move as little as he wants in order to line up perfectly in order to shoot, charge or stay out of attack range of his adversary with no problem at all, measuring millimeters to achieve that 'just outside 2 inches' window of opportunity. No way. Let's face it, if you ordered your forces to "move", they did! In God,Wealth and Honor, if you elect to move your troops, you must move at least 1/2 your normal allowance. This eliminates much of the painful inch by inch wargamer 'dances' that were no part of Medieval warfare.

Another situation which occurred with regularity in Medieval battles has to do with a group's reactions to an attacker. Many rules, including WRG 7th, cements your non-charging troops to their present position when attacked. In my studies of Dark Age/Medieval battles (over 140 of them, at last count), the obvious response to an enemy charge was to wheel to at least face it, if possible (i.e. not already involved in close combat), not to sit and be hit in the flank. Foot did manage to attack their mounted adversaries, as the Scots did at Bannockburn. They most certainly had to be within pretty close range, however. If anyone is foolish enough to place his mounted troops too close to frenzied foot, he has only himself to blame.

How about that enigmatic quality of ferocity, or what I call frenzy? It was not an automatic occurrence. Inspiring speeches ["I have brought you to the dance, now you must dance as best as you can"; Wallace before Falkirk], fervent exhortations, or the example of a brave hero often would inspire fighters to ferociously attack. [Or religion. The Scottish army at Bannockburn began to advance and then stopped and knelt in prayer. Edward II turned to Umfraville and said "Look! They beg for mercy!" "Aye" was Umfraville's response, "But not from you."] At other times, the effort could disastrously backfire as the speech scared the men instead of inspiring them! If you want to psych your troops up, you might get just the opposite effect. In other words, you will take a chance on getting that extra effort out of your troops if you opt to attempt it.

Morale

Morale could be fairly determined by making certain your troops were in a secure position both physically and psychologically. The influence of a general being close by, or better yet, with the troops in question often would be enough to bolster the courage of any army. A religious relic could provide an even better incentive. If seemingly 'winning' a close action (i.e. pushing back or breaking an enemy), troops could become very confident, even overconfident as the Norse-Irish army at Clontarf in 1014, when an entire division continued to push back the Irish allies as both their flank supports disappeared in rout. They were so busy winning, they did not notice! Even the most stable conditions sometimes were thrown to the wind because of a perceived feeling of overconfidence. The Saxon fyrd at Hastings charged from their prepared, uphill defensive positions trying to catch the seemingly beaten (read feigned flight) but much quicker Norman cavalry at Hastings, only to be destroyed.

Psychological problems arose when one side felt itself to be inferior to another, usually as regards armor quality: "He's better armored than me. I can't hurt him, but he'll kill me!" Knights usually were not bothered by foot attackers, they normally had better armor and being mounted, could get at them easier and get away if necessary. Mounted assaults usually provoked a morale problem in respect to a stationary target, though foot armed with long spears or pikes usually would hold their order due to the fact that they felt they could beat the cavalry. An uphill enemy, or one protected by an obstacle also caused a sense of foreboding in the hearts of the attackers.

Missile exchanges invariably favored the forces with better armor. Not only could they absorb more punishment, they often were in a close formation and could deliver an 'arrowstorm' of devastating effect. Skirmishers, though hard to hit as well, could simply not deliver fire in such strength and had no chance in a missile exchange with such an enemy. Again, it seems that the status of the target, number of firers able to bring missiles to bear, and the range determined the probability of missile hits, not how good the firer was. Armored targets were increasingly harder to hit than unarmored. Of course, the longbow, crossbow and handgun have to be given special status and conditions.

Commander's Purpose

What purpose did a Medieval commander really serve? To some extent, he influenced morale and close combat, but the main thing that the general did was issue orders and command what troops he could control to follow them. As long as the general remained out of the actual fighting, he could usually do this, unless incompetent or foolish (also possible!). His limitations were directed by his leadership abilities. Generals such as Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, Simon de Montfort, Bohemond, Kilij Arslan, Saladin and Robert Guiscard were excellent tactical battlefield commanders and could control many different commands within their respective armies. Others, such as Peter of Aragon, Alfonso VIII, Guy of Jerusalem, Stephen of Blois, Roger II of Sicily, Doceanus of Byzantium, Henry II of France and Sygtrigg of Dublin were much less well endowed with military skills and had little control over their forces. This diverse ability is reflected in God,Wealth and Honor.

No matter how good your generals are, however, once they became personally embroiled in melee, they lost all ability to alter or change orders. Their subordinates continued to follow their previous directives until combat or morale situations dictated otherwise. Ambushers and flank marchers would more often than not lose a number of men to straggling, exhaustion or just plain desertion. Once you were out of sight of a commander, it did not take long for discipline to relax. At the same time, once troops entered delaying terrain, it became impossible to determine the length of time it would take them to move through it! This unknown quantity is necessary in any period. If you order troops to move through delaying terrain, you may be surprised, either pleasantly or otherwise about their progress.

Close combat is the determinant of victory in Medieval battles. Because of this, the combat phase of the battle has to be carefully studied and simulated. As stated before, skirmishers served no purpose in melee, unless fighting against other skirmishers. If attacked, they ran.Others, depending on type and morale status, often countercharged. Obviously, foot were loathe to counterattack mounted.

Victory or Defeat

Armor, weapons, the quality of the fighters, the length of the melee, and the condition of the units involved all are important determinants of victory or defeat. Chance is a small variable, as are formations used. Once joined, a melee could last for some time. By the same token, once troops were committed to battle, they often fought with extraordinary courage. Cite the French knights at Muret (1213) who charged through a line of Toulousian knights, then split into two divisions, continued uphill, routed the Spanish knights, then turned and rode down the hapless foot who proceeded to break from the furious assault!

God, Wealth and Honor takes all of this into account and has a realistic combat results table, utilizing on-table casualty removal (no rosters).

Medieval armies did have certain individual characteristics beyond the obvious ones of differing types of troops. Certain armies used different formations such as shieldwall, schiltron, echeloned line (trained only) and wedge (though of minor impact on the close action). These formations all had positive and negative aspects, but they allowed certain armies to increase their morale status, missile protection and/or combat value.

All in all, I am hoping to promote God, Wealth and Honor at select conventions in 1997. The playtesters in the U.S. and England will be given the opportunity to try them out at their respective venues as well. I will keep you informed as to the progress of God, Wealth and Honor as they continue to be played and developed.

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