This letter is to respond to Larry Tagg's analysis in Operations # 15 of the losses generated by the CWB Fire Combat Table. I too have seen game casualties that far exceeded what actually occurred historically. However, after repeated play in the CWB series I have reached the conclusion that a comparison of historical versus games losses is irrelevant.

The CWB is a simulation of combat in America in the first half of the 1860s. One must examine the totality of what the simulation attempts to accomplish: a feel for what it was like to maneuver armies of thousands of combatants commanded by a potpourri of leaders of differing skills, motivations, and temperaments, and make the whole thing do what you want it to do when you want it done. CWB is a study of the effects of command on Civil War battles.

While the actual raw numbers generated by the Fire Combat Table are high, the simulated outcome is not intended to reproduce a historical number of casualties, but to cause the erosion of a unit's fighting strength and fighting "will." That is, after all, why units shoot at each other on a real battlefield, and in the larger context being simulated by the system it is the appropriate function of the table.

In my play, I've found that an "average" brigade will function effectively in combat for about three turns (1 1/2 hours) before it's spent. It may be able to regroup for a second effort, but that effort will have to be limited. I think this is an accurate portrayal of reality. Few brigades in the heat of sustained combat retained fighting cohesion for much longer than a couple of hours (a brigade might be able to skirmish for hours on end, but that's another story). Larry's use of Brawner's Farm is a good example. The principal protagonists of that engagement (Stonewall and Iron Brigades) wailed on each other for about two hours, with night calling a halt to the contest. In the larger context of the corps and armies they belonged to, the most important result of their fight was not how many of the enemy each killed, but the drastic reduction of fighting ability suffered by each brigade. Each side lost an asset that might have played an important role in the fighting of the next day. In game terms, whether 900 men were lost in those two hours where there should have been only 450 is unimportant as long as the process of the erosion of fighting ability happens on a historical time line. I'm satisfied that the CWB Fire Combat Results Table does that.

I recently completed a major study of 15th and 16th century warfare that consumed all my free time. IX Corps, on mainland Japan, did a staff ride to Sekigahara, and the project officer up there asked me to do an analysis of the world's armies at that time. I had forgotten all of the things that were going on then-the Gunpowder Revolution and the project took much, much longer than I anticipated.

I'm also TDY very often. Recently been to the Philippines, Hong Kong, Guam and even to sea, which is torture for an Army officer! The Philippines has really been a bear as all the WWII 50th Anniversary Commemorations were held. Leyte was a terrific experience, and also a huge pain. We had the President of the Philippines, the SECDEF, SECNAV, CJCS, CINCPAC and CINCPACFLT, along with all the lesser one, two and three stars, on an island with a single road, virtually no phone ties with the outside world, and where we had to bring from Manila the rental vehicles, chairs, and even drinking waterl But I wouldn't have missed it.

A couple of comments on Afrika. Great game I especially enjoy the scenarios and initial month of the campaign games. The games I have played have tended to be less mobile that the actual campaign. I think the problem is replicating both sides' errors in overextending their supply lines. If the players (especially the Axis) don't allow themselves to be caught short of supply, they won't get run back across the map. An old adage I like is that "you can fail operationally and not fail logistically, but if you fail logistically, you will fail operationally." I enjoy the fact that logistical planning is so important, but if both sides are careful to keep their units supplied, neither will be able to make the sweeping advances that characterized the campaign. That is probably a good historical lesson, but it makes the game less fun. For that reason, I prefer the scenarios.

I disagree with your comment about the first step being so significant, the loss of a unit's "shine." Every unit has a few guys who are absolute predators, and make a disproportionate amount of the unit's kills. They are also, in turn, the hardest to kill; they have great survival instincts. Another percentage spends most of its time "lost," and represents only negligible combat power. This group also tends to get killed the easiest. This general grouping is borne out frequently at the NTC [National Training Center-wargames with real tanks].

Based on the above, I think that a full-strength unit's first losses will have the least effect on its combat power. The guys killed are usually new, or inexperienced, or not savvy. Additionally, they will mostly be infantry or armor; the supporting arms will generally survive the opening fight. So instead of a forty-man platoon with six machine guns and all the arty/mortar/sapper etc. support of a fullstrength unit, you have a twenty-five man platoon with six machine guns and all the arty/mortar/sapper etc. support. And those will be the twenty-five guys that do all your killing anyway. Until you start killing that cadre, the losses you inflict on a unit will not result in a proportional loss of combat power.

I think this may be represented somewhat by the fire levels in your Brigade series games, although I've never actually had the opportunity to play them. In the Civil War, my understanding is that when a 100-man regiment was reduced to 750, it really didn't lose much combat power. Even a 500-man unit could often accomplish any mission a 1000-man unit could. But once you get down to half strength, any losses start to have more impact. If I was reducing an average unit in four steps, I could give it combat factors of 100%, hobby alive. 90%, 80%, and 40%. But then, I'm not designing the games, and I really like yours! Also, in Campaign to Stalingrad, which I bought based on your good review of the company in the magazine (and I think the game is great), Rhino uses the same philosophy. The biggest reductions generally come with the first step loss.

In GB and EatG you have excellent vehicles for demonstrating synchronization. I've never played games that so reward the combining of different applications of fire and maneuver... arty barrages to set up attacks, air support of overruns, different combat factors for moving and fighting modes, the absolute necessity of HQ doing the staff work, etc. If I get some time I will try to address synchronization in wargaming.

Well, thanks for all the good work. It is recognized and appreciated.

[Ed. note: As I understand it, a brigade in CWB maintains its firepower until it takes so many hits that it can't maintain "standard" density in its two front ranks. So the point in that game is firepower and unit frontage. Your reasoning about step losses in Afrika sounds very much like Dean's rationale for the way step losses do not affect an infantry platoon's firepower in the TCS 3.013. 1 rules. There the point is the one you identify: firepower is not so much a function of troop density as it is the availability of heavy weapons. I seem to remember that John Keegan's The Face of Battle backs up your point about the cadre of "natural soldiers " who give a unit most of its effectiveness. All this is a long way of saying "I agree. "]

I just returned from four months in Haiti with the 10th Mountain Division and, after reacquainting myself with my wife, I discovered that the latest edition of Operations had arrived. I was immediately attracted to the ad for your newest, Hunters from the Sky. Filled with anticipation and suffering from wargame withdrawal, we shot up to Ottawa, Canada, to the closest wargame shop of any worth (or that I know of). Yes, I found Hunters there and picked up Enemy at the Gates as well.

I have already finished the first scenario of Hunters, with the New Zealanders suffering a bloody defeat. I'm beginning a second today. Hopefully the Allies will have a better showing (better dice would help). EatG will have to wait for a time until I can sit down, read the rules and begin punching out the thousands of

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you all for keeping my interest in wargames alive. Just as I began to turn solely to computer simulations, new games including Afrika and Stalingrad Pocket revived my interest in the old hex and counter battles. I was concerned throughout the slow demise of games from Avalon Hill, but never did they produce a game as visually stimulating as Hunters or the CWB series. I am anxiously awaiting your newer releases including Yom Kippur, April's Harvest, and the OCS Sicily game, whenever it may arrive.

Again, thanks for all of the hard work and for keeping the