Some issues remain partisan much longer than actually useful -- woods effects is one. We will encourage as much debate on this subject as you, the readers, desire and allow. After Dave's article last issue, I got two phone calls from the opposition and a couple of notes from supporters. A couple of misconceptions about what Dave actually said came up more than once, so I decided to write this short article to put them to rest. The issue itself remains solved or unsolved as per your tastes. Articles from either side will be welcome.

First off, Dave does not imply that "because the soldiers form ranks between the trees, they are in clear view and shot." His basic tenant is that the trees act as the rods in a nuclear reactor, absorbing bullets, and that the lines draw ever closer together because of limited visibility. The proximity of the lines compensates for the"absorption factor" between the lines. His comments regarding the lines being formed between trees was merely to eliminate any possible idea that the troops broke ranks and each hid behind his personal tree -- as in more modern tactics.

Second, in the CWB system, two lines firing at each other shoutd not be assumed to be one hex distance (200 yards) apart. Instead, one hex range is considered to be a "nominal range for effect" whereby a given firefight may be closer if conditions require it to maintain that nominal fire effect level.

In woods, the lines are assumed to be closer together -- in order to give them the correct nominal range effects. This is a behind the scenes concept which the player need not know about but (by misconception) was being applied as "proof" of woods effects, etc. It is every subtle feature of the system's design and is intentional.

Close combats are fights at ranges closer than the nominal one hex. In concept, I always assume the troops to be able to be anywhere in a hex, and not riveted to the hex's center. Therefore, in close terrain, lines are as assumed to move toward the edges of the hex, in order to maintain the correct fire effect level--an assumed "normal" level of fire combat. In open areas, the range can be more effectively determined by the number of hexes involved -- since the base of the system is "one hex, open terrain."

Lastly, since further numeric study only served to confirm our original concepts, it is highty unlikely that a woods terrain effect will be added to the system (with Dave's variant idea of straggler adjustment aside.) One caller aimed to have a lead on examples where one force intentionally formed in and fought from woods against another which swept across the open in front of it.

OK, bring it on and we'll look at the statistics. I would like you all to bear in mind one point, however, if woods gave an advantage in defense which was noticeable, why are exampes of this kind so hard to come by? Civil War commanders were among the finest officers of their day and they would not only notice, but would go out of their way to take advantage of, any amount of edge they could get. We have a bad tendency to look down our 20th Century noses at their methods (March and fight in lines, standing up? Get real!) They knew what they were doing and what they were about. That they did not have the advantage of our hindsight should not be held against them. If the advantage of woods was perceived as less than the problem of managing troops in them, why should we corrupt the game system by giving players encouragement -- a reward -- for behaving in a way that is incorrect, ahistorical, and the opposite of the way their "onmap" commanders would have handled their troops?