In the July, 2000 issue of the REVIEW, I looked at Otto’s rules (termed OG), which, I thought, provided an entertaining game for the ECW era. There were, however, several items which puzzled me… I thought it would be interesting to get Otto’s point of view concerning his approach.
One of my comments centered on the concept of "foot" troops. In OG, "foot" is foot”….there seemed to be no distinction amongst the types of infantry that other rules authors take such great joy in detailing and listing. Otto’s comments:
- It is true, as Wally said, that there is no weapon distinction among infantry. Frankly, (hold on to your hat, Wally!) I think that this sort of "scissors/paper/stone" effect simply slows the game down and is not worth the candle. The game is also a unit game in which the ability of the unit to stand against a charge is merely a function of its morale and its armament. Both are subsumed into the value of "stand".
Pike armed units would have a fairly high "stand" value (3 to 5). I don't even consider detaching musketeer stands from units for three reasons.
- (a) First, it wasn't done. The detached musketeers from the Renaissance that we read about were small parties of a small percentage of the unit, not, as wargamers do, stripping all the musketeers away.
(b) Second, the whole point of the pike/shot symbiotic relationship was to use them together to better effect and integrate them. What's the point of integrating them if some stupid wargamer wants to divide them because he's under the misguided belief he knows better. One could argue that the functions and armaments of the two troops were so different that they deserve different rules, but that is pure nonsense. The function of the NCO, the officer, and the private are very very different and you don't have separate stands for them in your units, so why have musketeers?
(c) The third reason is that I don't like it! I'm sick and tired of watching wargamers stripping off the arguebusiers and crossbowmen from my Swiss and Landsknechts and brigading them in neo-Napoleonic regiments (and the pikemen into VERY late Alexandrian Phalanxes) and using them in unhistorical ways, by performing intricate minuets and do-se-does around the field… it doesn’t look good.
Now, in the newest edition of the rules (or rather my newer basing system), an entire Swiss regiment - all 64 of them - pikes, arquebusiers, halberdiers, musicians, etc. - are on one big 5" (frontage) by 8" deep stand! The whole stand has a move, charge, and stand of 5 and a fire of 1 (and they are terror weapons besides, which means the enemy is reduced to a 1 when charged by them!). Prissy little rules lawyers who looked at these in shock and asked "How can they skirmish or send out vedettes?" were told: "You don't. You move fast and charge like hell before the Landsknechts can plop a ‘broken’ marker on your butt!"
It's amazing how much more historically accurate their actions are! Say what you want, for the first time, they LOOK good and LOOK historical. So to explain, you see, the difference iin the infantry comes in how well it can withstand a charge. High stand value, good ability to withstand a charge, low ability... you're dogmeat.
Another of my comments in the July issue focused on the melee results charts.
If infantry held against a cavalry charge, then, regardless of the type of infantry, there seemed to be no difference in the outcome, whether the infantry was composed of pikes, or regular foot, or arquebusiers, etc. Otto’s comments were:
- As far as the infantry holding against the cavalry, this is, perhaps, my most unorthodox position in the rules and one for which I am roundly hated by most gamers. I frankly believe that it doesn't matter if the infantry stand there with arms folded. If they don't break ranks, the cavalry charge MUST FAIL! They don't even have to be armed at all! Horses won't purposefully run into things, and they won't jump over things unless the rider forces them to.
As several veteran trainers have told me, a horse will walk around a log on the ground rather than step over it. I’ve been to enough horse shows and seen enough "riders in the sky" (as the horse threw them over the oxer but did not follow itself) to realize this is true. Also, I have seen enough horses go down on top of the oxer (and not get up!) to know how dangerous it is to run into things. Frankly I believe that this "bulldozer" effect, so beloved by wargamers, is nothing but pure trash - pure fantasy! It all comes down to the infantry, and if the rider sees the infantry are not wavering, turning, shaking, and in disorder, he knows that he CAN force the horse into them, but that if he does, he will certainly die on the wall of pikes, or even in the crash when he runs into the infantry, and the rear ranks just behind him will, if he survives, trample him into snail-snot.
By the way, they (the rear ranks) are going down too! So having a half-ton of man, horse and armor coming down on you (after you have just fallen over a bunch of stubborn infantry) is a guarantee of only one thing. Suicide. Therefore, it is the cavalry that will break and eddy around the infantry, and not do much of anything at all. I have, by the way, spoken to about fifteen trainers, professional riders, and professional equestrians in detail on this and told them about the idea of "shock" as expressed in the wargame community, and all of them have come back with the same response… "What are you… f*****n nuts!" Two of these had been on the US equestrian team, and two more on mounted police units, and one was in the old Indian Army.
Another item with which I was puzzled concerned the fact that the melee rules apparently
“… gave no modifiers for holding high ground, or defending under cover…”
- The one thing where I believe he was in error was in the modifiers for high ground and cover, etc. Unlike most other rules, these modifiers are very, very brief and quickly handled and they probably were missed by Wally. In the rules, terrain can be noted as either a defensive position or a prepared position (or something like that). Attacking a defensive position gives the defender +1 to his ability to stand (or it deducts it from the attacking ability to charge, I forget which). Attacking a prepared or fortified position raises the defending stand ability to 5 (or the attacking charge ability is reduced to 1, again I forget which). Regular fortifications both reduce attacking ability to 1 AND increment defending stand ability to 5. In fire, troops in defensive position can only be fired at from 1 measure away, and only are hit with a I, and that causes a disorganization (regardless of the type of troop firing).
Another of my comments on OG looked at the difference between light and heavy cavalry. In my play-test, I could find no distinction between the two, even though the army list had specifically listed the two types of units. Otto’s comments were:
- Light and Heavy cavalry should have had different values. Generally, I use a line-up like this.
| ABILITY | HVY CAVALRY | LIGHT CAVALRY | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Movement | 4 | 5 | |
| Charge | 4 | 2 | |
| Stand | 3 | 1 | |
| Rally | 3 | 2 | |
| Fire ... as had if any. | |||
Thus to make a charge, the heavy cavalry has a 2/3 chance of making a "credible charge" (toss 1, 2, 3 , or 4 on a 6-sided die), but the light cavalry half as much. You have to play with the values to get them right.
In another part of my article, I noted that I had two versions of OG, and I thought that Otto might be preparing to ‘go public’ with his rules, and publish them for the benefit of mankind. Otto wrote:
- One last point. Wally made an unwarranted assumption when he noted the difference in version and where he said "It seemed to me that Otto was getting ready to go public with OG… “"
This is not true. I once thought of doing that, but I have decided against it for the simple reason that I find I have too much ethical fortitude to be able to ask people to shell out the $25 or so, that each copy would be, in a small private printing, even if I sold it at cost! Nor can I bring myself to load it up with colorful pictures of troops in situations that are wonderfully egoboosting, but not very helpful and contribute nothing to the game. I confess to being something of an unrepentant curmudgeon and believe that if you pay money for a professionally printed or commercial set of rules you should have your head examined. I don't care if it's DB-whatever or the umpty-umpth edition of WRG or DRECKTICA or something else, you're throwing your money away. Write them yourself, or play them at a convention or with friends, and take what you like and forget the rest. If anyone wants a copy of my rules, with the cards, I'll be pleased to send them to them, just give me the postage.
I remember once some pompous blow-hard telling me, when I mentioned how good Tony Bath’s ancient rules (in Featherstone’s WARGAMES book) worked, that… "Well, WRG was developed to provide a historically realistic set of rules and make up for the inadequacies in the Bath game, and it has now superceded it entirely."
I looked at him for a moment and said...”Izat so? Well, tell me then, why WRG is now in its 8th edition and they still can't get the system to work, while the Bath rules work just fine! They worked thirty eight years ago, and they work fine today."
Back to PW Review December 2000 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2000 Wally Simon
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