Last month I discussed a first attempt to use the FIRE AND FURY (FF) rules for a game set in the English Civil War. Horrible! Horrible! I’m no friend of the FF rules in the first place, and the game simply didn’t work. Tony Figlia presented the game, and after the fiasco, in effect he said "Okay, you guys, we’re gonna do it again until we get it right!" One of Tony’s friends volunteered to draw up a set, several sets, of melee charts to account for the different pair-offs and troop types (pikes, dragoons, lobsters, musketeers, etc.) which could be found in the ECW era. And so, we tried it a second time. Four players per side, using Tony’s good-looking 15mm collection. I handled the Royalist right flank… I had 7 cavalry units, which ranged from Prince Rupert’s Own, a dashing unit of plated Cuirassiers, down to a small 4-stand unit of dragoons, which I could dismount, if necessary. And then we accidentally blundered into the greatest boon of all. Prior to the game, while looking at the rules outline that Tony had distributed, I asked him: "Where are the fire charts?" And the reply was a sad: "Oh! Oh!. I forgot ‘em!" FF uses a very silly chart of "firing factors versus die roll." When computing damage due to enemy fire. The chart makes no sense, and even rules author Rich Hasenauer, when I asked him about it, disowned it. Someone else drew it up, he said, sorta ducking the issue. This doesn’t prevent all the FF lovers from thinking the FF chart is the greatest thing since sliced bread. And so, here we were without the FF fire charts, and forced to derive out own firing procedures. Hallejulah! and Glory Be! In Tony’s handout were listed a number of firing factors for muskets and artillery, and Tony suggested we use the listing directly… simply multiply them by 10 and that would be the percentage, the probability of hit (POH), that you’d score on the target. For example, matchlocks or muskets ranged out to 4 inches, and their listed factor was 1 point per stand. Hence my dragoons, when dismounted, a 4-stand unit, accumulating 4 points total, would have a POH of 40 percent. Light artillery had two ranges… up to 8 inches away, the factor was 3 (giving a 30 percent POH) and from there to the maximum range of 16 inches, the factor was 2 (a POH of 20 percent). What this procedure did was to immensely speed up the firing calculations, eliminating the need to compute the long listing of various factors associated with the original FF chart. We used very few factors, for example, reducing the listed factor by 1 if the target was in cover (effectively reducing the POH by 10 percent), or adding 1 to the listed factor if the target was cavalry (increasing the POH by 10 percent). Digression This business of defining cavalry as a “better” target than infantry is found in the FF rules, and I’ve always had difficulty with the +1 modifier. Especially so, here in the ECW era. A horseman may be a larger target than an infantryman, but is he a “better” target as he gallops along? To my mind, not when you consider the inefficient matchlocks used by the troops of the ECW period. But who am I to argue about historical reality? I was quite satisfied to simply avoid the horrible FF fire charts. End of digression. B<>Set Up One thing I immediately noticed about the game set-up. The 15mm troops were placed all the way across the table, some 8 feet long, border to border. This made for a simple head-bonking battle, as the two sides had no maneuver room, and the forces had nowhere to go but forward. My usual ploy, in all my games, is to have all my troops immediately charge forward to test the melee rules. Here, Parliament moved first, and opposing me was a large group of Cromwellian cavalry… Advancing about 12 inches toward my lines. In this battle, however, since the enemy were fast approaching, I decided to hold back my Royalist right flank cavalry… the bad guys were coming out to meet me, and there was no need for me to advance toward mid-field. What I did do was to maneuver my 7 cavalry regimens (each consisting of 4 to 5 stands) so that my heavy cavalry units were in the front, and my lighter units were in the rear. We did use the FF movement sequence, which has the half-bound consisting of 4 phases: (a) Active Side moves (b) Non-active Side fires (c) Active Side fires (d) Resolve melee This sequence means that on both half-bounds within a complete turn, both sides fire equally well. This too, is something about which I’ve shouted before, and with which I disagree, but that’s water over the dam. Accompanying my cavalry brigade was a single light gun, and I peppered away at the oncoming cavalry without stopping them. If a hit was inflicted on the target, we’d take off a stand, and give the unit a casualty marker, which would affect it later in its movement phase.. FF doesn’t require a unit to take a morale test if it’s hit… it simply receives a marker but keeps on going.. and going… and going… like the little battery-powered bunny in the television ads. Which means that no matter how much fire power you direct at a charging unit, it’ll still keep coming and make contact (unless you completely destroy it during its charge). Around Bound 3, my first cavalry contact was made… Rupert’s Own Cuirassiers plowed into an opposing regiment of Parliamentarian heavy cavalry. An even match. This was a first test of the newly-drawn-up melee charts and we turned to the cavalry-versus-cavalry chart. Each unit added its combat points to a 10-sided die roll. Rupert’s points were +1 for heavy cavalry, +1 for Royalist cavalry prior to 1645, and +2 for a "fresh" unit (it had taken no losses). This gave the Prince 4 points… the opposing cavalry had a similar sum. We each tossed our 10-sided die… I tossed a “1”, Parliament tossed a “10”… Rupert’s total, therefore, was 1 + 4, or 5, while the opposing unit had a total of 10 + 4, or 14. Now we looked at the delta, or difference, between the two totals. I had gotten the worst possible result, a huge negative delta in favor of the opposing heavy cavalry. The delta was 9, in favor of Parliament. Referencing the chart for this difference, the result was “defender swept from the field”… and Rupert’s bold Cuirassiers disappeared over the horizon. Definitely not a Good Beginning I don’t have the chart in front of me, but I think if the delta between the sides was less than 7, then each involved unit would simply back up and receive a disorder marker. There were three melee charts: one for cavalry-vs-cavalry, one for cavalry-versus-infantry, and one for infantry-vs-infantry. If I had my druthers, I would have included a fourth chart, one for pike-vs-anything. I think that pike units are unique entities unto themselves and merit special consideration. But the charts worked well… there were few modifiers for each situation, and the participants easily learned how to apply them. On my flank, most of the melees resulted in no losses, merely simple fall-backs with the acquisition of a disorder marker by both sides. When a unit with a marker attempted to move on its next movement phase, it referred to the FF-style ‘maneuver chart’. Toss a die and see if the unit would obey orders or hold or fall back. Most of the time, the disorder marker was removed, and the unit was back in its pre-melee state, non the worse for wear, even though it had been in several melees in a row. Which meant that, time and time again, it could charge forward at its original strength, regardless of how many times it had been in combat. As in FF, a unit could only have a single marker… once a marker was assigned, no other markers were placed on the unit. The single marker knocked off a point in the unit’s melee combat points, but I would have gone even further. I’d have let units accumulate markers, with each one subtracting from its melee capability. And then, in the movement phase, all the markers would have been treated as one, and would have disappeared if the unit tossed lucky. In this manner, due to the negative effect of multiple markers, the melee casualty results would have been more severe, and units wouldn’t have simply bounced off each other, but would have lost stands. At first, I disliked the ‘maneuver chart’… Each unit in your command has to toss its die to see what its disposition is, before you could move it. After awhile, the ‘maneuver chart’ didn’t seem so horrible, but I do think it could have been greatly simplified… there were several modifiers to the die roll, and there were two charts, one for ‘normal units’, and one for ‘disordered units’, i.e., units with a marker on them. This was the phase that held people up the most, as they referenced the appropriate modifiers and went to the chart. For example, under the FF guidelines, each unit had one of three status levels… it was either "fresh" or "worn" or "spent”" A 5-stand unit could be "fresh" until it lost a stand, at which time it was "worn." Lose another stand, and it was "spent”" Some 5-stand units could lose 2 stands before they became "worn”" Each status level yielded a modifier for the ‘maneuver chart’. And how do you tell the status, since there were all sorts of 4-stand and 5-stand units around? Lift up the stand and read the base, on which Tony had carefully noted the applicable number of stands. This is a carryover from the original FF, which applies to the ACW, and which used an assortment of unit sizes… large 12-stand or 10-stand or 8-stand brigades… it was impossible to tell a unit’s status simply by looking at it and counting stands, for some 8-stand units were "fresh", while other 8-stand units were"worn." Here, with this scaled-down effort, I think that a simple rule, applicable to all units, could have been used… any unit with 4 or 5 stands was "fresh", one with 3 stands was "worn", and one with 2 stands was "spent". One additional item I would have tossed in concerned the presence of single stand units floating around. Too many of them. Get rid of the puny single standers. As I mentioned, there wasn’t too much room to maneuver anywhere on the field. My cavalry were restricted to little, dinky 5- or 6-inch moves as they charged, bounced back and charged again. Lots of head-bonking. What saved the game for me, at least, were the new, all-new, quickie firing and melee procedures. In mid-field, it looked to me like the infantry of both sides were also bonking heads. The Parliamentary troops had advanced until they encountered the Royalist troops and the field was full of melees. A grinding, grinding battle. I checked with Fred Haub after the battle, who agreed with me about my thoughts on the accumulation of disorder markers. Fred commanded a number of infantry regiments in the middle of the Royalist lines. Markers would come and go, and their effect was too transient, so that the casualties from melee were not mounting up in rapid fashion. A unit’s strength was not decreased despite the number of times it had been in battle. Battle We started the battle around 10:30 in the AM. We quit around 4:30 PM. And there were still too many viable units left on the map. To my mind, the outcome could have been made more decisive by ‘upping’ the casualty rate due to melee. My cavalry, the Royalist right flank, were very, very gradually getting ground down, as were their opponents. Most of our melee results ended up with no permanent casualties on either side (all that would result would be the ubiquitous transient disorder marker), however, occasionally, one of us would come up with a rotten die toss, and we’d lose a stand. I noticed that the fella to my left, commanding a number of Royalist infantry units, had one cavalry regiment, an elite unit of heavies. He kept his cavalry behind his lines, and I guess he thought that if Parliament broke through, he’d have a back-up unit available. I certainly could have used his unit to help out my own cavalry, but he ignored me and I ignored him. Towards the end of the battle, Parliament did, indeed, break through, and a regiment of Parliamentary pike pushed itself right up to his cavalry, the little Parliamentarians shouting “Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!”. The Royalist commander chose discretion over valor, and he took advantage of a rule providing his cavalry with an ’emergency evasion’’, and his horsemen galloped away. That was the only time they saw combat. As I said, I could have used his cavalry. At battle’s end (or, rather, when we quit, since the actual battle could have ground on for days), it was difficult to determine which side "won…" There were still too many troops on the field. Another item concerning my ‘druthers’… I would have ‘opened up’ the game a wee bit by having the units fire for longer distances. Musket range was only 4 inches, and so a unit had to walk right up to the enemy before it could score an impact. A longer firing range (and, perhaps, greater movement distance) would have speeded up (sped up?) the proceedings. On second thought, for this particular set-up, greater movement distances wouldn’t have helped, so constricted was unit movement. Infantry in line moved 6 inches, and a more open battle with fewer units, could have profited with greater distances. Back to PW Review February 2001 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2001 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