Found a book on my shelf called THE BEST OF BOARD WARGAMING (Hippocrene Books), by Nicholas Palmer, published in 1980. Palmer reviews about 100 or so games published at that time, but the interesting part of the book, for me, was his attempt to compartmentize the various games into the categories "strategic", "operational", and "tactical".
A strategic game, he indicates, would have provisions for military capability, economic strength, diplomatic interaction, supply infrastructure, and the like. A rather grand view of the situation. Players have a huge overview of an international picture, and are not too interested in the nitty-gritty of the procedures, but only in the outcomes.
One level down, an operational game gives a "clear historical result" of a battle, and Palmer quotes John Hill (author of JOHNNY REB), who states that in this scale game, players simulate particular commanders, and Palmer then goes on to say that an operational game deals with senior front-line command.
He states that many games claim to be operational, but offset this by having the player make tactical decisions, with which, ordinarily, the senior front-line commander wouldn’t concern himself. These low level decisions are put into the game design to keep the player happy... give him something to do... which unit should lead the advance?... which unit should we keep supplied? Palmer calls these games "operations-with-tactics".
Down at the tactical level, reference is again made to John Hill, who is quoted, regarding his design of the SQUAD LEADER game, "... the game designers are not as interested in ‘what actually happened’, as they are in the effect of the event..." And so Hill describes how he fudged the range of the submachine gun in SQUAD LEADER to make the outcome conform to the expected result.
Palmer equates WW2 "operational" games with those in the Napoleonic era which are termed "grand tactical" games.
After reading all this good stuff, I set up a "grand-grand tactical" Napoleonic effort, a corps-vs-corps encounter, similar to that described in the April/01 issue.
The scale was defined as 2-inches to the mile. Thus my ping-pong table, measuring 9 feet across, 108 inches, equated to a theatre of war some 54 miles wide, and 30 miles deep. This scale really wasn’t "operational"... indeed, it bordered on the "strategic"... but I plowed ahead.
I like unit movement distances of 10-inches in all my games... whether it’s a squad, a division, an army, or an intergalactic battlefleet, everybody, when its their turn to move, goes 10 inches. And so when my corps moved 10 inches on the table, the scale said they were moving a distance of 5 miles. To get the time scale, we look at how long it should take a corps to move 5 miles.
You’ll never believe this, but here’s where I departed from historical reality. I defined the time scale as 4 hours... in other words, I stated that the corps could advance 5 miles in 4 hours, a wee bit faster than 1-mile-per-hour.
Next question. If a turn is thus 4 hours long, how long is a day?
I divided the day into 5 increments:
- 0600 to 1000 a 4 hour increment for early morning
1000 to 1400 another 4 hour increment for early afternoon
1400 to 1800 a 4-hour late afternoon increment
1800 to 2200 a 4-hour evening increment
2200 to 0600 an 8 hour night-time increment
Troops couldn’t move during the 8 hour night period... supplies were brought up, reinforcements appeared, nothing else. If a battle started during the 1800-to-2200 period, it only lasted for that one increment... when 2200 arrived, the forces separated, and got a good night’s sleep.
If a battle started at any other earlier time period, there was a chance it would go on for two entire increments, i.e., an 8-hour battle, and at the end of the total period, the victor would be declared. I assumed that a full 8-hour battle would be all the concerned corps generals would want to see before they pulled back their troops.
And so the scenario started. I had 2 decks of cards, and for the French, who had 3 corps, there were 3 cards in their deck, one for each corps. The defending Russian commanders, with 4 corps, occupied 4 of the 10 towns on the field... the Russians had 4 cards in their deck.
To even out the decks to 4 cards each (the decks were drawn from alternately), I placed one buffer card in the French deck. When the buffer appeared, certain units on both sides could do certain things, described later. I was gaming this solo, and the decks told me who moved and when. A card for each active element (in this case, a corps), leads to a ‘lurchy’ sequence, but it’s almost a necessity for solo gaming. As I’ve said before, lurchy sequences produced by a deck composed of 1-card-per-unit are fine for solo gaming, but they’re rotten for multi-player games.
Battle Started
The battle started at the beginning of the first time increment, at 0600, and the first French card that was drawn was for the 1st Corps, on the right flank of the French army, headed by General Brisquet. His corps, all units in column formation, moved up 10 inches toward the town of Zech.
Brisquet had 3 divisions in his corps... a single 15mm stand was defined as a brigade, and each of his 3 divisions had 3 brigades in them, 3 stands, or 9 stands in all. Brisquet’s corps also had a cavalry division... 3 brigades, i.e., 3 stands... and his corps artillery, represented by one stand.
As the early morning cards were drawn, all the Russian commanders were content to sit in their towns, waiting for the French to move up. All, that is, except for General Hurski who decided to move his corps out of his town, and advance, attempting to bring his corps closer to that of his fellow General Frug, sitting in Zech, so that, together, they could give Brisquet the ‘whatfor’. Remember, the Russians had 4 corps to the French 3, and so, in essence, they had one ‘free’ corps to move.
The early morning increment ended and the early afternoon period began. As the cards were drawn, the French continued to move, the Russians, for the most part, to sit. With Brisquet’s corps and Hurski’s corps each moving 10 inches toward each other, the two corps confronted each other, and stopped, separated by a 2-inch (1 mile) distance. The divisions of both corps remained in column formation.
At the same time they stopped, the corps sent out their cavalry divisions. Cavalry could range 10 inches from its mother corps, and here, with the corps only 2 inches from each other, the horsemen struck, producing a casualty figure on the enemy.
During a daytime 4-hour increment, a corps could do one of the following when its card was drawn:
- (a). It could advance 10 inches, with all units in column formation.
(b). It could hold position and deploy for combat.
(c). If deployed, and the enemy was combat distance away (2 inches), it could advance into contact to start an assault.
(d).
- (i) It could send out its cavalry to harass the enemy
(ii). If deployed, and the enemy was combat distance away (2 inches), it could send out skirmishers to harass the enemy.
Note that each action in the above listing took a full 4hours to accomplish. I thought it not unreasonable for a corp to take four hours to change formation out of road march and deploy all divisions. Whenever a corps moved, all of its units had to be in road formation ans in item (a). Conversely, a deployed corps had only a limited series of actions...under item (c), it could go into combat and under (d) it could harass the enemy.
When the late afternoon period began, Hurst's and Brisquet’s corps were facing off, 2 inches from one another, still in column formation. Hurst's card was drawn first and his corps deployed. When Brisquet’s card came up, he, too, deployed. Both corps again sent out their cavalry, and both struck successfully. Now each corps had 2 casualty figures on it.
Having deployed during the afternoon, this meant that it was during the evening increment, 1800 to 2200, that the battle took place. Brisquet’s card appeared, he advanced, and the battle was on.
Immediately that the combat began, I placed a 15mm casualty figure on each participating corps. Then each struck at the other, with a successful strike producing 2 more casualty figures on the opposition.
The probability-of-hit (POH) for the strike was given by a summation of several factors... how many deployed brigades (stands) there were, the ‘Military Capability’ of the commanding general, whether the corps was defending a town, etc.
Brisquet struck successfully, Hurski didn’t. Brisquet’s 1st Corps now had 3 casualty figures on it (2 from cavalry harassment, and 1 from the melee), Hurski’s had 5 (2 from the cavalry, 1 from the melee, and another 2 from Brisquet’s successful strike). Now, after this casualty-producing phase, I had to determine which side won.
Each side added a 10-sided die to:
- (a) The number of deployed divisions (Hurski had 2, Brisquet had 3)
(b) The number of casualty figures on the opposition
Brisquet’s total was greater then Hurski’s... Hurski’s Russian corps retreated 20 inches. Note that I hadn’t removed any battle casualties (stands) yet.
To do this, I translated the number of casualty figures into actual stands removed. Each casualty figure equated to a 15% loss value, and I referred to a ‘loss chart’.
- Hurski’s 5 casualties came out to 5x15, or 75 Total Loss Points
Brisquet’s 3 casualty figures came out to 3x15, or 45 Total Loss Points
| Total Loss Points | No of Stands Lost |
|---|---|
| More than total | Equal to (no of cas figs) |
| From 1/2 total to total | Equal to 1 + (no of cas figs) |
| Less than 1/2 total | Equal to (2 + no of cas figs) |
Brisquet tossed a 56, more than his total... according to the chart, he lost 1 brigade for each of his casualty figures, 3 stands in all. A loss of 3 brigades, essentially an entire division, is no bargain, but Hurski was even more unlucky... his toss was a 12... his losses, in stands, were a total of 7 (2 plus his casualty figures of 5)... and Hurski’s corps, as it retreated, was fairly decimated... a significant victory for Brisquet.
With Hurski out of the picture, Brisquet could turn his attention to Zech, and Russian General Frug, his original goal.
It was now night-time, and during this increment, I diced to see if any corps on the field were to be reinforced... the reinforcement table was applied to any corps that had lost brigades during the day. I didn’t apply it to corps that hadn’t fought and hadn’t lost stands... otherwise, over time, the individual corps size might have expanded too much, and I wanted to keep the size of each corps within reasonable limits. Reinforcements were not overwhelming... a corps could regain either 2, or 1 or no stands. In this instance, Brisquet regained one stand, while poor Hurski regained none.
Now the second day began, early morning. In the middle of the field, French General Simone led his corps, the proud 3rd Corps, against the key Russian town of Zuch. I had great hopes for General Simone... he had 3 divisions of infantry, with 2 of them having 3 stands each, while the third was a virtual behemoth... it consisted of 6 brigades, 6 stands.
General Simone also had 2 cavalry divisions, and his corps had approached to within combat distance, 2 inches, of Zuch, the previous day. In the morning, Simone’s 3rd Corps troops deployed, and in the early afternoon, they attacked.
But the Russian general defending Zuch, General Dorf, wasn’t standing idly by. The previous day, when Simone approached Zuch, Dorf sent out his cavalry to harass the French, and fired his guns, inflicting casualty figures on the 3rd Corps. Then, in the morning, as the 3rd Corps deployed, out came Dorf’s cavalry again, and his guns fired again... more casualty figures.
Each side struck at the other... more casualty figures. And when the final tally was made to determine who won... it was the 3rd Corps that was driven back! At battle’s end, Simone’s corps had 8 casualty figures on it. Refer to the loss chart given above, and you’ll see that the 3rd Corps was no more!
The rules must be revamped, said I.
Back to PW Review June 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