Fred Hubig and I cooperated on a two table presentation at the HMGS convention. A set of twin Seven Years War battles were arranged on two side-by-side tables. Each side had troops on both tables, and was given one Commander In Chief (CINC) in charge .of the forces on both tables. The rules we used were our group's SYW Morale Game, newly titled POUR LE MERITE (PLM). Each CINC had a reserve of four different elements pertinent to PLM which he could apportion to the battles as he saw fit: a. He had an assortment of troops. b. He had a group of adjutants to help out in regimental morale checks. c. He had a total of 150 "Morale Points" which he could allocate to the Division Commander on each table. d. He had a deck of increment cards which denoted the number of actions that his units could undertake. The sequence on each table was a simple you-go/I-go affair, and when it came time on one table for a side to move, the Division Commander (DC) would obtain an increment card from his CINC. The CINC's deck was composed of 20 cards in all. The CINC gave out one card each turn to each DC, using two cards per turn, which comes out to two simultaneous ten turn games. At the end of ten turns, victory conditions were assessed on each table, the total for each side obtained, and the grand winner declared. Whenever an action card was played, infantry were assigned the number of increments shown on the card, while cavalry had twice the number. Movement was 3 inches per increment. On each action on the card, a unit could move or fire.' On a "3" for example, an infantry unit could move twice ( 2 x 3 inches, or 6 inches) and fire once. While the infantry were moving their "3", the cavalry, with twice the number, or 6 increments, could go 6 x 3, or 18 inches. As the battle progressed, therefore, the DC's on both tables pressed their CINCs for high increment cards, since the efficiency of their force was directly proportional to the increments assigned. The highest number of increments was 5, the lowest was 1.  PLM uses the troop organization shown below: Infantry Regiment, composed of two battalions, each of six stands. Cavalry Regiment, composed of two squadrons, each of four stands. Artillery battery, composed of three gun models plus crew. Each CINC had one table on which he was on defense, and one on which he was on offense. The map for each table was identical; on one site, the CINC was attacking the redoubt, and on the other, defending it. Both forces placed their initial troops with a 12 inch set-on. The pace of the battle was somewhat quickened by allowing reserve units to come on the field via the flanks. For example, the attacker's reinforcements could come on anywhere along the perimeter A-B-C-D, while the defender could appear along A-F-E-D.  At the convention, we placed the tables as shown. I served as one CINC, Fred Hubig as-the other. The initial force, for both offense and defense, was one battery, three infantry regiments, and one cavalry regiment. These were on the table, and under the table, we placed the reserves... this proved-my undoing. There were 15 regiments in all for each side, and with three placed initially, this left 9 in reserve. Fred Hubig kert bringing on reserve after reserve in the attack... for that matter, he kept bringing on reserve after reserve in defense. I kept doling out the cards to my side, and little else. For some reason, I neglected to call on the reserves... they remained under the table, safe and secure in their boxes. Obviously the best place for reserves. Leo Cronin acted as the DC for our side on the defense, Table 1, and I did give him an additional infantry regiment. I also assigned one cavalry reserve regiment to Table 2, but I remember noting how difficult it was to bend all the way down, reach under the table, open the box, and haul the spare troops up. No more of this, I said, since I get out of breath, nowadays, in merely bending over to tie my shoelaces.  I did ask Leo a couple of times whether or not he wanted additional units... whatever he replied, I took it for a "No:". Leo didn't complain during the game about lack of support, but after, he was heard to utter demeaning comments concerning a certain Commander In Chief, comments which I shall not bother to reprint here, lest they offend the younger of our readers. The ultimate result in the game: we lost, of course, decisively, on both tables. We HAD to lose, so badly were we outnumbered. Whereas General Hubig brought on the greater part, if not all, of his reserves, we did without. The Victory Point conditions on each table were: a. For every enemy unit that fails morale 5 b. For every enemy officer killed 5 c. For every enemy unit that breaks and leaves the field 5 d. For possession of the redoubt 30 After the game, I realized there was a flaw in the above listing. No credit was received for keeping uncommitted units in reserve. If this factor had been tossed in, General Hubig would have thought twice about pouring it on us, and we would have scored quite a lot, not for what we accomplished on the table, but for what we had stored under it. Back to PW Review April 1987 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1987 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