Bob Wiltrout took an interest in the miniatures-cum-computer concept. In mid-January, we settled ourselves in my "computer room" (a spare downstairs bedroom) which, in an effort to Be At One with the outside environment, I keep at a pleasant 40 degrees Fahrenheit permitting the super-conductivity characteristics of the micro-chips to operate in optimum fashion. I should mention that the remainder of my house is heated to a torrid, tropical 50 degree F level ... and my heating bill is still over $200 a month. Whatever, there was Bob, with blue fingernails, icicles on his eyelashes, and some notes on running FIX BAYONETS! through the mill. First, for our force content, we entered three British line units, and three opposing French line units. The objective: to save this small order of battle (OOB) on disk, so as to be able to recall it for our series of tests. Using the "Save to Disk" option on the screen, we stored our six units quite handily. Then we looked for the menu option to recall the data ... and looked... and looked ... and looked. An oversight on the part of the programmer? An inability on our part to see the obvious? There seemed to be no way to retrieve the recorded information. Another Note The program diskette is full of routines and data. There's not too much room for additional information, i.e., the OOB of particular games to be saved. It would be nice, therefore, if there was a provision within the program to channel OOB data to another disk. When the "Save" option was activated, however, the OOB data went right on the program disk; the player was given no choice. For that matter, neither was he asked to give the recorded data file a particular name so as to distinguish one OOB from another. Our conclusion the "Save" function needs some work.  Back to Our Six Units We took our units as each was called during the turn by the program to the screen, and tried to "march them into the ground". The objective: to monitor the fatigue points assigned to each unit as it marched on and on and on. The "Move" option asks for the type of terrain over which the unit is crossing; there are four choices on the screen: clear, light woods, medium woods, and heavy woods. The documentation states that penalties are to be paid for hills, but the program does not account for this... "clear", or "woods" are the only choices. We noted that fatigue points seemed to be independent of the four terrain choices. In heavy woods, a unit was permitted to go a lesser distance per turn than in the clear, but the only penalty attached was that the unit would become "unformed." It was also noted that the French units apparently accumulated less fatigue points than the British. Could this be an implementation of the "foot cavalry" concept, i.e., that the French, under Napoleon, could march the pants off their opponents? Movement distances did not appear to be randomized; for example, a unit in column, advancing in the open, with no fatigue points, with 10 Task Points, British or French, was always permitted to advance 110 yards per turn. Phase 2 of the test consisted of wearing each unit down by engaging it in melee. Charge after charge after charge was ordered, to see how the computer resolved the outcome. Results varied: "Attacker retreat", "Defender retreat% "Attacker routed", etc., etc. An initial encounter did not necessarily result in casualties to either side. Once a unit had retreated, however, and was contacted again, then would the casualties mount rapidly. One could not, however, continually "bump" a defeated unit... there were three savings factors: a. First, the Task Points of the victor were reduced in each encounter. Starting at 10 for each turn, a round of melee would reduce them substantially. b. Second, when an opponent retreated, say 90 yards, as dictated by the computer, the victor had to advance 90 yards to contact again. This advance took off even more Task Points. c. If the victorious unit ran out of Task Points, the turn sequence then resumed and other units were called on. The victor's turn might not necessarily come again before that of its opponent, giving a defeated unit a chance to retreat and recover.  Phase 3 of our brief test session looked at casualties and fire effect. Casualty rates are a function of range, target cover, etc., with the computer requiring an input to a flurry of questions. We did note one apparent problem. The line units we dealt with were composed of three types of troops. For example, a French line battalion had: 1 company of 66 Grenadiers 8 companies (66 men each) of 528 Line Infantry 1 company of 66 Voltigeurs 660 men total When a unit took casualties, it appeared to be "from the top down." Thus casualties would first be inflicted on the Grenadiers, and when the Grenadiers were gone, on the Line, and when the Line was gone, on the Lights. In other words, casualties were not spread out throughout the unit but were concentrated on one class of troop at a time. At about this time, Wiltrout gasped: "I can't take this!" My reply: "Is the program that bad?" "No, the program is fine... but the arctic temperature in your computer room has caused the marrow in my leg bones to freeze... I think my feet may need to be amputated, and I will be crippled for life." Our session ended on this inglorious note. Back to PW Review March 1988 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1988 Wally Simon This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com