While in England, Tom Elsworth gave us a good dousing with WRG modern and ancients rules at Robin Peck's house. When Tom left, Robin stated that since we were in the WRG mode, we should run through the Napoleonics rules. And so we did. Modern The WRG modern rules are titled WAR GAMES RULES, 1925-1950. They were published in June, 1988, and like all WRG efforts, they do all things to all men. First of all, they thrive on "realism". In the sequence, however, the authors realize that markers, i.e., little chitties, are needed to denote certain combat effects. Now, we all know that little chitties are not "realistic", and so the authors state: Instead of littering the table with cardboard squares or tiddlywinks, our markers imitate real life visual effects... for maximum realism... I thought this quite informative in indicating the mind set of the WRG folks, for even before we come to the rules themselves, we're inundated with "realism". The rules go on to state that the "real life" markers include: cotton puffs "a length of pipe cleaner painted red" "a flattened ovoid painted a pale grey brown" Robin had no ready supply of red pipe cleaners, nor a single flattened ovoid, but despite this lack of realism, we managed - to survive. Prior to publication of the modern armor book, Phil Barker wrote an article in a wargaming magazine concerning his new approach to firing at AFV's. The article pointed out that trying to evaluate the particular effect of a particular thickness of target armor, target aspect, etc., gave rise to too many uncertain variables in the "to hit" procedure. The WRG rules, therefore, in which one figure is one man, one tank is one tank, simply divide armored targets in classes: there is one category for frontal armor, and one for side armor. Some examples are: Tank Front Class Side Class Sherman IV II T-34 IV III Pz.4e III I Tiger V IV Using the Sherman with the "big gun", the 76/L55(T) , a hit on Class IV armor is a sure kill at any range, while a hit on Class V armor, a Tiger, is not a sure kill at any range (although "anything but a ill knocks it out up to 400 yards). The firing procedures use two phases: a.A "to hit" procedure, essentially range dependent, and with a few additional modifiers to account for firing while moving, target is hull down, etc. b. Having hit the target, then... (i) A "knock out" procedure if the target is an AFV. (ii) Another procedure for elements other than AFV's. These elements may be suppressed, neutralized, or knocked out. As in all WRG rules books, the little fellas in the battle must be given specific orders. There are, in fact, three tiers of orders: a.At the highest tier, each side determines the POSTURE of its force... "hasty attack", "deliberate attack", or "defense". It is duly noted that Polish, Japanese and Israeli armies cannot "deliberate attack". Having said that, the rules say no more, and neither shall I. b.At the second tier, units, i.e., companies, are given ORDERS, which can be: probe, attack, recce, defend, etc. c.On the third and lowest tier, the elements in the units, i.e., the stands, are given operational orders called MODES, and each ORDER has a listing of applicable MODES. There are nine possible MODES: salvo, hold, march, assault, attack, stalk, skirmish, slow, and gap. With the above in mind, one can now read the introduction and understand the statement: In the hope that players are tired of the traditional fascination with minor and often irrelevant differences in tank armor and penetration, we emphasize tactics, terrain and control. They certainly do emphasize "tactics", and with the bulldoggedness of the WRG organization, they fairly drive "tactics" into the ground. Having cast aside the "irrelevant differences in tank armor and penetration", the focus now is whether your men are in salvo, hold, march, assault, attack, stalk, skirmish, slow, or gap. Incidentally, I feel not bound at all to explain any of the listed nine MODES. Robin Peck and I ran through a fairly simple scenario using the modern rules. Several questions arose, and Robin called Phil Barker to query him on the issues involved. During the conversation, I heard Robin speak of "his American friend", who didn't appreciate charts, thought the modern rules too complex, and liked a somewhat simpler format. Barker's interesting reply centered on the fact that a "simple" set of rules is an "incomplete" set... a point with which I heartily agree. Where WRG and I part, however, is in the assumption that a "simple" set is inferior to the detailed page-after-page minutia of the WRG style. One cannot deny the huge amount of research effort put forth for the WRG publications. Having exerted themselves so extensively, however, the WRG authors are determined that not one jot nor one tittle of their enormous research will be ignored, and so this enormity shows up in page after page of rule after rule covering, it appears, all situations, all possibilities, all instances, all happenings, all interactions... all, all, all. What happens, therefore, is that all this nitty-gritty is presented in a myriad of charts and tables, and the gamer then takes this imposing amount of detail, i.e., "precision", for "accuracy" and "realism". Let me tell you, these WRG people are thorough! Would you like to take your tank and push another that is blocking the road? Turn to page 21 and see if you burned out your clutch. Would you like to use poison gas? What kind? ... phosgene or mustard? Turn to page 36. Would you like to see if, once your paratroops have landed, their radio is working? Turn to page 44. So help me, it's all there! The question now becomes... do you want it?? "These rules," sez the introduction, "are set in the real world of rain and mud, dust and mirage." "These rules," sez I, "are not for me." And so I shall quietly leave the scene, uncertain as to whether I am in salvo, hold, march, assault, dash, attack, stalk, skirmish, slow, or gap. Ancients Tom set out a WRG 7th Edition Ancients game... with not too many ancients figures handy, he used his Early Seleucid Ptolmatic Dalmation Medieval Army with an assortment of pikes and handbills and glaves and super extra-heavy-cavalry and heavy-light-infantry and so on. Tom had introduced me to the 7th Edition soon after its publication, and as I remembered, it was a quicker, more readily f lowing game than that produced by the 6th Edition. In fact, I believe I went so far as to state it was an enjoyable game. For some reason, however, this current WRG 7th game didn't jell... something was lacking. Presumably, it was skill on our part, but putting that aside, it was not as enjoyable an affair as memory would have it. The sequence is, in a word, "neat" ... a clever mix of tactical and "strategic march" moves. Units are given "fatigue points" which are recorded on a data sheet... again, fairly "neat". And force commanders are limited in the orders they can give each turn... "neat". And the dreaded "reaction throw" of the 6th Edition with its hundreds (?) of modifiers is gone... more "neat". But to counter all this "neatness", the old combat chart still hangs in there, faking everyone out in its purportedly pinpoint assessment of unit casualties. I don't have the chart in front of me, but let I s say that for 8 figures firing at 6 factors, the chart readout is 46 casualties. And, say, 5 figures firing at 7 factors gives 37 casualties. In each case, note that the casualty rate is awfully close to the product of the two variables, i.e., 8x6 is 48, while 5x7 is 35. Why the rules couldn't simply specify the product itself as the casualty assessment, rather than having the gamer look up the result, is definitely beyond me. To my mind, this again illustrates the WRG methodology of selling "precision" as "realism". Napoleonics Last of all, Robin and I experimented with the WRG Napoleonic set. Here, the extremely clever sequence "makes the game". 1) Side A Response 2) Side A Fire 3) Hand-To-Hand 4) Side A Move 5) Side B Response 6) Side B Fire 7) Hand-To-Hand 8) Side B Move In flow chart format, look at what happens when Side A's battalion, the Fighting 99th, decides to charge Side B's 31st battalion: a. On Phase 1, the 99th tests its reaction to see if it will get off the mark. If successful, note that the 99th doesn't move... it is merely READY. b. On Phase 2, all of Side A's units - except those that are charging... like the 99th - may fire. c. on Phase 3, combat is fought between units that are already in contact, i.e., units that closed during a previous phase. Note again, this does NOT include the 99th, which is still poised for action, but hasn't moved a muscle. d. On Phase 4, the 99th finally advances, and moves to within 1 inch of the defending unit, Side B's redoubtable 31st. e. Phase 5 belongs to Side B, and the 31st tests its reaction to being charged. At the end of this phase, the 99th moves the final inch into contact. f. On Phase 6, the 31st fires at the advancing 99th. Another reaction test to see if the 99th will hold for the charge home. Phase 7 ....at last! the 99th crosses bayonets with the 31st and the melee is resolved. In the above sequence, each action is nicely interlaced with the subsequent action. Note the 99th took two reaction tests to charge, a function that encompassed almost a full cycle of the turn: the first test (Phase 1), started it on its way, and the second test (Phase 6), performed after the 99th took defensive fire, enabled it to charge in to contact. I must confess that the WRG folks are superior in their development of sequences. But I must also note that, excellent as it is, the sequence in the Napoleonic rules book, as explained in the text, is written in sheer WRG gibberish. I can read English with the best of 'em (why, I once read the entire unexpurgated Les Miserables as published by Classic Comics... around 30 pages long!) but it was only after I drew up the flow chart that I truly understood what was going on. One interesting situation that backfired during our Napoleonics session occurred when my French forces attacked a small village held by Colonel Lambert, a stolid British commander of the old school. Robin's advice, purportedly based on a review of the rules procedures, was that, since WRG mandated that all troops in villages were "uneasy", it should be a fairly simple task to "winkle them out." Yes, those were his very words... "winkle them out". Now, I can hold my own in world class winkling, and so I sent three battalions against the one holding the village. Due to space restrictions, however, only two could squeeze in, and this proved to be not enough. Additionally, hindsight called for softening up the troops in the village with musket balls and roundshot, which I didn't bother to do. These pre-melee casualties would have been a factor considered in the hand-to-hand procedures. And I should have checked out Webster's definition of "uneasy", for it turned out that while the defending Brits' "uneasiness" slightly affected their firing capability, it did not affect their hand-to-hand combat ability. For this, they were defined as "formed troops in good order" ... giving them a huge +4 on a 6-sided die roll. More than sufficient to beat back my attack. Melee is in two phases, and on the first, it was decided that primarily due to the opposing Brits' humongous "+4" my attacking troops were at a "disadvantage". No surprise here. The second phase is that of casualty assessment, and each side tosses a 6-sided die (one for each stand involved). It seemed to me that the advantaged side scored on just about anything, while my "disadvantaged" side scored only on a throw of 116". Alas... not only could I not "winkle" the Brits out, but they "winkled" ME out of two entire battalions. And in conclusion... In all, if pressed, I might state that the WRG Napoleonics rules are slightly more preferable to me than the Ancients or the Moderns. Moderns are definitely last in line... not that my love for any of 'em is overwhelming. Back to PW Review May 1990 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1990 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