Last month's REVIEW carried an article outlining a system in which (a) the active side in a you-go/I-go sequence was not permitted to do everything the commander wished, and (b) the non-phasing side was permitted, within limits, to react to the active side's actions.
At the December PW meeting, Fred Hubig hosted a game presenting his version of the system... a Napoleonics effort in which four players per side participated.
In brief, at the beginning of each turn, each regiment of two or three battalions of the active side was handed an Action Deck card which denoted the functions the units in the regiment could perform: fire or move or change formation, etc. Some of the cards indicated that, for that turn, a specific function was forbidden, i.e., no battalion could move or could fire, etc. The percentage of "Ido's" and "I Don'ts" was about 70 percent, i.e., 70 percent of the time, a battalion could perform a desired action.
On occasion in the game, this caused unhappiness... "Why can't my guns fire?", or "Why can't my troops move forward?" In the main, however, the players seemed to accept the restrictions placed upon their commands.
But the most interesting comments pertained to the reaction system. Here, too, cards were given to each regiment, and here, too, a limited number of responses were available... such as defensive fire, or forcing a morale test on an enemy unit, etc.
When Fred and I had play-tested the system, it seemed we never had enough reaction cards, i.e., our units couldn't continually respond as we desired. Once a reaction card is played, there is the possibility it is lost forever... the percentage chance to recover a card is around 80 percent. Thus as reaction cards run out, unit response diminishes.
In contrast to our own findings, the players at the PW meeting seemed to think there were too many reaction cards... they always seemed to have a surplus.
And, of course, there was yet a third response, this one from Bob Wiltrout, who wandered by while the game was in session.
I explained the various actions and reactions and ploys and procedures and options to Bob, who listened closely, following my explanations with "Uh huh! ... Uh huh!...Uh huh! ... 11
For a moment, a brief moment, I thought I had made a convert. This was quickly dispelled when Bob's final response, as I finished, was to wander off, rolling his eyes unto heaven, as if to say "You've got to be kidding!"
The next Saturday, I tried yet another variation of the rules. To keep the noise in the system down to a minimum, I discarded the Action Deck, i.e., now, the commander of the active side could command his troops to do whatever he wished; there were no restrictions.
This time I focussed solely on the reaction procedures. The setting was the American Civil War, and I gave each brigade commander a number of Reaction Deck cards equal to the number of regiments in the brigade.
When a card was played, there was a 70 percent chance it was replaced... statistically speaking, therefore, as the game continued and more and more cards were not recovered, a brigade's reaction capabilities would decrease.
I instituted a set of victory point conditions... one point if an enemy unit failed morale, one point if a gun was captured, one point each turn per town occupied, etc. A total of 25 points constituted victory.
Suddenly, about three-quarters through the battle, there was a moaning and a groaning. People had been tossing reaction cards back and forth for "defensive fire" for "enemy test morale", for "breakthrough" etc., and I thought all was coming along quite well... until the moaning began. Declared the moaner: "This is nothing but a card game."
"Yes," was my reply, "You are certainly, absolutely, most definitely, positively, unequivocally, using cards."
"But this is nothing but a card game!"
"Nay, lad," quoth I, "It is NOT a card game, It is an OPTION game, in which your options as a commander happen to be listed on the cards."
The cards happen to be the vehicle on which the restricted list of reaction responses were tabulated. I could just as well have listed them on a chart. Would that make it a "chart game?" If so, of course, that damns every set of rules ever published.
To me, designating the game as a "card game" because cards are in use, is pretty much the same as calling a miniatures battle a "finger game", because your fingers are used to grasp the stands and move the troops around.
Cards, fingers, toes, dice, charts... all these are simply tools of the trade.
I should state that, moaners and groaners notwithstanding, yet another modification of the rules is in the making; once I get going and become fixated on an idea, I build up a lot of momentum and it's hard to stop me.
Back to PW Review January 1992 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1992 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