In Response to Chris Parker's Article Chris Parker's well-done piece in the last issue of PW Review, on "Age of Reason" (AOR) ground scales, was also printed in Historical Gamer #18. I have written a longer response and sent it to Bill Biles to, hopefully, be in the next HG. This shorter article will be a somewhat summarized version with some graphics. Anyone interested in the longer article should watch for it in Historical Gamer. I don't have any major dispute with anything Chris said in his article (except that historical infantry battalions had a slightly longer frontage than he notes due to the presence of battalion guns [see Duffy, The Military Experience in the Age of Reason page 201] which are incorporated into an AOR battalion - but this is a minor point, Chris is essentially correct). For those who are truly worried about it there is an optional rule that some AOR enthusiasts use and that is to make the standard infantry line a double line like so: This is the preferred method of the South Jersey Wargaming Club (I might have the club name somewhat wrong) and by allowing two ranks to fire there seems to be no problems with the rules. So why isn't this the standard method? As I stated in greater depth in the "Historical Gamer" piece I think that accurate ground scale, if you use miniatures, is essentially, 1) impossible, and 2) not terribly important. "Visual scale", I think, is the important thing. The "moving diorama" has to "look right" and this is s subjective evaluation that does vary by individual gamer based on what he thinks a period battle should look like on the tabletop in relation to battlefield paintings, reenactments or whatever. To AOR co-designer Dale Wood and myself, the "double line" formation shown above just doesn't look right for a tabletop representation of an 18th century battle. Instead of long linear formations all we see are rectangular blocks. We are willing to give up "ground scale" for "visual scale" in this instance and don't feel that tactical considerations (which is the truly important issue) are compromised one bit. We completely realize that other gamers, like Chris, legitimately think otherwise and that's fine. . Chris also accurately points out that not all 18th century cavalry units should be represented by a 12 casting unit. No basic problem from me (except that unit organization did go through many major renovations during the period and what was "standard" in one campaign might not be in the next). AOR is a stylized game (on a stylized period) and the 12 -casting unit works conveniently (especially for beginners) with the morale system (based on 25% losses) and is recommened for these reasons. However, there is no problem with the rules using other sized units (6, 8, 10,) etc like the French (page 48) or British (pages 49). AOR is not a "nuts and bolts" tactical game and, from this perspective, the difference between a S and 6 squadron unit is not as important as it would be in other type games. To each his own. Finally, Chsis makes a good point about the standard AOR 4-gunner battery. Although batteries came in all sizes (even less than 4 - see Duffy, Maria Theresa page 117) our standard "battery" could be called a "section" in large batteries (although each section should fire separately). Once again, thanks to Chris Parker for his article and to Wally Simon for the opportunity to respond. Back to PW Review October 1993 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1993 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