An issue or so ago, I mentioned that I had tried a set of rules sent in by Dave Corbett of the Benedict Arnold Society. That wasn't really true... what I had done was to take some of the more interesting Corbett procedures, incorporate them into a gaming structure, and then call it a Corbett game. In this way, Dave gets to share in the blame... and credit, too, of course.
subsequent to the appearance of the article, Dave submitted a note on the proceedings and two items in his letter, I thought, are of enough interest to bear comment.
- a. The first concerned the fact that his procedures used 6-sided dice, while mine used 10-sided. Dave indicated the use of the 6-sided dice was to incorporate ... minimalist simplicity, thus a 10-sided die requires a player to be familiar with an additional four numbers (i.e., 7 through 10)...
Although I had really never thought this through before, I can see, now, that this is extremely pertinent in the case of, say, WRG players and other gamers who may have to take off their shoes and socks to count to eleven. The additional four digits to which Dave refers may simply be an insurmountable obstacle. And this brings to mind the fact that the WRG system uses average dice, dice that don't even have the full complement of six digits on them, thus easing the burden of the gamer even more. No wonder that WRG is so popular!
And to drive home the point even further, a recent issue of MINIATURE WARGAMES, No. 78, contains an article on medieval skirmish rules, wherein the author, on page 19, in a desperate effort to avoid using anything but the 6-sided die, employs one die roll followed by "an even number on a second roll". Here, he justifies use of two rolls by stating: "This allows a little more scope in the game without the need for more exotic dice." Indeed!
b. The second of Dave's comments concerned the use of data sheets. Each of the Corbett Napoleonic units is mounted on a hex-shaped stand, and Dave states:
- ... The strength for each brigade is written on the rear of the plexiglass brigade hex with a grease pencil thus conveniently serving as one of your antiquated, archaic, labor intensive data sheets...
The mere fact that someone was using record keeping procedures, whether on the bottom of a stand or on a separate data sheet, brought joy to my heart.
I must admit that, despite my protestations, games have been set up on the Simon ping-pong table in which those ugly casualty caps (ugh!) have been used to denote unit losses. And even more recently, a skirmish game was played in which a figure, 25mm in size, was turned on its side (pfeh! ) to denote that the man was wounded, so that the base of the figure extended into the air even higher than the 25mm dimension of the remaining figures. A lovely sight.
But back to the Corbett game. Since a single stand represents a brigade, the scope of the system is grand tactical in size. The firing procedures are essentially absorbed into those of combat. Not all firing procedures, however. The rules permit a sort of harassing fire from both skirmish units and batteries. Per Corbett:
- ... Infantry brigade hexes do not fire when the "Fire Card" is played... only skirmishers and artillery fire. Massed volley fire is hopefully simulated when combat is initiated as a result of a "Movement Card".
The references to a "Movement" and "Fire" card stem from the use of a five-card Sequence Deck given each side. The sides alternately select a card and carry out its functions, which include:
- Move Card... All units move, change formation, etc.
Rally Card... Division Officers run o'er the field, rallying their units
Fire Card... Skirmishers may move and fire; artillery may only fire
Wild Card... Can reproduce the functions of any other card
Bonus Card... One division can move (Dave's rules called this a "courier card", allowing orders to be transmitted. For our rules, a bonus movement proved sufficient).
Don Lambert and I played a game or two, and as we played, more and more did we diverge from the original Corbett procedures.
The first things to go were the data sheets and the "Strength Points." Dave had initially started all units out with a number of Strength Points, recorded on the unit data sheet, and which decreased as the unit took hits. In combat, each unit drew a number of dice, obtained by dividing an assigned factor, F, into the unit's current Strength Points.
For the British, the value of F equaled 2, hence with 12 Strength Points, a fresh British unit drew 12/2, or 6 dice. French units had an F factor of 3, so that they drew 12/3, or 4 dice.
After a turn or so, we decided it wasn't worth the effort to continually reference the data sheet to obtain a unit's current Strength Points, and then have to divide by the F factor to determine the number of melee dice.
We did, however, want to keep the "national differences" intact, and so I simply gave all British infantry stands a value of 10 points, all French stands a value of 8 points, etc. Thus a 4-stand British unit totaled 40 points, each 10 point increment yielded one Hit Die (HD), and the British unit drew 4 HD. A 4-stand French unit totaled 32 points... 3 HD plus a 20% chance of a fourth.
On the field during our test games, we placed some 6 brigades per side, with each brigade of infantry composed of 2 or 4 battalions. Under the original Corbett rules, each side was given a single Sequence Deck, one card was drawn for the entire side, and all units followed the mandate on the selected card.
Thinking we could provide a wee bit more leeway amongst the forces, we made up separate Sequence Decks for each division on the field. This meant that each side had around 3 decks.., a separate card was drawn for each division. The resultant sequence didn't seem to gel, and after one brief game with this setup, this, too, went, and we were back to the Corbett single deck for the entire side.
Multiple decks, even though permitting each division its own choice of actions, somehow produced a "choppy" game.
When all was complete... or, at least, seemed complete... I set up a game for the Saturday crowd. I should note that Dave Corbett's game is played on a field of hexes; our game was set out on my table-sized, randomly generated, tesselated, mosaic area map. Each area encompasses, roughly, a 6-inch by 6-inch region, and in the game, only one unit was permitted in an area.
In essence, as you might have gathered by now, we were playing a rather huge boardgame with my 30mm Napoleonic miniatures setup. On the right flank of the French Army, my division was placed on the south bank of the River Amp, and faced that of Tony Figlia's British division. My forces were in Ampton, and my objective was Ampton Bridge, opening the way across the river; Tony's objective was to defend Ampton Bridge.
I lined up my units, ready for the first assault across Ampton Bridge. Combat was initiated at the end of a player's movement on a "Move Card", and I had readied my boys for the big thrust. In the lead was that fighting unit, Gimble's Fusiliers, four stands worth of irrepressible ferocity.
Both sides calculated the number of Hit Dice they would toss:
- a. Each side had a lead unit; in this engagement, mine, Gimble's Fusiliers, was lined up on one side of the bridge, and Tony's on the other. Each side could bring in supporting units to assist the lead units, where supporting units were defined as those adjacent to the lead units.
b. The two opposing lead units each yielded full value for their combat points. My lead unit of 4 stands, Gimble's Fusiliers, generated 8 points each, or 32 points. Each stand of Tony's defending 4-stand British unit generated 10 points, hence he started with 40 points.
c. Both of us called on supporting units which were adjacent to the lead unit. I had two supporting units (3 stands each), giving me a total of an additional 6 stands. Supporting units only furnish combat points at halfvalue, hence my 6 supporting stands, at 4 points each, gave me 24 points.
d. Of Tony Figlia's British supporting units, each stand, in providing half-value, yielded 5 points.
e. When the totals were computed, I came up with 32 plus 24, or 56 points... 5 Hit Dice (HD) plus 60% chance of a sixth.
f. Tony's total provided him with something like 8 HD.
Hits on the opposition are produced by rolls of 1, 2 or 3 on the 10-sided HD. For each hit, a marker is placed on the unit. The winner is then determined by looking at two parameters:
- N The total size of your own force, i.e., the number of stands in your force, lead unit plus supports.
H The number of casualties taken by the opposition, i.e., the number of hits (markers) on all participating enemy units.
The sum of N plus H is multiplied by a 10-sided die, and the winner is the higher product.
Note that the factor H includes all markers on the opposition, hence if a weakened unit, one with several markers already placed on it, is brought into combat, its markers will count against you in the final tabulation.
At Ampton Bridge, the British Figliates easily defeated my assaulting force. After the resultant hits were distributed, I found out that my lead unit, Gimble's Fusiliers, were hit so badly, they retreated off the field.
A unit is removed from the battle when the markers it receives totals one more than the number of stands in the unit. Gimble's Fusiliers had 4 stands; it received 5 markers and simply vanished, repressible ferocity and all.
Undaunted, I brought up my reserves for another big push. This time, the assaulting regiment was that of the dreaded Armenian Freedom Fighters, organized by King Zug of Lower Armenia in 1804. Despite the reputation of the Armenian Freedom Fighters, known throughout Europe as "Those Devils In Baggy Pants" ("Cjxzytcy Prshctyzxcty" in Lower Armenian), Tony didn't seem impressed.
Instead, the Figlian immediate response was to ask his corps commander to draw a "Fire Card" for the side. Out came the Fire Card, which permitted skirmishers and artillery to fire (remember that regular units don't get to fire; because of the scale of the game, their firing procedures are assumed to be an integral part of the combat system).
Tony had set up, on his side of the river, his artillery and skirmishers. If skirmish units don't move, they get to toss 2 HD per stand. His British light unit had 3 stands and thus received 6 HD. In addition, an artillery unit gets 3 dice, and so the Figlian British, in popping away at the Armenian Freedom Fighters, tossed a total of 9 dice, looking for 1's, 2's or 3's.
I think they put some 3 markers on my Armenian Freedom Fighters, and the 4-stand unit simply shook the impact off.
But now, Tony did a mean and nasty thing... he asked for the draw of his side's "Wild Card" and requested that it be termed another "Fire Card", permitting him to blast away for a second time. There was some discussion at British Headquarters concerning Tony's request. Defining the Wild Card as a Fire Card would deprive the rest of the British army of the chance to play a second key Movement Card in the bound. But Headquarters came through... a Fire Card it was.
BANG! WHAMMO! CRUNCH! Another 9 HD were tossed, and this time, the number of hits on the Armenian Freedom Fighters, coupled with those they had just received, totaled well over the number of stands in the unit (4). And off the field went the Armenian Freedom Fighters. These brave heroes, baggy pants and all, hadn't had a chance to fire a shot... they had merely assembled on Ampton Bridge, readying for the assault, when they found themselves inundated with Hit Dice. War is hell.
With the demise of the Armenians went my chance of forcing my way across Ampton Bridge, and I took time out to view the rest of the field.
Colonel Bob Hurst was in charge of our French left flank; opposing him on the British side was Don Lambert (I wasn't sure if Don was a colonel or a general). Both had been assigned the cavalry arm of their respective forces, and both were pummeling each other.
Don seemed to be forcing Bob's units back, but several problems arose regarding the treatment of units on roads.
Should units on road areas be in column? Should their opponents have an advantage over them when attacking? And so on. It was obvious that this section of the rules system needed a wee bit more -iork.
Another problem cropped up when Colonel Bob's French infantry wanted to engage a British cavalry unit located in an adjacent area. No, said the umpire (whose name shall not be released at this time), infantry cannot attack cavalry, and the result was that the British cavalry simply sat there, blocking the way, preventing the French foot from advancing further.
All at tableside shook their heads at this ruling. Here, too, the rules needed more thought.
I mentioned that when a unit was hit, either through fire or melee, markers were placed on it, and if it received one more marker than the number of stands, the entire unit was removed from play. For markers, we used a number of officer figures. As the officer figures mounted up, then, as one of its choices in the sequence, a side could play its "Rally Card", and when this appeared, all division commander figures could ride to the units under their command and attempt to remove an officer-marker or two.
Arriving in the area in which a unit was located, the officer had a basic 70% chance to remove a marker. If he failed, however: bad news... the unit received yet another marker. If he succeeded, one marker was removed, and the commander could try again with a 60% ance of success. The probability of success of each successive -nance was reduced by 10%.
At Ampton Bridge, I remember hearing cries from the British side of the river. One of Tony Figlia's 3-stand British infantry units had 3 markers on it; one more and it would flee the field.
During one of the British rally phases, along came the British division commander; Tony tossed his dice and failed to roll under 70... the unit received a fourth marker, and off the table it went, accompanied by a gnashing of British teeth.
I forget from which set of rules I "borrowed" this ride-to-rally procedure, but I think it's one of the more enjoyable ploys of a wargame, and, in some fashion or another, I include it in most of my current rules sets.
Despite the problems that arose during the battle, the game went well. There was one comment to the effect that, since there was only one Movement Card in the sequence deck, movement of the forces across the field was not as fast as it should be. But I think this had more to do with the scenario than the sequence. The map of the field set out an unfordable river line across the entire field, and the river could be crossed only at certain bridges.
This meant that, having arrived at the river, a unit could move no more until a bridge was secured, and so it sat and sat and sat. Additional movement cards wouldn't really have helped.
Dave Corbett uses hexes in his game, I use randomly drawn areas, and because of the use of specific areas to denote where a unit is in relation to the enemy, the game is a "clean one"... there is no discussion as to whether or not a unit is sneaking up on the flanks of the enemy, there is no discussion as to whether or not your guns are in medium or long range, there is no discussion concerning whether or not your unit can move far enough to contact the enemy.
Another reason for the "clean game" is the sequence, with its specific phases of movement or fire or rally, etc. All the units on a side perform one common function. I won't defend against cries that this is "not realistic"... but, to my mind, it's just as accurate a portrayal of the battlefield as the procedures in most wargames, wherein, across the, say, three miles of frontage represented by the width of the ping-pong table, all units leap into action with absolute coordination, instantly obeying the commander's will.
Experimentation
Tom Elsworth and I further experimented with the Corbett sequence during my recent brief stay at his home in Cholsey, England.
One thing we did was to "open up" the firing procedures. Originally, on the play of a Fire Card, only skirmishers and artillery could fire... and, with only one Fire Card per bound, this made these types of units fairly ineffective.
True, as related above, when the Armenian Freedom Fighters at Ampton Bridge were annihilated via two quick bombardments, i.e., two consecutive plays of the Fire Card, the artillery and skirmishing units can be quite effective, but this is accomplished only at the expense of penalizing the remainder of the army, for the Wild Card must be employed solely for this purpose, and it deprives the entire force of duplicate move or rally phases.
Tom and I decided we would provide a force, on the play of a Fire Card, with a limited number of opportunities to fire for individual infantry units, no more than three units at any one time.
This, in turn, would solve the problem of the "blocking cavalry unit" standing in the path of infantry, and immune to combat. Although the infantry couldn't directly attack the mounted unit, it could pop away at it during the play of a Fire Card, and the cavalry commander could simply stand and take it, or run off, or charge the harassing infantry unit. By the time we're through with the ideas presented by Dave Corbett, it's
entirely possible that Dave will never be able to recognize his original creation.
Back to PW Review April/May 1994 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1994 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