There are lots of dust-gathering rules-sets in the Simon library, each crying out to be reviewed. For the most part, I ignore them, seeking 'fresh blood', as it were. Recently, I received two sets of rules from the outlying suburbs: The Corbett Rules The first set came from Dave Corbett of Mokena, Illinois, who speaks for the Benedict Arnold Society. Dave's letter stated he was enclosing : "... a set of rules... played twice... and found... to be fast moving..." I must admit that anyone who has the patience and stamina to play the same set of rules twice rates fairly high in my book, and I immediately assumed the Corbett rules were worth a look. I had to do some adjusting, for Dave's letter also stated: "My 30mm, figures are mounted on 4 inch hexes and the ping pong table is then covered with a 4 inch hex grid." While I couldn't replicate the 4-inch hex configuration, I came close to it by laying out my tessalated, mosaically, randomly drawn, table-size area sheets, (see the sketch of the field in the D-DAY article in this issue). And since I changed the field slightly, I also felt free to make other changes, in particular, to switch from the old­fashioned, atavistic and primitive Corbett 6-sided dice to the new, advanced, modern, high tech and state-of-the-art Simon 10-sided dice. The Elsworth Rules These arrived from Tom Elsworth, who does great things for the Oxford Wargaming Club. In April of last year, when I visited Tom, he was just starting out on the rules, planning to use them for a small convention the Oxford group holds each year, inviting (special invitation!) several other British wargaming clubs. Here, I couldn't possible refuse the Elsworth input, for at the top of the first page, in big caps, was the notation: WITH GRATEFUL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF EXTENSIVE INPUT FROM WALLY SIMON!! Unbiased, impartisan fellow that I am, it was obvious that Tom's rules were going to be first rate. We started off on the Corbett rules. Here, I set up a Napoleonic scenario... 3 brigades (one division) per side, with each brigade consisting of 2 to 4 battalions. A battalion consisted of 2 to 4 stands, and only one battalion could occupy an area... in board­game language, there was no 'stacking'. The strength of each battalion was tracked on a data sheet, and the only reason for using more than one stand per unit, i.e., per battalion, was to visibly display the formation of the unit: in column, deployed, or in square. I liked the simple sequence, consisting of each side alternately selecting and playing one of 5 action cards. The cards were: Move: All the units on the side could move, change formation, etc. Fire: All units fire Rally: Officers dashed around the field, attempting to get rid of Disorder Markers. Courier: In the Corbett game, this card was used for messengers to carry orders to the units on the field. In my version, this card permitted the division commander's adjutants (2 of them) to ride out to a unit and permit it to carry out a special order. For example, if the Move card was played, thus mandating that all units had to move, you could also play the Courier card. This meant that an adjutant could be placed with a unit which then didn't have to move with all the other units on the field, but could be given separate orders such as 'fire'. Wild: This card could be used to repeat the function of any other card. Both in melee and in firing, each participating unit gets to toss a handful of dice. In the Corbett game, a toss of 6 on a 6-sided die caused a hit; in my version, a toss of 1 or 2 on a 10-sided die caused a hit. The hit percentages, therefore, were fairly close (16 percent to 20 percent). The different unit types had different Strength Points. An infantry unit, for example, had 12 Strength Points (SP), and every hit knocked off one SP... the infantry battalion could thus take 12 hits before it was eliminated. Everything went smoothly until the first two units came into contact and melee began. Each unit threw its handful of dice. At the end of a round of combat, the side losing the most points takes a morale test; if it fails, the melee is over. Concerning the length of the melee, Dave's text stated: If pass (... the morale test...), continue combat until one side is eliminated or withdraws due to failing morale. Helas! Here we had an example of what I termed the 'interminable melee'. In another article in this issue, I bemoan the fact that such a procedure may take forever to resolve combat. And, in fact, our worst fears were borne out. In the very first two melees of the game, the opposing units simply refused to break! They went on and on and on... round after round after round. Other units simply ignored them, moving past them, going about their own business. After some 3 or 4 bounds, most of the units on the field were pretty well battered. This came about from the fairly large number of dice thrown.., perhaps we were "luckier" than other gamers, but we certainly tossed a lot of '1's' and '2's'. All present at table-side agreed that, with the units in their present state of strength (or lack of it), we close down the battle. And Then Came the Elsworth Game I hate to admit it, but this one lasted no longer than the Corbett game! Tom's rules were structured for the 17th century, and I brought out a number of pike units, and musketeers, and ferocious Highlanders, etc., etc. I should also note that here, too, I switched from Tom's use of 6-sided dice to 10-sided ones. One interesting item quickly showed itself... both the Corbett and the Elsworth rules used lots and lots of dice tosses... and both authors favored that dreaded 6-sided cubelet! When the Corbett game ended, and we first began the firing and melee routines of Tom's efforts, and I started reading out the number of assigned dice, there were several comments to the effect: "Didn't we just finish playing these rules?" The most interesting procedure about the Elsworth game is the sequence. One is given a listing of commands in order of increasing 'aggression' (bottom to top): Impetuous charge Advance Fire and 1/2 advance Fire and hold Hold Fire and retire Retire in column Flee the field Each time you issue one of the above orders to a unit, you toss the dice and see if the order is obeyed. If not, there are two possible results, depending upon the dice throw... either it changes to a more aggressive one (moving up the list), or a lesser aggressive one (moving down the list). After some discussion table-side, we set up the following procedure to implement this system. a. Anounce the order to the unit in question. b. The unit now takes a morale test to see if it obeys. c. If the unit fails its test, examine the dice throw to see how 'badly' it failed: (i) Every 10 point increment of the dice toss above the morale level of the unit now indicates the number of levels by which the order shifts. (ii) But does it shift up or down? The answer: if the dice toss was odd, the aggressiveness level of the order would go up; if the dice toss was even, it would go down. For example, assume Lieutenant Figlia's Pikemen had a current morale level of 60 percent... the unit started at an 80 percent level, but it had come under enemy fire, reducing the morale level. Now assume the unit was issued the order to "Hold". Further, assume the resultant dice toss was a 95. 95 minus 60 is 35... divide this by 10 and the aggressiveness of the order shifted by 3.5 levels (round up to 4). Since the dice throw was odd (it was 95), the aggressiveness moved up on the list of orders. Four levels up from "Hold" is "Impetuous charge!" And off would go the Figlia Pikemen, smashing into the nearest enemy unit. The above example actually occurred in our game; I commanded Lieutenant Figlia's pike unit, and I ordered them to hold position, and since they were still in column of march, to deploy. And did they obey me? Not on your life! I tossed the dice, and they suddenly surged forward, still in column (a non-combat formation), and ran headlong into a unit of deployed musketeers. Undaunted, the musketeers got off a "hasty fire" volley, the pikemen took a morale test, and the result was that they lost points, thought better of the exercise, and retreated. When a unit retreats due to having failed a morale test, not only does it lose points and fall back, but it automatically forms up in column. And so, here were the pikemen, back where they started, once again in an undeployed formation. Now, I grant you that the following circumstance is hard to believe, but again I ordered the pikemen to hold and deploy (thinking that this time they would be a wee bit more receptive to orders). And when the !@#$%&! pikemen tested to see if they would obey, the same sequence of events occurred! They failed their order-testing dice throw by a huge amount. Off flew the pikemen in column formation, impetuously smashing into the same musketeer unit that had sent them running before. This time, Lieutenant Figlia's dreaded pike withstood the hasty fire of the musketeers, and the melee commenced. Since they were in column formation, the pike were somewhat disadvantaged... they received less dice to throw than the musketeers, who managed to toss quite a number of "1's" and "2's", each hit knocking off a strength point. And the result? You will not be surprised to find out that, once again, Lieutenant Figlia's outstanding unit took it on the chin, lost, and came streaming back. If the only unit that took off on its own was the pike unit, all would have gone well for our side. But on my flank, where my wing consisted of some five units, all seemed to act berserk! None would obey orders as issued! All wanted the greater glory of bonking heads directly with the enemy... and all, unfortunately, lost their combats. At this point, we decided to call it quits. Too many units were disobeying their orders, causing chaos on the field. We weren't sure if we were just the victims of a run of rotten dice, or the actual statistics were fouled up. In any case, we wrapped it up. Conclusion To my mind, we didn't give either the Corbett or the Elsworth rules a run for the money. Both sets introduced some interesting innovations into the procedures. In the Elsworth rules, for example, Tom's sequence had both sides being dealt three cards, and then each playing one of the cards (they were all numbered) from the total of three cards held in the hand... the high number got to go first. I changed this slightly: the high number still got to go first; every unit on the side could perform its actions. But then I instituted a second card being played (out of the two still in the hand of each player). The winner of this second round got a "bonus" action... it could choose one entire wing of its army to move or fire. In similar fashion, the Corbett rules used Disorder Markers, which affected a unit's morale level, and the use of which we really didn't get a chance to fully investigate. Fear not, both sets of rules will certainly find their way once more to my ping-pong table. They may not be recognizeable to their authors, but that never bothered me before. Back to PW Review January 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.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com