The next issue of The Courier will carry the Virginia Pour Le Merite (VPLM) rules for the American War for Independence (AWI). Since I'm not sure if I credit Wally and the basement boys for most of the developmental work on the "original" (or as original is it gets with a set of Wally's Rules) set, I figure I better do so now before the copyright lawsuits flow. Thanks.
With that out of the way, I thought it might be helpful to see how a set of rules mutates over time and provide a cheap rationalization for the concern raised about Command Points by Bob Wiltrout in the Feb/Mar 95 issue of the Review.
First, we tried to keep the "noise" in VPLM down to, a minimum which meant we agonized over adding anything that would move the game into minute detail. On occasion we ignored that, or the vocal minority was overruled as you will see. Nonetheless, the essential feel of the game remains unchanged from what you see now and what I first saw on Bob Hurst's table about .1 year ago.
Originally, Wally had an 'action deck", one of his favorite gaming devices. I really didn't mind this, or at least the concept behind a variable number of actions per side per turn. But many felt that "card counting" was too easy and the tactics could be manipulated accordingly; of course, I could never seem to get any supposed advantage when playing. So instead, we just instituted a D10 rolling system which is actually a bit cleaner. The odds remain the same (30% chance for 2 or 4 actions, 40% for 3) so no new "noise". Of course one could argue that somebody might get a bad streak of dice and constantly get 2 actions, something a bit more unlikely in a deck but it seems to even out (and statistically it should).
Another feature of original PLM was the preemption role. Ironically, Wally's guys never liked it and eventually pulled it from the rules. We actually kept it, a turn around for a change since VPLM has more things "added" than "subtracted" when compared to PLM. The non-phasing side gels a CHANCE to preempt the other guy if the other guy's D 10 calls for 2 actions.
If I remember correctly, PLM set a standard percentage for this to happen (somewhere between 60-80%, I don't recall specifically). VPLM makes it variable depending on the unit's morale rating. That means good units have a better chance (if preempting than crappy ones. For example, a British Grenadier regiment would have a 80% chance of preempting, a standard Continental regiment 60%, and militia 40%. Maybe this is why we did not rind the preemption potential too odious since most of the time, the unit making the roll didn't.
Probably the biggest thing we changed, which then inflicted a number of smaller issues, was the diversification of morale grades within the game. PLM had 3, troops were either rated at 70, 80, or 90%. VPLM has 6 running from 50% - 100%. I admit, I stole this from one of the earliest AWI wargaming rules, Minuteman by Scott Bowden (not exactly a ringing endorsement). During one of the VPLM games I've put on at PW, Fred Haub once remarked that in an even earlier version of PLM, they had 100% troop ratings but found them almost impossible to defeat. True up to a point. I only have one set of troops with 100% ratings, the British Guards. In our organizational structure, 3 of these units exist and are only 3 stands in size (each stand has 3 figures--I use standard Age of Reason mounting). Furthermore, we changed the way Command Points apply (covered later) which meant that the British Guards, while being tough to kill, did not stay around long. Wally would probably consider my doubling of morale grades somewhat "noisy" and when I was first playing around with PLM, I wondered that myself. But it works pretty well, isn't too complex, and created a greater ebb and flow on the battlefield depending on the order of battle.
As mentioned, greater morale diversity leads, to a whole slew of things I could do. For formation changes (column to line, skirmish, turn 90 degrees, ctc) I could now make it easier for higher grade troops to make such moves, harder for lower scum. This concept of using each action per turn to "pay" for a move is a carryover from PLM but I stuck in 3 numbers instead of 1. For example, if the British have 3 actions during their phase, a British Grenadier unit can add 25% per action to perform some type of formation change (so he could have up to a 75% chance in (his case). An American Continental regiment with 3 actions would have only 20 % per action or 60% maximum. Again, same concept, only juiced up a bit (or needlessly complicated if you will).
One of the only true pieces of noise we added was a terrain movement table. We played VPLM for about 2 years with Wally's venerable 70% roll thru lousy terrain concept. In fact, I even changed that a bit saying it only took a 90% roll for light infantry or skirmishers. I fought this one long and hard but everybody else really hated (gasp-those cretins) the transcendentory 70% roll so I eventually acquiesed (caved in to the majority). What follows is our terrain table, somewhat complicated but actually fairly simple compared to those in most games I've seen which cover the AWI or FIW (or maybe I'm just deluding myself that it's simpler).
| TERRAIN EFFECTS ON MOVEMENT | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of Unit / Formation | Clear | Rough (1) | Very Rough (2) | Minor Obstacle (3) | Major Obstacle (4) |
| Inf in Column | 4" | 3" | 2" | 1 action | 2 actions |
| Inf in Line | 3" | 2" | 1" | 1 action | 2 actions |
| Lt Inf in Column | 4" | 4" | 3" | 1 action | 2 actions |
| Lt Inf in Line | 3" | 3" | 2" | 1 action | 2 actions |
| Cav in Column | 8" | 6" | 4" | 1 action | prohibited |
| Cav in Line | 6" | 4 | n/a | 1 action | prohibited |
| Artillery Limbered | 3" | 2" | 1" | 1 action | prohibited |
| Artillery Deployed | 1" | n/a (5) | n/a (5) | 2 actions | prohibited |
| Officers | 8" | 6" | 4" | 1 action | prohibited |
The First 3 columns of the chart give the number of inches the indicated type of unit can move per action. The last two columns give the number of actions required for the indicated type of unit to cross the indicated obstacle. The term "n/a" also means prohibited.
Notes
- (1) Rough terrain includes rocky or broken ground. croplands, tall
grasses, open
woods, and orchards.
(2) Very rough terrain includes dense woods, swamps, and marshes.
(3) Minor obstacles include streams, hedges, fences, ditches, and moderate hill contours. It is sometimes more appropriate to classify wide obstacles (a wide stream for instance) as rough or very rough terrain rather than as a linear obstacle.
(4) Major obstacles include walls, buildings, ind all prepared dcfensive structurcs.
(5)Artillery in this type of terrain cannot move while deployed. It can, however, move into the terrain while limbered and (lien deploy in place.
Firing remained almost unchanged except we added a rifle range (40 inches) to that for muskets (30 inches) and artillery (50 inches). Also, the fire sequence for rifles was slowed somewhat to FIRE/LOAD/LOAD/FIRE instead of FIRE/LOAD/FIRE/LOAD for muskets and artillery. This meant that the only time rifles could fire twice in a turn was if their side had 4 actions and the rifle unit did not move. Rifles turn out to be tough critters in this game but if you limit them to their historical numbers (not much for tile American Revolution and virtually nonexistent in the FIW) and remember to half their melee values (no bayonets), then they becorne something that needs a bit of deft handling to use and not lose.
Also remember that the unit being Fired upon makes file (fie roll and its morale rating is crucial to that roll. With 6 morale ratings, good units can take the fire (which does a pretty good job of simulating the British tactic of fixing bayonets and marching forward, taking the musket volleys) while poor units (like militia) have a tendency to bolt after one or two shots. The Fire effect formula is:
- Fire Effect = number of volleys (1 or 2) x number of stands firing (or in the care of
artillery, number of figures on each stand x range (3 minus the range in 10s of inches, or if
muskets 4 minus, or if rifles 5 minus) to the target.
For example, 6 stands of infantry with three actions don't move and fire on a unit with an 80% morale rating at a range of 18 inches. That would be 6 times 2 (3 minus 1 since 18 inches is in the 10s of inches category) times 2 (number of actions) for a total of 24 points of the 80% unit, or a 56% chance of passing the morale test.
Here's where we made another change without making the game noisy and it still uses the Command Points concept. In original PLM, you rolled for a random number of "officers" which could add up to 20% to a unit's morale when being fired upon or in melee. In the above example, if the unit only had one "officer" and lie decided to add all 20 points, the unit would need a 76% to pass its test. Then you would make a second roll and if you rolled 20 or less, the "officer" was killed and the unit could no longer add those CPs. We changed that to an unlimited number of times able to add up to 20%. The downside is that if you failed one of those second roles, the unit took in additional "hit".
Each time a unit fails a morale roll (due to fire or melee), it takes a "hit. If it fails on the fire roll, it then drops back 12 inches and forms in a column. If the 'officer" roll is blown, only a "hit" is taken (no fallback move). Each "hit" reduces the unit's morale by 10% so when they start to add up, good units Suddenly become bad. Now maybe you can see how the 3 stand British Guard unit (100% morale) gets beat. True it usually happens at firing ranges under 10 inches but essentially you wait for the unit to fail its "officer" check which now means the Guards are only a 90% unit. One final point, a unit can take as many hits as it has stands. Once (lint total is reached, we remove the unit.
Now, how to find some cheap rationalization, or some pseudo-historical ramblings we wargamers are so fond of which will explain to Bob Wiltrout why the CP concept is so incredibly perfect for the AWI. Well, there are numerous instances of American officers telling their men to aim for the epaulets, meaning the officers. Now the chances of actually hitting somethirg you aim at with a Brown Bess musket are somewhat better than hitting the lottery but significantly less than with your hunting rifle.
Therefore, one could argue that all those stories of Dan Morgan saying aim for the officers were somewhat specious. However, if 30 guys all aimed at that one officer, chances are he would get hit. And that's how the Americans fired. The British used a rolling volley in which they aimed at the opposing formation which is why American officer casualty anecdotes are not so numerous.
The non-commissioned officers really ran the British regiment when it deployed for combat. Should that regiment have problems, simulated in VPLM by having a low morale roll to pass a fire check, then the NCO would have to be more pro-active (out front) to keep the line in order, etc. That effect is simulated by tossing in the NCO up to 20%. That puts the NCO at risk and so on. There are plenty of instances during the AWI of units reeling back because half of their NCOs and lower ranking officers took a musket ball somewhere. That's especially true when rifles were involved.
So I think, in this case, Unca Wally's CP concept is very applicable. It also allows my 6 morale grades to work without creating super troops and it speeds up the game.
How?
Units in the mid morale grades (which make up most of anyone's army) tend to need their NCOs to kick in 20% in order to stay around. By making them take another "hit", for NCOs, they don't tend to hang around long. Also, since the number of total hits taken by an army influences whether the rest of force remains to fight, the games tend to end decisively in about 2-3 hours, (the limit of Wally's gaming attention span). I can see some of Bob's skepticism in some of Wally's gamey mechinisms (by 'gamey' I'm riot sure if that means they are some odd notion on how to play some aspect (if the game or that they smell). Nonetheless,, when it comes to CPs in the AWI, I think the concept works AND simulates an important historical tactic from the period. Maybe now that I've pointed that all important simulation to historical connection, Wally will probably drop CPs forever.
The only other significant thing changed from PLM to VPLM is that instead of assigning an army morale level, we break it down to brigades (or commands). Again we found too many instances of one wing of an army (usually American) breaking and running while the other stood around and fought for a ridiculously long time. So what we do is assign a value to each regiment's morale grade, add those up and that's the brigade's morale (expressed in the number of total hits taken by the units assigned to that brigade). When that level is reached, chances are the brigade leaves the table. That allows the other brigades a chance to fight on.
We changed some little things too, but essentially those are the highlights. Hopefully it shows how a game can change although my group probably tends to stick with a basic system whereas Wally can take a set of rules and watch it go off on strange tangents or get abandoned altogether. That's fun and frustrating all at the same time especially if you stumble upon a fairly good system. And I think PLM or VPLM is just that. All I know is that the first time I played it, it just "felt" right which is usually tile main purpose of a set of Wally Rules. I keep deluding myself that VPLM, with some added noise to satisfy the anal retentives out there, is a publishable set for the FIW, SYW, and AWI. As it stands, I'll probably just settle for the Courier and continue to tinker with it around the edges. PW meetings are always good test cases for the tinkering.
Back to PW Review July 1995 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1995 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