Over the years, I've come to "standardize" on my rules systems, I'll try a procedure three or four, perhaps five, times, each time modifying it a wee bit, trying to make it work. If it doesn't, I drop it. If It does work, I tend to use it in just about every system I devise, slightly varying it for the era and the unit size of the game under development. A case in point is the manner in which I determine the winner of a melee. I incorporate three parameters in the calculation: S The number of your surviving stands or figures. This is a direct indication of your unit strength after taking hits in the combat. C The number of enemy casualties you inflicted. A small unit in melee can make up for its relatively small size by causing more casualties than the opposition. D A 10-sided die roll These three parameters are combined to calculate the factor, T, and the side with the larger T factor is victorious. T = D x (S + C) Originally, the S and C parameters indicated "efficiencies". For example, S indicated the effectiveness of your force in surviving, hence your "survivability efficiency" was denoted by S = (Your survivors) / (Your original force) Similarly, the C parameter indicated your force's efficiency in destroying the enemy and was denoted by C = (Enemy casualties) / (Your original force) Note that both the S and C factors were fractions and had the same denominator (the size of your original force). After some experimentation, I dropped the use of fractions (their calculation slowed up the game) and merely used the two S and C numerators. The third factor, the 10-sided die roll, sets up the random variation. I've heard comments that multiplying by a 10-sided die produces too much of a "swing" in the output and that, therefore, you'll get improbable results. Not true. All that the die-roll-multiplier does is to set up a probability function. For example, if my S + C total is 8, while yours is 5, and we each multiply by our 10-sided die throw, then the probability computation says that my chance of my winning is 70.1 percent. It's true that our individual die rolls can each vary from 1 to 10, but all that the "swing" does is to generate a table wherein 70.1 percent of the listings are favorable to me. Your die roll can vary from 1 to 10, and my die roll can vary from 1 to 10, hence, when compared, the total number of possible combinations is 10 x 10, or 100. It's in this table of 100 possible results, that I'll win 70.1 percent of the time. Similarly, if my S + C factor is 9 while yours is 11, and we each multiply by a die roll, again the "swing" gives us 100 possible outcomes in the table, but the upshot is that, of these 100 possibilities in the table, you're going to win 60 percent of the time. * * * * * In general, my current thinking concerning a rules set covers the following points: a. Figures should not be permanently removed from the table during a game. The decrease in unit size due to casualties should not, for the most part, be readily perceptible during a battle. If a battalion of, say, 600 men, incurs 20% casualties (120 men... a fairly high number), and breaks and flees, is the size of the group of 480 fleeing men distinguishable from the original 600? b. Figures or stands may be removed on a temporary basis. If a unit fails a morale test, for example, it may be removed from the table and placed in what I term a Rally Zone. Having failed the morale test, the unit is disorganized... it flees or falls back, no longer a coherent fighting entity. Use of the off-table Rally Zone solves the problems associated with the issues: To where does the unit flee? Which way does it run? How far back does it f lee? Does it interfere with other units? Until the men in the unit get their act together again, the unit remains off-table, in limbo. In theory, they're all still on the field, but so disorganized and broken up that it's impossible to distinguish the unit as a specific entity. Once they pass a subsequent morale test, and form up, we bring them back to the table. c. Casualty caps, "o" rings, and similar visual indications of losses are abominations to be avoided like the plague. In many instances, what I do to indicate losses is to plunk down beside a unit a marker figure, one with a pennant. These f lag bearers, while not things of beauty (it depends upon the paint job) , at the least f it in with the unit concept. They are infinitely better than having the men in a unit march across the field with their heads stuffed into huge casualty caps. d. Following the precepts of the preceding paragraphs, one is led (at least, this one is led) to use of unit data sheets. Losses can be recorded? changes in morale level can be recorded, ammunition can be recorded, unit efficiency can be recorded... there is no limit to the parameters that can be tracked on the sheet. An added benefit is that these changes in unit performance are all unknown to the opposing side. Use of the data sheet requires that all units be labeled and identified. This can be done in one of two ways. First, an additional stand or figure can be placed with the unit to serve as the identifier (again, here I use standard bearers with the number of the unit displayed on the pennant), or second, one stand in the unit itself can be labeled. I know several people who shy away from the requirement to tag all units.; these little taggies offend them in two ways. First, the taggies are ugly. I have no quarrel with this position. The taggies are, indeed, ugly (but certainly not uglier than casualty caps). Second, if an identifier is placed on a stand in the unit, this may limit use of the stands when rules systems other than the one for which the tag was placed are played. e. The sequence should keep everyone busy all the time. The worst sequences I've seen require that only a single unit on the field be active at any one time. This means that if there are, say, 3 or 4 players per side, only one of all the people present gets to have his unit move and fire; all others wait their turn in the queue. In this vein, the truly wussest (the wussest of the wust) sequence I've seen is that of the skirmish game DESPERADO, in which each man, i.e. , character, on the field is given several cards, all the cards are assembled into a huge single deck, and whichever character's card is drawn gets to move, fire, etc. In the one game of DESPERADO in which I participated (I refuse to participate in a second) , I think there were some 12 men on the field and each was assigned 3 cards, making a deck of 36 cards total. For those unlucky enough to have their man's cards in the bottom of the deck, it became a "non-game", an exercise in waiting and observing, rather than playing. At the least, if decks are used, one deck should be assigned to each side; the men on that side noted on the cards of the deck. If the cards are then alternately drawn by the sides, this guarantees each side some sort of reaction every other card. To me, the most efficient sequence is an alternate one: first, Side A is active, and then, Side B is active. During Side A's active phase, I try to give Side B "something to do"... for example, some sort of preemptive fire, or, perhaps, a capability of reacting "hastily". But whatever it is, keep both sides of the table busy. A good example of this occurs in Bob Coggins' NAPOLEON'S BATTLES. Here, when Side A is active and fires, it tosses a 10-sided die for the firing unit. Side B also tosses a 10-sided die for the target unit, and a hit, occurs if Side A's die roll exceeds that of Side B's. Sometime ago, I asked Bob why NAPOLEON'S BATTLES contains this type of firing procedure, i,e., why not have only the active side tossing a die. His answer was to the effect: "Just to keep both sides busy." f. Even worse than a game with a rotten sequence is a game with an incomplete set of rules. And even worse than that (it is obvious that there are degrees of 'worsedness'), is the situation wherein the host appears at table side with his incomplete set of rules and starts to ask the participants to suggest ways to implement the firing procedures, and how the melee system should be incorporated, and what should the morale levels be, etc. When asked, every player will immediately contribute his thoughts on the situation at hand. And since every wargamer is an expert in all things martial and historical, and a specialist in tactical troop movement, and a virtuoso in weapons capabilities, and a crackajack strategist, not to mention an authority on arms and armor, what the host has done is to have opened the very Gates of Hell. Once asked, no respectable wargamer, with his inherent understanding and intimate knowledge of all of the above fields, is going to let anyone else table-side impose their views on the game!! I know this to be fact, since I happen to have mastered each of the above topics, and believe me, I'm certainly not going to stand by and let your silly thoughts dominate the game. Never should he-who-presents-a-game admit to having an incomplete set of rules. My own ploy, when I come to an area which my rules fail to cover, is to page through my sheets and wing it... "Oh, yeah, here it is on the second page; it says that psiloi can arm-wrestle Thracian cavalry every other turn." And when suggestions are offered (suggestions that actually make sense), I'll reply: "They'll be incorporated in Mod 2." The intent is to keep the game going... do anything, say anything, but keep the game going. g. The firing and melee procedures should shy away from continual use of a chart or charts. A full size page of "figures versus factors", accompanied by a huge list of modifiers to determine casualties is impressive, but most of the time, unnecessary. Bear in mind that before the "figures versus factors" chart is entered, there's got to be a preliminary rundown on the list of umpteen modifiers to come up with the final "factor". I've noted that 90 percent of the time, in most of the published rules systems, when one unit beats on another, unit casualties come in "1's" and "2's", with, perhaps, an occasional "3" (if the game uses fairly large units). There's no need, therefore, for a huge array of "figures versus factors" when the outcome has little variation and a simple die roll will do. What the full page chart does is to substitute precision for accuracy... after all, if the author went to the trouble of drawing up this huge chart, surely every one of the values listed is meaningful and couldn't possibly be ignored? Surely? And surely, every one of the accompanying modifiers is critical in the determination of casualties? Surely? Unfortunately, the presence of a page-full of numbers, coupled with two columns of modifiers, adds nothing to the accuracy of the presentation. The result, however, is to establish for the rules set a certain "aura of legitimacy" because of the apparent depth of research undertaken by the author. h. As a guideline, I mandate, for my rules sets, somewhere around a "30 percent kill rate". In other words, if 10 men fire, they'll inflict about 3 casualties, or if one man fires, he's got a 30 percent chance of hitting his target. A lesser casualty rate, and the game goes on incessantly; a greater kill rate, and units disappear too fast. i. Of late, I detect a change in gaming sequences; you can get a feel for this by looking at the various rules sets published in such magazines as Hal Thinglum's Midwest Wargaming Association Newsletter. Whereas for over a decade, most of the write-in rules employed the SWORD AND FLAME "red card and Side A moves, black card and Side B moves", now we're getting "pip sequences" ... derivatives of DDA/DBM. I'm not a fan of either system; my vote, as I indicated before, goes for alternate movement sequences. Back to PW Review September 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