In the July, 1995 REVIEW, I gave a 3/4 page summary of a set of rules by Howard Whitehouse called IRONSIDES. The rules definitely didn't pass muster, and now, after yet another exposure to them, I'm not sure they're worth even 3/4 of a page. This, of course, won't stop me from telling you about them now.
For unknown reasons, Tony Figlia has taken somewhat of a liking to the rules, and he's been trying to adapt them, i.e., change them, make them sufficiently palatable to present a game at this July's HISTORICON convention. Tony's 15mm collection of ECW figures is, in a word, super, and why he's inflicting IRONSIDES on them remains a mystery.
At the June PW meeting, Tony set up, as a test, the Battle of Naseby, and filled the table with the historical order of battle. The OOB was fine, the figures were superb, and it was all downhill from there on.
The original rules set required Leadership Points to move troops and units. Commanders are graded and each turn, they dice for their points. Tony dropped the Leadership Point business, and more power to him. A lot of unnecessary dicing.
Mr. Whitehouse is a British fellow, and as we know, all Brits are addicted to the 6-sided die. So it is in IRONSIDES. The morale and reaction tests are unbelievable... instead of going decimal, Whitehouse tries to play with the percentages produced by the 6-sided die, and to my mind, simply goes overboard.
Melee Sequence
Here, for example, is the sequence undertaken when the melee phase occurs:
First, the attacking unit tosses 2 dice to see if he's able to contact. As I remember, each toss must be equal to, or less than, the number of bases in the attacking unit, ranging from 4 up to 7.
Second, the defender gets 2 dice to see if he stands. If one of them is equal to, or less than, the number of his bases, he stands.
Third, if the defender stands, he goes into the "emergency response mode". Two dice again.
Fourth, for each successful toss of his dice, he gets an "emergency response"... he can fire, he can write an E-mail message for help... and so forth. This emergency response, of course, requires more dice tossing.
Fifth, we finally get into the melee. Each side tosses dice... one die for each base, adding modifiers as appropriate, etc. The side with the greater number of casualties is the losing side.
Sixth, the losing side tosses dice for his morale to see if he routs, or falls back.
Seventh, the winner dices for his morale... why? I don't know. Eighth, the winner dices to see if he's in the "pursuit mode"... and if so, off he goes after the loser.
All the above is obviously a truly wonderfully accurate representation of an ECW melee, but I will step back gracefully... I want none of ft.
At the very outset of the game, we were greeted with a surprise when Tony announced the movement rates for the different types of units. It turns out that a cavalry unit, for example, has a movement allocation equal to 4 times the number of bases in the unit. A unit with 3 bases moves 4x3, or 12 inches; a unit with 5 bases goes 4x5, or 20 inches.
In similar fashion, an infantry unit moves 2 times the number of bases in the unit.
This, of course, means that a huge, ungainly cavalry unit of 6 bases can whip around the table at 24 inches per bound, much more efficiently than a teeny-weeny 2-stand unit, which can move only 8 inches.
Tony tried to explain the concept behind this system... something about the size of the unit indicating the battle experience, the fatigue level of the unit. In other words, a small unit on the table represents one that has seen a great deal of combat, lost many stands, and is completely exhausted, hence its movement rate is much less than that of a fresh multi-stand unit.
Nothing wrong with this explanation, except that in the Naseby battle, initial unit sizes were all over the place, indicating that even before the battle, many of them were totally exhausted!
I can see starting out all cavalry units with, say, 4, 5 or 6 stands to represent their relative initial strengths, and then, as they lose bases in the battle, slowing down their movement rates to indicate the level of fatigue. For example, let 3-stands be the magic threshold, the one at which a unit will start to decrease its rate.
My post-battle conclusions, indeed, the conclusions generated by all at table-side, were on the negative side, and were all in accord. IRONSIDES is a lost cause. If I were Mr. Whitehouse, I'd withdraw the name, since IRONSIDES is truly a great name for an ECW set of rules. Too bad I didn't think of it myself.
Seems to me that IRONSIDES deserves to be placed in the WRG scheme of things... it should be placed in the DBA/DBM/DBR series, and perhaps given the new title of DBECW.
I feel certain that with this new name, the rules set will immediately spring into instant popularity and be acclaimed for its historical veracity.
To me, the most interesting thing about looking at a set of rules is trying to understand the various concepts which the author is trying to dynamically produce on the table-top. In this sense, I can fully understand what Whitehouse wants to do, see how he implements his ideas, and, in my own mind, see where he goes wrong.
All this is quite subjective, of course... ft well may be that Mr. Whitehouse didn't go wrong at all, that it's my own distorted view of gamery that went awry.
Back to PW Review August 1996 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
Copyright © 1996 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