1. A pre-cursor of PIQUET? I continually read my old copies of the REVIEW, looking for ideas that I've tried once or twice, never really built on, but look interesting enough to try again. Most of the time, I'll generate and try out a set of rules, and if it works, rarely do I expand on it, preferring to go on to something different. In the August, 1988 issue, I came across a write-up of an American Civil War game, played with my 15mm collection. It was a 'grand-tactical' type of game, with 5 stands per regiment, and 2 or 3 regiments grouped into brigades. The article stated that the rules had been described some 9 months earlier, in the November, 1987 REVIEW. But what caught my eye was the sequence. There were 8 phases to the bound, which, in flow chart form, looked like this: The basic sequence followed the A-Move/B-fire routine. But note there were four opportunities to draw action cards. The card deck was composed of 20 cards, and contained such actions as fire (for each side and simultaneously), double move, morale tests, and rally for each side. Also included in the deck of 20 cards were 6 cards stating "Melee Resolution". You'll note that in the above posted sequence, there are phases for movement and for firing, but not for resolving a melee. The article stated: Combat is not resolved, even though two opposing forces may be placed nose to nose, until a Melee Card is drawn. After being placed face- to-face, therefore, two units may fire, move, pull back, etc., until they are committed to melee by the draw of a Melee Card. The article described one episode in the battle: Several waves of Confederate troops moved into "contact" and waited until a Melee Card appeared for combat to begin. Each time, the defending Union troops were lucky enough to pass through their fire phases before a Melee Card was drawn, and each time the fire phase occurred, the Yanks would blast the Rebs, and the result was that when the Melee Card finally showed up, the attacking Southerners were too weak to prevail. This 'waiting-for-melee-to-begin' procedure is very similar to the one employed in the PIQUET system. As I remember, back in '88, the waiting-for-melee ploy was not favorably received. What's fascinating is that today, the same procedure, used in PIQUET, receives tons of kudos as representational of the chaos of the battlefield, indeed, a true portrayal of the 'fog of war. 2. In reviewing the REVIEW, I noted in recent issues that I've consistently used several modes or ploys in my gaming rules. First, the use of 'actions'. I've used this gaming technique for a couple of decades. Instead of merely stating that there's a specific phase in the sequence during which a side may fire, and another during which it may move, I give the side a number of 'actions' - perhaps 2, 3, or 4 and let the player choose how many of his actions he wants to use for movement and how many he wants to reserve for fire. This type of system is used for the horse-and-musket era, and is in accord with the Simon theory that the side that wants to fire must use some of its time loading and firing weapons, thus depriving it of the time needed to advance on the field. Second, the use of a 'reaction' technique. Although I've used it often, I've always disliked the simple alternate move system of A-move/B-fire because it gives the non-moving side no opportunity to counter the actions of the moving side. A few sets of rules, such as NAPOLEON'S BATTLES (NB), do provide for a counter move... NB permits the player to hold his cavalry in reserve, and to charge out during the opposing player's half of the bound. And so I toss in a number of reaction opportunities... in a recent REVIEW, I described a Napoleonics game in which a cavalry unit charged an infantry unit deployed in line. The infantry was permitted to react, and it formed square. Then, the cavalry, in turn, was permitted to 'counter-react', and to draw back to prevent contact with the square. The problem with this ploy concerns the scope of the reaction... for example, having formed square, and having seen the cavalry abort its charge, should the infantry have been able to react a second time, form line and give the cavalry a parting volley? In this issue is a description of a Napoleonics battle in which the reaction concept appeared to be balanced. Third, of late, I've been using a 'clocking mechanism'. Units take casualties during the bound, but these are temporary, and the players don't find out the true extent of the damage to their units, i.e., the permanent casualties, until the 'clock' permits'em to do so. At the start of each half-bound, a 10-sided die is tossed, and its accumulative total is recorded. When the total reaches 12, then at the end of that particular half-bound, there's a phase during which the casualty figures, which the units have been dragging around for several halfbounds, are assessed. At this point, the casualty figures are removed, and stands taken off the field, or data sheets up-dated. Depending upon the length of time you want to delay the permanent damage phase, the accumulated total of the die rolls can be 10, or 12, or 15. The total of 12 seems to work best. Back to PW Review December 1999 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1999 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