Peter M. McKenna

We are Using Le Kriegspiel rules almost verbatim. The combat results table was changed to accomodate the smaller sized infantry units and no cadre are used. The latter results is increasing the value of the troops. Light infantry starts at 1.5.

There are a few questions I have concerning the rules. Most of these arise from what I remember or think I remember from your original translation.

What is the effect of musketry against skirmishers? Are they immune to it? When skirmishers are scattered by a charge, is the whole unit scattered, or just those skirmishers on polygons charged through, or on the polygons adjacent to the path of the charge? How does one fight skirmishers? I seem to remember that cavalry must form as foragers to fight skirmshers. When a formed unit comes up against skirmishers, but does not charge through them, I assume the skirmishers give way; in order, or disorder? What casualties are involved, if any, when skirmishers are scattered or forced to give way? Do foragers enjoy all the benefits /disadvantages of skirmishers?

The rules on the movement of cavalry is not clear. The text does not agree with the diagram. I think your original translation spelled this out very precisely.

Where is the fire table?

In the movement table engineers are given a second retreat move of 4 distance units. Is this correct?

I am competent to figure most of these things out myself, However I'd like to know what is the position of the community. I think The Wargame offers the best hope of any kind of common set of rules. Certain modifications are necessary for some types of games, e.g. Hind's two units per polygon in seige operations, there ain't any other way to assualt a fortress. I certainly have made some changes to suit the desert environment my games are fought in.

By the way, in regard to your several comments concerning the "fixed" TOE required by The Wargame and its lack of popularity with buffe who delight in the diverse organizations of the several national armies, the following might be made to work. Take the Vietmeyer organization and cut it by half, sometimes rounding off numbers where necessary. Thus a French line battallion is six bases of three men each, British battallions have four bases of four and two bases of two.

Cavalry is by divisions of two squadrons. Infantry units thus range in size from twelve figures in British rifle battallions to twenty-four in Austrian line units. I haven't tried any of this in practice(I'm still in Egypt and Syria) but paper exercises show that it's feasible.

Ed. Having been rightfully taken to task for sins of omission and comission, I will endeavor to answer Mr. McKenna's questions, as they have bothered many another reader with whom I have come in contact.

The original rules are quite vaque, in fact, somewhat contradictory about the effect of infantry and artillery on skirmishers, and about the effect of skirmisher fire. In some articles, it appeared that artillery had no effect on skirmishers, in others that hits must be confirmed, while infantry was presumed to hit normally or to require confirmation, and skirmisher stands were able to hit with a 6 only, or a 6 confirmed. The missile fire table gives 4-5-6 in the first distance unit, 5 in the second, 6 only in the third for a normal infantry bass, 6 only at all ranges for a half-base of skirmishers. Artillery is 4-5-6 for up to 10% or two distance units, 5-6 up to 4, 6 thereafter. We have come into the habit of using canister effect at 5 unite for horse guns and howatizers, 4 units for field guns. This involves 2 dies per gun against personnel targets but has no effect on canon or buildings. Some have been using a "double cannister effect at 2 distance units with 3 dies for field guns only. Grape, cannister, double cannister, or whatever is effective against skirmishers, but must be confirmed (roll for a 2-4-6 for each hit). However, if the skirmishers are screening a friendly formed unit within cannister range of the piece in line of fire those hits not confirmed against the skir mishers are extracted from the formed unit.

Cavalry foragers may fight skirmishers at normal for both, except that we allow foragers to have impetus-a running horse being actually more of a threat to one mnn than a wall of horses to a wall of bayonets. Foragers are given no measurable fire effect(they did fire, but tended to hit little) and. may not charge formed infantry or resist formed cavalry. Skirmishers or foragers hit or crossed by enemy formed units lose 1 figure per enemy unit and are in disorder. Crossed by friendly units they lose none and are available.

The 4 unit retreat move should have gone under light cavalry. Foot engineers move as line infantry.

Variable sized units are indeed possible, but require a whole new approach to fire effects, density of occupation for polygons(do 24 Austrians take up the same space as a 12 man rifle battallion in close order?) This kind of thing has to be worked out on local variations so that all players involved can structure their forces, balance the advantages and disadvantages, etc.

Arnold J. Hendrick

Just a few short notes and requests concerning your great magazine, T.A.G. While reading my comments, bear in mind that despite my comments I do enjoy your magazine very much and will continue to subscribe as long as you continue to publish. I also see references in your magazine to "Le Kriegspiel" or something which you sell in addition to the magazine. What is this, and how much does it cost?

In the WWII area T.A.G. seems to spend a great deal of time with material from Mr. Arnovitz. I personally am a bit unhappy with this. I hold the opinion that a great deal of the rules and statistics Mr. Arnovitz presents are about on the same level with those of Mr. Featherstone in Wargames and Naval Wargames; mainly worthless historically. In fact, the land warfare rules in Volume II No.4 are so much like Featherstone's that it seems to be a waste of time to print them. Surely you must have something better to do than that!

Since Mr. Arnovitz isn't around to defend his rules I won't attack the design theory and historical accuracy of the rules themselves but instead simply register a protest at your printing of rules that I find quite worthless. My opinion is colored somewhat by the fact that I have just finished designing my own WWII rules circa 1944 and am currently testing them.

It is unfair to criticize without offering something as a counter-example. I hope in the near future (sometime this month or maybe next if things get bad here) to have these forthcoming to you in the form of rules and/or articles. Expect material about WWII: naval statistics, notes of naval warfare, notes of land warfare(the critical factors in analysing the nature of WWII land combat at the platoon and company level. and up), and maybe even some WWII rules. As an historian I am prepared to defend just about anything I give you on historical grounds, and everything was written and designed from that standpoint. My experience as a wargamer allows me to temper and tailor my historical information into a usual form for wargamers, I hope.

Hope T.A.G. can continue in spite of the world conspiring against you.

A loyal and concerned fan.

Ed. It is an article of faith with us that if nobody complains about our rules, nobody has been reading them. The great thing about Mike's rules was never that they were perfect or beyond criticism, but that they were actually used in a prolonged campaign by several war gamers. My own view of WWII period rules is that they are very complex. I have read briefly through your rules so, and find that the 30' x 30' playing surface required is a major deterrent to all but the most affluent and ardent players. However, they do offer much in the way of suggestions for those of us less fortunate.

The most statistically realistic rules for the period involve movement by umpire with written orders for each fire team or vehicle per 2 minutes move, or about 90 notes per hour per squad. Aside from my own prejudice--I do D.O.D. paper work for a living--against writing 90 notes per game hour per squad, the whole business strikes me as being extremely unrealistic even for so paper bound an army as our own.

As for the world conspiring against me, I cannot abide that interpretation. I believe fervently that the world is involved in no plot against me or this magazine--that would be orthodox paranoia. As a reform member of that school, I believe that the world is hell-bent to make an ass of itself, and that from time to time we eccentrics get caught in the undertow.

Russ Parkinson Just read your disturbing editorial on page 1, Volume II, No. 5 and decided to drop you a note saying thanks for what you are doing and hang in there! At least this is one you can read and throw away, without answering.

Ed. Could but won't. I couldn't pass up this opportunity to thank Russ and all the others who have sent in words of encouragement in the past months.