Ever since the early days of wargaming there have been periodical pleas for "universal" sets of rules so that strangers could meet and battle against each other on a relative basis of equality because they were using the same rules. In principle this is a fine ideal but it falls far short of that in practice. One feature above all others that typifies wargamers is the strange sense of individuality that causes most of them to scorn any rules not devised by themselves. This is inevitable because the devisor of a set of rules formulates them in such a manner as to reflect his own impressions and interpretations of warfare, using history and military writings as his guide. As these interpretations differ immensely so that a cavalry charge to one man is a thundering irresistible affair whilst to another it is a bunch of horses coming towards you in a far from irresistible manner, the effect of the implementation of those rules varies considerably.
The rules formulated by the Wargames Research Group have, for want of anything better and through their use in recent Conventions, have almost become "universal" sets of rules. This is by no means to everyone's liking - numerous disgruntled competitors at Conventions moan about the rules whilst a leading light in the wargaming field recently wrote:
"We are bravely resisting all these revolting Research Group rules which everyone is supposed to find so good. I have just sent off broadside number three to Phil Barker concerning World War II which I am fighting for the Convention. Actually they are an improvement on last years where the players spent ninety per cent of their time away from the table but, although they are supposed to be a platoon action, it is impossible to operate a normal platoon attack as done by British and Germans!"
Except for the more biased among us, I think there will be little disagreement that the rules of the wargames Research Group are as good as any others. They possess certain admirable features which to my way of thinking are essential in any workable set of rules. For example, they were amongst the first to allow for one figure representing a certain number of men so that the wargamer has the satisfaction of battling with armies of a reasonably realistic size. This has a practical aspect in that the actual number of figures that have to be removed from the table is so reduced that a battle can be carried through and, at its conclusion, still have almost as many troops on the table as at the start -- it has always seemed ridiculous to me to spend countless hours painting figures for them to spend most of their time as casualties in a box under the table!
Then there is the very satisfactory method of governing casualties from firing and hand-to-hand fighting by means of assessing fighting values through adding or deducting because of advantageous or detrimental factors that might effect the fighting value. For example, troops that are distracted or disorganised are obviously unlikely to be as efficient as troops who are formed and in hand. Oddly, the Research Group and myself seem to have been working along the same lines completely separately from each other because very much the same principles were devised by myself and described in my book "Advanced Wargames" written in 1968 and published in 1969.
My chief bone of contention lies not so much with the rules themselves but with the method by which they are being applied.. The dictionary definition of Rules is "Principles to which actions or procedures conform or are bound or intended to conform". This is interpreted by myself (and by the majority of the Wessex Military Society) as meaning that the rules (as few in number as possible) provide an irregular framework within which groups of players conform to their spirit rather than their letter. Inevitably, with rules as widely used as those of the Wargames Research Council, a situation arises whereby wargamers fight to the letter of those rules, seeking every possible way in which omissions and possible double-meanings can be advantageously utilised. Few can deny that this is the case, in fact Bob O'Brien (one of the formulators of these rules) actually wrote an article in the November edition of Slingshot entitled "Skilful Tactical Moves - Sneaky Stuff" in which he described ways of playing to the letter of the rules.
It is reasonable to declare that the wargaming world is now being divided into two - those who fight "parochial" games among closely knit groups of friends and acquaintances and play to the spirit of the rules with only occasional arguments and those who seek all opportunities of utilising every facet and word in the Wargames Research Group Rules to gain an advantage. I have played hundreds of wargames and I consider myself pretty experienced but I doubt whether I could go on to the table with any chance against many of the far less experienced wargamers who have these rules off to the nth degree. This is wrong -- a wargame should be a test of tactical skill not of knowledge of the rules and a set of rules should be so phased as to allow anybody after a few minutes study to go onto the table and, by sheer tactical merit, defeat an opponent even though that opponent may have a far better knowledge of the rules being used.
Recently, Robert Douglas of the Vessex Military Society made his gesture to demonstrate such fallabilities in the Ancient Rules, that are being used in the Convention, when winning an early round. Because the rules do not specify the numerical size of a unit Robert formed an army of a large number of units each made up of ONE figure (representing 20 men bands). Because points have to be allocated for unit commanders, most armies are formed of the MINIMIUM number of actual units but Robert "paid" a lot of points for commanders and formed one-figure units with his remaining points.
Thus, so many effective 'units' faced each single unit of his opponent that the inevitable result of the Reaction Test caused the larger units to be prevented from ever causing Robert's army any casualties or even getting into the game! Anomalously, although these tactics were completely within the "letter" of the rules, Robert Douglas has been barred from achieving any further advantages from his astuteness by Philip Barker (of the Birmingham Club who are organising the Convention) circularising all umpires telling them that Robert's entire army is to be considered as one single unit if similarly constituted in future! In effect, whilst a mockery has been made of the rules, so there is an equal mockery in the earlier guarantee that no rules will be changed once Convention rounds have commenced!
However, that is the situation and whether it is the Wargames Research Council Rules or any other set of widely used rules, the same position will no doubt arise. So that this is not so much a condemnation of any widely used rules so much as a sad reflection on human nature and the desire to win at all costs. Not all share my views of course - one well known and highly experienced wargamer when asked why he was content to play to dargames Research Council Rules when he was more than capable of devising his own set, replied that "... maybe he showed sense in not flogging his own brains when a reasonable set of rules had already been made up for him!" 'That wargamer, Keith Robinson, reviews the latest set of rules to be published by the Wargames Research Council Group which span the period 1750 to 1850.
These 100 years cover the emergence of light infantry and horse artillery and the peak of development of smoothbore artillery ending with the beginnings of the widespread use of rifling for artillery and muskets.
The rules give good well balanced games with the right proportion of losses in battle and a nice balance of infantry, artillery and cavalry. The ground scale has been taken as 111 to 10 paces (2-12 ft. each) i.e. 1 to 300 scale and this has been used for movement and firing. For infantry in line in 3 ranks at 1 yard intervals the specified 15mm wide base gives a representation of 1 figure to 1,5 real men. This ratio is used for all arms except guns which use 1 model gun to represent 2 real guns. This is, I feel, a retrograde step from the 1 to 20 of the authors Ancient Rules. The ground scale chosen gives artillery ranges in access of 10 feet! This is realistic for artillery of the time but no account is taken of loss of accuracy at long range. Another difficulty is that assaulting troops of the period were usually fired on well before they were within j mile of the defenders and j mile at 1:300 is nearly 9 feet. No wargamer I know has a table of this width. In fact cannister range is 216" which means that on the usual wargames table of 6' x 4' both sides will be in cannister range almost immediately.
The time period chosen for a move is 17 minute which I feel is rather short and could have been 1 minute (most artillery after the initial rounds was not capable of firing faster than once or twice per minute). The movement distances are a little fast for the ground scale and time period chosen as they seem to be parade ground speed. Infantry in square moves at the same speed as in line which seems a little unlikely. Another arguable point is that units may move and fire and although deductions from movement ranging from 1/4 to 4/5ths of a move have been made (averaging about 4) no account has been taken of the affect on firing. Assuming Opposing troops fire at approximately the same rate and deducting half a move for firing, then stationary troops should fire twice as often as those advancing.
If the deductions for cavalry are ignored then the average move deduction for firing becomes 1/3 (10 seconds of the period of 1/2 minute) and the firing rate ratio becomes 1.5 to 1. If a deduction of -1 were then made for moving and firing this would reflect the relative rates of fire fairly closely.
Terrain factors and manoeuvre penalties are well covered but there are two points with which I must take issue. The first is that cavalry must charge in line. There is no need for this; there is a built-in penalty for column attack in that fewer figures count in the melee (for flinch points) and that the infantry will overlap thereby gaining a melee factor. The second is that infantry must form square if within charge distance of cavalry. This should be optional, infantry in line can stop cavalry, just. The firing factors permit this possibility.
Another compulsory action which the authors call "Flinching" has replaced the Reaction Test of the Ancient Rules. "Flinch Points" are accumulated according to losses, situation and morale. The unit with the greater number of points "flinches" away from the enemy or shows its advance in accordance with the net point difference. This gives a good representation of the steadiness of the troops of the period.
One difficulty I have found is that it is extremely difficult to drive troops out of buildings under these rules whereas in fact during this period villages could change hands several times in the course of a battle.
A table of points values for various unit types has been included in the rules and seems reasonable but cannot be evaluated without playing many more games than I have yet fought under the rules. My first impression is that artillery is rather too cheap and given open terrain will tend to dominate the battlefield.
Two pages are devoted to troop types and organisation from all over the world. but as happens in a few places in the rules confusion arises between artillery pieces (model) and pieces (real). I haven't fought with troop types outside the Napoleonic period (such as Maoris, 3outh Americans, etc.,) but I look forward to a battle between the United States of led Indian Tribes and the Punjabi Corps of the Continental Indian Empire (with elephant-drawn siege guns) as they both try to occupy the Congo (populated by Central African troops). My game of 'Risk' might take on new dimensions.
These rules are well up to the high standard set by the Group's Ancient Rules and can be thoroughly recommended to beginner and expert alike.
To round off this article on the rules I would like to put forward my amendments to the rules which will be used in my future games.
- Grand Scale - 1:500 - reduce ranges to 315, do not alter movement rate (see time period.)
Figure Representation - 1:20
Time - 1 move represents 1 minute.
Omit compulsory cavalry charge in line and infantry forming square.
Firing Factors: -1 for firing and moving, -2 for artillery firing after continuous rain (no grazing of ball)., +1 for less than half maximum range.
Ron Miles, experienced "modernist" of the Wessex Military society, considers "Infantry Action" the latest offering of rules from the enthusiastic Wargames Research Group. "It follows a now traditional and predictable line. However, this is a brave and laudable attempt to reinstate man against machine in the modern period of wargaming. True, not everyone will agree with all the points, but for all that, this is a first class effort to overcome the complications of this period. Yes, on the whole congratulations to the Group for a really first class attempt."
Bob O'Brien of the Wargames Research Group, writes on both sets of rules:
"I am glad to see that you mentioned the possibility of people fiddling about with factors, and etc., to simulate various conditions, degree of training, etc. This is in fact something that we try to put over, we feel that our rules are especially geared to this kind of thing, so that an enthusiast can build in factors that will reflect his own ideas, or those of even a particular battle, without affecting the basic logic of the rules themselves.
In this respect of course, the "Infantry Action" rules go even further, in that one fits in weapons applicable to the particular time, as well as organisation. One thing that comes to mind immediately is that here is an opportunity for anyone to try out the Personalised Wargaming that you mentioned in Advanced Wargames, as here we have one figure = one man. The rules cost 45p as for the 1750/1850 and the Ancients.
The original idea in this case started with John Bolton (of the Worthing Group) and myself, some 18 months ago. We started off with the visibility and ranges, and the "arc of fire" base types, and built on that, but made the Reaction and movement too complicated -- Phil took over from there, and the result is as you see. There are slight amendments and additions from the rules that will be used this year at Birmingham."
Well, there it is - you pays your money and you takes your choice.
Feedback and Comments [WN 114]
Back to Table of Contents -- Wargamer's Newsletter # 112
To Wargamer's Newsletter List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1971 by Donald Featherstone.
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com