Last month [WN112], an article on these rules has aroused considerable interest. Joe Newton (of the Newcastle Wargames Club) writes: "In the July Newsletter you have an entire article on, your views at least, the WarGames Research Group Rules. It was indeed a very fair opinion of them even though only covering three periods. However, I think that I remember the Wargames Research Group once being called the Ancient Wargames Research Group from whence the initial idea seemingly sprang. I seem to also remember that it took them 3 years to produce their Ancient rules, the work done being obvious by the fact that the rules are one of the most workable sets I have seen or used. However, it is a different matter when we enter into other periods. It seems, to me at least, that having had an original idea they decided to put it to use in other periods too rapidly and the rules seem as if they were put together for the occasion of the Convention. Another thing which makes me think twice about their rules is that they are written by the same people. I just do not really think that they have gone to the same trouble with their other sets of rules. Even so I would be very glad if these rules, or any others, were adopted as a standard set for National Conventions as it really is about time." Maurice Roth writes:- "The review by Keith Robinson in the July Newsletter of the Wargames Research Group Napoleonic rules was most interesting and I would like to add to the discussion. In my opinion these are an excellent set of rules butt like anything new, suffer from teething troubles. There are several anomalies andt in my view the pros and cons should be argued in public so that the authors may select what they consider worthy and incorporate these in a second edition. Taking Keith's points in turn. I sympathise with his wish to alter the scale but it must be remembered that a unit of 120 men, 8 figures at present, would become 6 figures and would therefore flinch that much sooner. I am not sure if this would work. I agree that no account is taken of loss of accuracy of artillery at long range but, rather than add one point to the firing factor at less than half the maximum range, I would subtract one at more than one-third range. One-third rather than half because accuracy does not fall off with distance: more like the square of the distance. I would apply this to rifles as well but not, I suggest, to cannister as the shot spreads out thus putting more men in the danger area. I agree with deducting a point for moving and firing, this to apply to everyone, including artillery. The compulsory move to form square is reasonable, as this is what the unit commanders would be trained to do. I suggest that, instead of omitting it altogether, it be made optional if the general is with the unit. Flinch points are, I think, the main bone of contention with these rules and I must say I have several reservations. However, what has prompted me to write this at all is Keith's statement that it is difficult to drive troops out of buildings. I have found the reverse; you have only to advance a column towards the house and as soon as it gets to within 6" the defenders flinch out (unless they are Guards). I have found no way to stop this and would be interested to learn how Keith does it. I have also found that it is much too easy for a column to break a square or line, no matter how large the square or how small the column, because the defenders have no clioice but to break without firing when charged. I suggest that the defenders be allowed to fire first, as they do when being charged by cavalry, and then break only if the net flinch points are 2 or more. I agree that they should not melee. David Chandler quotes in "The Campaigns of Napoleon" "5 bayonet wounds to 119 bullet wounds in the same action." (page 344). On the whole I think the rules tend to favour the attack just a little too much at the expense of the defence. To remedy this somewhat I suggest that a unit should ignore one flinch point if the general is with them. I think it reasonable to suppose that Napoleon or Wellington would have that effect. I don't agree with Keith in deducting 2 points for artillery firing after rain. I think one is enough, which is the same as firing from a steep hill. One further point is that of skirmishers in front of a column. They tend to flinch too readily if they are treated as a detached sub unit. I suggest that, provided they are a light company of the parent unit (and not from a separate unit) and also are within say 3", the whole of the unit be counted for flinching. I question also the restriction of 22120 when firing. This seems too small, particularly for skirmishers and I suggest the latter be allowed 45 . This should also apply to troops firing from the window of a building. It is a little unrealistic, I think, to insist that sub units be on single basis, particularly cavalry and skirmishers. However, I have not found many people doing this. I have found a little confusion with the rule (page 6) that a general can order any unit he is with and it will obey next period. 'Next' is a word which is interpreted differently in different parts of the country. In some places it would mean the same period in which he gives the order, but in other places the one after. I have taken it to mean the same period. I have also had arguments as to whether cavalry can charge troops which they cannot see. I maintain that they should only be able to charge troops which they can see at the start of the move. The ranges given for rifles and for artillery seem a little optimistic as they represent the long, rather than the effective, range. (See Chandler and also Jac Weller). However, I think this is overcome by deducting one point for long range as already suggested. Lastly, I do not suppose the authors would mind people adding their own peculiarities within the spirit of the rules. For instance I reckon that a Scottish unit advancing with bagpipes playing would inflict one flinch point on the enemy right away!" Philip Barker, of the Birmingham Wargames Club, has sent me the following letter, which is printed in its entirety so that all facts are given a fair hearing. "I have had nothing whatever to do with the organisation of this years Ancient Convention games, and the statement that I have a vetoed one of the armies and circulated letters about it is therefore untrue. As I understand it, the facts are as follows: 1. There was a proviso written into the Convention rules that all armies must be reasonably accurate to their original, and that gimmick armies would be rejected. 2. Dave Milward, the organiser, decided that their was no precedent for 20-man units in a Parthian army, and informed Bob Douglas that he could use units of 10 figures, representing 200 men. 3. As far as I can find, Parthian armies, like the Persians they replaced, used the normal barbarian decimal system of organisation. The basic unit was 1,000 men, sub-divided into sub-units of 100. I must therefore agree with Dave that units of 1 figure, representing 20 men, are unrealistic in the extreme. 4. Could a force of 20 men be taken to be a whole unit by their opponents and demoralise them in real life? Possibly, if all the men were equipped with standards, trumpets, etc. and dragged sacks or branches behind their horses to create the dust of a much larger force. Even so, the truth would probably sink in sooner or later, especially if any of the opponents were on higher ground. I understand that in Bob's game, all his figures were normal rank and file, towed nothing behind themg and that the opponent was occupying a hill position at one stage of the game, so such a subterfuge would have been unlikely to work in real life. 5. The Douglas army would equally have been banned in the first Convention round, but owing to the Postal strike, army lists could not be sent in for checking until after the first round had been fought. Like you, I'm a little saddened by the amount of ingenuity which is put into picking armies to exploit apparent loopholes in the rules, compared with the abysmal lack of knowledge of elementary tactics which is so apparent in the actual playing of Convention games. Sometimes these loopholes are more apparent than real. For examples struck by the apparent cheapness of light A.F.V. under the infantry rules, practically every army in the Modern section of this years Convention, consists practically exclusively of these, with very little infantry. This to fight in villages surrounded by dense woods, and possibly mined as well! I umpired a game where a tank crept alone through the wood into the outskirts of the village, no infantry or other friends in sight, got fired on by a sniper rifle and a bazooka which both missed, took a reaction-test, and went and hid in the wood for the rest of the game, refusing to come out! Incidently, although Slim Mumford toes not like these rules, the Army seem quite keen." Bob O'Brien, co-author of the Wargames Research Group rules, writes:- "I was pleased to see your coverage of our various rules, together with the 'pro's' and 'anti's' in the July issue. I'm afraid that your informant re my article in 'Slingshot' 'Skilful Tactical Moves -- Sneaky Stuff' could not have read the article and had very little sense of humour! I thought most wargamers have two descriptions for any such moves, depending upon who is the giver and who is the receiver.' In fact, my article demonstrated how the rules permit one to carry out a feigned withdrawal with the object of attempting to draw the more excitable units of any enemy formation out of position. Legitimate tactics I would say and done, or attempted, in all periods of history. I was also careful to say that the 'best laid plans..etc, can go sadly amiss, and warned that it is possible to be too clever by half. I hope that this helps to straighten the record. As for the bloke with the 30-odd one figure units, I heard this via the Wargamers Bush Telegraph and nearly had one of my fits of uncontrollable merriment! Apart from being fatuous, such a force (an be doomed in a short time without any resorting to fancy stuff, and my German hairies would welcome meeting it -- they badly need a victory, having been beaten up by Romans, Greeks and all sorts. Finally, I would mention that the only criticisms of our Modern Infantry rules have so far come from people who have taken their ideas from Hollywood with the hero taking on half the German/Japanese/N. Korean army with a Tommy-gun. Back to Table of Contents -- Wargamer's Newsletter # 114 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