I am sure that Mr. Stephen Reed, like the majority of those whose hobby is wargaming, wishes to produce a system of rules which gives an enjoyable and realistic game, taking into account the historical background of the particular contest being waged, and many of the points he raises would I think have the agreement of thinking wargamers. However, I disagree with his first sentence, I think that a set of rules to be playable and enjoyable needs to be simple. Furthermore I do not agree that a contest of skill and a re-creation of the conditions of warfare for a given period are incompatible aims.
Having said this I hasten to say that I do not believe that "Waterloo" or "Gettysburg" or any other battle can be transferred to the wargame table, history reversed and profound military research affected. The most one can hope for is some understanding of the problems of the commanders, some insight into the military thinking of the time and an enjoyable GAME.
To take Mr. Reed's points in order; dependence on the dice particularly for significant decisions is something which I like to keep to a minimum. However, there are occasions during a battle when one deliberately takes a calculated risk which a rigid set of rules would automatically condemn to failure. Operations of this kind have been successful time and again in the history of warfare and there should be allowance (heavily weighted of course) for such a move to succeed on the table.
The dice, provided that as far as possible the odds have been realistically computed is the obvious answer. The "chancer" who exposes himself too often hazarding all on a dice throw will eventually be beaten by the odds. I have found that the advent of decimal dice has made this aspect of the game less time consuming and more able to be realistically assessed. No one likes to see an obviously unreal result but this can still happen within a rigid framework of rules to cover every possible eventuality.
My point is that where you have two intelligent people who understand the historical facts of the period in which they are playing will both wish to avoid the obvious nonsense when it arises and will by amicable discussion and common sense resolve the point precisely because no sensible gamer wishes to win or even to secure an advantage in such a way.
Mr. Featherstone in a Newsletter of a few months ago recounted how he and a group of friends play regularly and enjoyably without resort to acrimonious dissension, deciding doubtful points in an adult and rational way. I suppose that in the more intense atmosphere of the tournament or championship competition rules need to be rather more all-encompassing but here I would have thought that the decision of a well qualified and respected umpire would have been the best safeguard. This after all is how it is done in the Services. Now a comment on "fun" my idea of this is for instance a rule for the progressively more likely jamming of Catling guns in Colonial battles (governed by the dice of course). One only has to read accounts of engagements of the period to realise how often the things seem to seize up at crucial moments. The unpredictable behaviour of elephants in ancient warfare or the propensity for Mediaeval cannon to blow up, the tactical use of the request for an armistice which was a favourite ploy of the 18th century generals and used by Napoleon and his enemies, are all examples of the kind of element which, when built into a game, render it to my mind more enjoyable.
With the third paragraph of Mr. Reed's article I agree but even a simple set of rules can reduce the fighting potential of Light Infantry caught in extended order in open country by cavalry.
With regard to World War II battles, I must confess that I find it a difficult period for which to frame acceptable rules because of the complexity of the different classes of weaponry and the more sophisticated nature of the supporting factors and for this reason have disposed of my Minitanks. I personally do not think that there is any enjoyment to be obtained from any battle after 1914.
Perhaps unconsciously I shy away from the two World Wars because they are still too close in time to be comfortable material for amusement. However, I agree with Mr. Reed that Tank warfare should take into account as many of the factors he mentions as possible and this means playing a game involving a fairly small number of vehicles, guns, etc., or alternatively playing on a different scale altogether using the new Minifig 5mm figures and a set of uncomplicated rules. After all in any wargame you have to decide on what level you are required to think. You cannot be the overall Army Commander and be the tactical commander of each individual tank. This applies to other periods as well I greatly enjoyed Brigadier Young and Colonel Lawford's book "Charge!" but I cannot see much merit in dicing individual soldiers one against the other.
This also applies to many naval engagements where it is either necessary to keep meticulous records on paper for each ship to show the damage suffered, fighting potential, number of guns still in action, etc., or to fight much quicker simpler "sudden death" battles like Coronel or Falklard. It does seem to me, and perhaps Mr. Reed would agree, that what we need is a set of rules for the really large battle involving, perhaps 10 or 12 Divisions on either side and another and more detailed set for engagements when one figure on the table represents 10 or less men.
I agree that the loss of a whole unit on one dice throw when that unit represents an appreciable part of your army is unrealistic and the standard procedure for melees of roughly equal forces whereby they inflict casualties on one another proportionate to their respective strengths with some modification by the dice, continuing for two rounds, unless re-inforced, is far more reasonable. However, when a unit has been subjected to heavy fighting, severe casualties and enforced retreat it is obviously sensible to decide whether that unit will stand its Freund or dissolve in rout and provided all the relevant considerations have been taken into account I see no reason why the dice should not be the ultimate decider.
To conclude then, I feel that the more complicated and encyclopaedic the rules the more chance there is of argument - and the slower and less interesting the game, The simpler the rules within reason of course the more enjoyable. the 1-13me. The unreal situation should be quickly recognised by all concerned and resolved in a sensible and equitable manner and the mere fact that it is not actually catered for in the rules should be irrelevant. Where rules set out to cover everything that could possibly happen on the battlefield they will inevitably leave something out and then the argument which ensues is likely to be the more acrimonious. Finally, the potent element of luck (which Napoleon acknowledged to be one of the most important factors in the make-up of a good General) must be taken into account and the proper use of the dice seems the logical way to achieve this.
Back to Table of Contents -- Wargamer's Newsletter # 131
To Wargamer's Newsletter List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1973 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