Scales "I must not let slip the opportunity of saying how good the June issue of the Newsletter was, with the article by Phil Barker comparing old and new rules, the pieces by Chris Beaumont and Peter Gouldesborough which gave a good picture of the way local wargaming goes ahead very enjoyably on its own outside the quite different world of competitions, and your own detailed editorial on the difficulties involved in representing large battles on the average wargames table. It is worth pointing out that, although actions like Dresden with its front of ten miles or so will always be outside the scope of ordinary wargames, it IS possible to represent the intermediate type of battle quite reasonably, even with 20-25mm figures, by using a rougher scale as regards figures, time and distance. For example, our usual Napoleonics table is made up of two pieces of 5 by 4 plywood, giving either a 10 by 4 or an 8 by 5 playing area, depending on the situation needed. We use a figure scale of 1 figure = 50 men, and a ground scale of 1 inch = 50 yards. In this way you have a battlefield nearly 32 miles wide and about 12 miles deep (using the 10' by 4' arrangement) on which you can deploy from one to three corps, representing 10,000-25,000 men a side, and still have plenty space between units, for the kind of manoeuvre you had in mind in your editorial. The average infantry division of 4,000-5,000 men will occupy only one square foot of table if in two brigades, each of battalion columns, one brigade behind the other! With effective cannon range only 20" (1,000 yards) it is possible to station reserves out of harm's way - and also to put in and exploit a surprise attack before the enemy can react, since on normal terrain forces can move over the 1,000 yards in two game bounds, or half an hour in our rough time scale. This is very roughly right if you allow for firing, reloading, dressing ranks, officers consulting, etc. On the debit side, some people would object to a cavalry regiment being represented by as little as 4 figures (in the Peninsula, however, French units were often only about 200 men strong), although our usual is 6. But this has the advantage that you can have many more different units on the table. Instead of using a brigade of cavalry, consisting of three regiments of 12-20 figures each, on the entire table, you can field three or four brigades comprising say ten different regiments. Ten different uniforms, probably, so far more colourful. Simplification of the rules is made possible by the fact that you do not normally have to bother with anything smaller than a battalion. As the June issue pointed out, company actions are insignificant in major battles. Of course, the 1 figure = 50 men scale does allow the use of the kind of 2-company unit of light infantry which some countries used. This last point is one reason why it is not very satisfactory (from the game appearance point of view) to go even further and use a scale of 1 figure = 100 men and 1 inch = 100 yards. In this area this even "rougher" scale is used for Seven Years War games, and fits the linear and cohesive tactics of that period extremely well. But the deeper Napoleonic formations, and the many kinds of formation, would make such things as the positioning of reserves very difficult, since for example a battalion column representing only 600 men would be about 200 yards deep. Our 1 inch = 50 yards scale also helps with the vexed question of ignorance of enemy intentions, as considerable parts of the battlefield are usually not within the enemy's visibility. We have a system (which I shall explain some other time) whereby it is extremely hard to modify a battle plan once committed, and these two factors together induce more caution in commanders than you find in many wargames. We have had games where a player commanding a corps of large size but slightly risky morale has congratulated himself on holding, say, the left wing for three or four hours scale time (2 hours playing time, probably) and even gained possession of a hill or two from the enemy - and then found at the end of the game that all he was facing was some aggressively used horse batteries plus a few small groups of skirmishers and light cavalry. Those dangerous-looking woods further in the rear in fact contained nothing. All the enemy reserves were a couple of miles away, winning the overall battle. Obviously, it is quite possible to fight on your 3 1/2 mile table area one of the more crowded battles of the Waterloo type. Wellington had about 70,000 men on a front of about 3 miles, whereas for example at Bautzen in 1813 Barclay had 15,000 men with which to defend the refused right flank of the Russian-Prussian army, and those 15,000 held a front of 3 miles! It is a matter of purely personal preference, but I feel that the crowded battle makes a dull wargame, with straightforward attrition, whereas corps actions (rather than army actions) give you a large-scale game and yet leave big empty spaces on the table within which to manoeuvre. Your editorial suggested that many wargames really represent only the final stage of a battle, and I suppose this is true. Say, Cole's division attacking in the last hour at Albuera, with some of Lumley's cavalry and a few guns hanging about in support, facing Werle's brigade with their attendant cavalry and guns. Fair enough, and many wargamers perhaps prefer to decide battles mainly by tactical handling of units deployed more or less face to face. But by using a scale like 1:50 it becomes possible to enjoy the immense satisfaction of out-thinking the enemy on a more strategic level, as Soult did to Beresford, appearing suddenly with three divisions on the enemy's flank before he realises he is not going to be seriously attacked frontally. Even if your dice let you down, as Sou1t's subordinates let him down, it will have been well worth it. You can remember a particularly good plan from one of these battles of movement many years after, whereas the attrition type of game is utterly unmemorable in most cases, although reasonably enjoyable at the time." Harold Gerry of St. Albans Sunshine Shoot Out "How about this fabulous sunshine? Perfect for a New Mexico shootout, of course. Our latest was fought out of doors in a mock-up of a canyon that resembled a miniature back-lot at Warner Bros., sand, cacti and all, with the players suitably rigged out with slouch hats and pistols. Jim Crow got his feathers shaken whilst LH and JG ain't gonna be ridin' the range for a coupla moons." Steve Curtis of Watchet, Somerset  Swedish Army 1812-1815 I urgently need details of the composition of the Swedish Army 1812-1815 - the strength of units from company, through battalion, regiments, divisions, corps, etc., of Infantry, Cavalry and artillery units. The uniforms of the various arms; fusiliers, grenadiers, light infantry, officers and standards. Weapons used, and the numbers of the various units over the period. Otherwise, the titles of any books which cover the above. To date the little information covers only Marshal Bernadotte, his political achievements, and his part in campaigns for Napoleon and for the Allies, but nothing on the Swedish Army. I am a wargamer of some five years experience, (by no means a veteran) and have built up a reasonable force of metal and plastic 20mm figures, following on the whole, the French Army and Allies of Napoleon. 'But to my disgust I have gradually watched this scale become "unfashionable" and replaced by the larger 25's and smaller 15's. I have found the one remaining manufacturer of metal 20mm figures unsatisfactory pricewise, and their quality slightly lacking. (Does any maker cut 'flash' off figures anymore?) Due to my interest in painting the figures I collect as well as fighting table-top battles I have opted - in the event of no other option being open - I cannot find a C19 period pistol with which to do the honourable thing! - I decided to try to relegate/demote my long-serving 20mm to some shady corner - (gone but not forgotten) and start again. (Sobs quietly). Are there any 25mm manufacturers who produce 1812-1815 Swedish figures: If so whom; addresses please! If not do the Swedish uniforms approximate closely, and I mean closely, to any other Power's uniforms at present being manufactured? My reasoning behind switching to Sweden's army is the relatively small number of figures I would need to represent the total army - given lots of time, compared with that of France. Also, having read up on the reasoning behind Bernadotte's political thought he is one of the more "constant" political figures - almost a goody! Thank you for your excellent magazine, the crumbling hobby sees you as a last bastion against the' tide of diversification now threatening - its OK I'm over dramatising! (Oscar award?)" Yours, "End of Tether" Steven Rose, Watford, Herts Victorian Colonial Era "The era I concentrate on is Colonial 1884-1890 i.e. the Sudan Campaigns. I have read your suggested natives against trained troops rules in "Advanced Wargames" and I do not think they apply to my part of the era, I will explain why. The rules you lay down I think apply to the India "skirmish" situation with small bands of well armed tribesmen being led by petty chieftains relying on firepower and attacks that are sure of victory, and not usually relying upon weight of numbers. Whereas in the Sudan Campaigns one finds small bands of British outnumbered considerably facing the screaming charges of the Dervishes. This therefore is my problem as I am now re-writing my rules and need an outside opinion. The points system you suggest gives the trained troops 1 pt at all times, and the tribesmen 12 in the melee. Whereas I adopt the following system, trained troops count as 2pts each and tribesmen lpt, this allows them the superiority in numbers, then in the melee I allow them 12 to reflect their high meleeing qualities. Therefore I would like the opinions on the problem and if possible a suggested points and melee evaluation system." M. Cavill, Axminster, Devon Letter on Letters "Just a brief note re letters in the "Newsletter" No.160. I am amazed to learn that Mr.David Isby's ancestors resided in Cumberland; mine (as renegade Scots who always sided with the English) lived in the same area, so no doubt his forebears and mine frequently "shook loose the Border" and together raided the neighbouring Scottish families. That makes Mr. Isby and myself almost "blood brothers" (to use old Border parlance), so many apologies from me to an old reiving comrade if I've caused any offence!! I have been pleased of late to see a number of letters and articles in the "Newsletter" stressing the importance of morale rather than accepting "firepower" alone as the sole decisive factor. I am sure that Mr. Gerry in "More on Morale" in the last issue is on the right track. However, I think someone should make the point that one can find a quotation to fit virtually any theory. In the formulation of theories about morale, effectiveness of fire, capabilities of any particular unit, or whatever, contemporary opinions are vital, but the wargamer should be a little circumspect about using isolated and perhaps biased contemporary statements, and beware of quotations taken out of context. As Disraeli said, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics"! May I give an example; at Parwandara (Afghanistan) in November 1840, two squadrons of the 2nd Bengal Light Cavalry came up with a body of Afghans. The officers formed the 2nd into line and trotted off to charge the Afghans. As the British officers accelerated their pace, the remainder of the unit slowed down and stopped, and sat quietly watching their officers charge the Afghans unaided; they then cantered off the field while three British officers were killed. Now the unsuspecting wargamer might come across this anecdote and accept this one piece of incredible behaviour by a small body as a reflection upon the quality of the Bengal Light Cavalry in general, which would be a totally inaccurate and unfair assessment of a generally reliable porps. Or take this example: G.R.Gleig was himself a light infantry officer with Peninsular experience. He wrote: "Soldiers are, as every person knows, mere machines; they cannot think for themselves, or act for themselves on any point of duty." To accept that as it stands would be to "write off" almost completely the "skirmish" wargame. Perhaps these points seem obvious, too obvious to mention in fact. But I know from conversation that some more inexperienced wargamers seize upon a trivial contemporary comment and from it get a totally mistaken view of the topic. I suppose it is a case of being cautious and not putting too much store in isolated anecdotes." Philip Haythornthwaite of Nelson, Lancashire. Back to Table of Contents -- Wargamer's Newsletter # 162 To Wargamer's Newsletter List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1975 by Donald Featherstone. 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