(The author, a Canadian from Willowdale, Ontario, omitted to attach his name! But we thank him.) At some point in his career, every wargamer has wanted or will want to create his own personal set of rules. The reason for this is that wargamers are all individualists, and our direction of research, and interpretation of historical facts, will vary. You may, because of your readings, disagree entirely with a commercial rule publisher's ideas on the use of the lance, or the breaking of a square which mar for you an otherwise excellent set of rules. Sometimes you feel you could do better. There are basically two ways to go about making a personalised set of rules. The first is to write your own. This is usually the best method, and it can involve either starting from scratch, stealing bits and pieces you like from various published sets. Unfortunately, often a set of rules compiled by a person is looked on by himself and others as "home-grown", and not up to scratch with commercial products. The second, and easier, course is to obtain a set of published rules you like -and modify those parts you do not like. In both cases you must be careful of the balance of the ru The following are some guidelines for achieving or maintaining balance within a set of rules that y are working on. The first determination is whether the rules are to be strategic or tactical in nature. If the rules are strategic, then they should involve high casualty rates, and quick and definite morale results between conflicting units, i.e. at the end of a turn, one or the other of two units in conflict should be falling back. For infantry (and possibly artillery, if you wish) it should include the ability to move, or part-move, and fire at the same time. To counter this, melee results should no be weighted in favour of charging infantry, as the defending infantry has no great advantage over time. The move distance should be such that units can get into action quickly (inf. 8" - 12" cross-country. If the rules are to be tactical, infantry should only be able to move or fire, artillery should have move distance deducted for limbering and unlimbering. The moves should be shorter in distance (inf. 4" - 8" cross-country). The casualties should be considerably lower, since they are spread over more turns, and moving targets will generally be in range for longer before units can make contact. The morale should contain less severe or even partial results (e.g. unit coming under fire has low morale, is forced to stop, but may return fire, for you will be checking morale more frequently, a in a tactical game you will have opportunities to do things that could not be included in a strategy game. If your tactical rules are formulated properly, you may see the same unit charging and taking a position several times, only to get thrown out by counterattacks each time. Melee results must be weighted heavily in favour of charging troops, for there must be a good reason for them to charge in the face of firing infantry without being able to reply. As a quick check, you should be using strategic rules if you have a wargame with over 200 figures a side that you cannot leave set up over night. The period under consideration will affect your rules considerably. You have to take into account the weapons capabilities, tactics and training of the period, as these will influence the balance o the rules. For instance, Ancient archers had a fair range, but the arrow is not quite such a manstopping device as an ounce of lead, and a lot depended on their number and deployment. Mediaeval archers generally had better bows, which gave them up to twice the range of their Ancient counterpart but they had difficulty making an impression on full plate armour - thus the rise of the shorter range but more powerful crossbow Iwith their armour-piercing (A.P.) quarrel. Training could have as much effect on tactics (and thus rules) as can weaponry. In the Seven Years War, the well-trained infantry could stop charging cavalry with their firepower alone, whereas Napoleonic infantry with their slightly longer range musket were forced to form square in the face of hostile horsemen. Conversely, A.C.W. infantry were able to repel cavalry, not by their superior training, but by longer range rifled musket and of course, anything in a solid formation that came near a First World War Infantry unit would get shot up badly. Be careful that your rules reflect the weapons and training of the time, and not the tactics. For if your rules are reasonable, the tactics of the period will be the most effective to in your wargame under those rules. I do not mean by the preceeding statement that one should have clauses in one's rules that say "Infantry may only charge the enemy in column" or "an independent battalion of skirmishers may not skirmish the whole battalion at once", or "You may not fire into a melee". One should never have to say that a certain tactic may or may not be used; the rules should be put together such that the tactical practices that succeeded on the battlefield will also be the most useful under general conditions on the table. Under these conditions the rules are usually flexible enough to provide for alternate tactics under unusual or emergency conditions. For example, I have a small section in my rules setting out the distribution of casualties between the two contenders of a melee that is firing into, plus modifications to morale; my morale rules provide that any group of skirmishers that are supported by formed troops are less inclined to stick around. So, if you need unsupported skirmishing for a short time, or want to fire into a melee, you can. If enemy cavalry is cutting down the routing remnants of one of your infantry battalions, and the whole mess (technically a melee is approaching one of your batteries, the gunners may fire in their own defence. Proper Balancing This leads us to the most important point - the proper balancing of your rules. Your movement, firepower and range, and morale, must be co-ordinated in such a way as to represent what would actually happen. For example, the weapons of the Seven Years War were rather short range and inaccurate, but the well-disciplined troops were able to hold their fire and deliver a devastating volley at point blank range, one of which was usually sufficient to repel charging cavalry. Infantry as a rule could not come to grips. An attacking battalion would invariably be forced to stop and fire by the crunch, and whoever could least stand the musketry would have to retire. Appropriate rules would have short range but effective musketry, and morale rules that would force a unit of low morale to I but not necessarily retire. The determination of the ability to hold fire until short range would I extremely important, especially against cavalry. Morale between conflicting infantry units may be inversely related such that, as the morale of one goes up, the other's goes down, until one gets enough nerve to charge the intervening few yards just about the time the other decides to retire. Contrasted to this is the Napoleonic period of the less well disciplined soldier. Musket range is slightly increased, but the firepower of the badly trained unit is so ineffectual that things can, and in fact have to, be decided by the bayonet. Musket range should then be just slightly longer than that of the Seven Years War. It should not however, be effective enough such that it would necessarilly stop charging infantry. As opposed to earlier period, foot artillery should have a good enough move distance so that it would be advantageous to relocate it during the course of the battle. The infantry of the A.C.W. were probably no better trained or disciplined that their European predecessors of 50 years. However, with their rifled musket they were able to engage the enemy at a much greater distance. Even a single line in open order could not approach closer than 40 yards to steady infantry. But if frontal attacks were virtually impossible, flank attacks, (if you could find an open flank) were usually assured of success. For a battle line that is only one man deep and 300 to 1,000 men wide is going to be exceedingly difficult to manoeuvre. If a regiment had to change facing at all, it had to be done one company at a time This evolution could be done in battle by only the most highly disciplined troops such as the British in the Crimea. If attempted by an in-experience unit, it usually resulted in chaos, providing an excellent target for an attacking unit. The point is, of course, that in making up or changing rules, one should try to maintain a balance between the different elements of the rules. The movement, weapons range and firepower, and morale should be co-ordinated in such a way that they represent the norm of the time. For instance, if an A.C.W. unit is allowed three volleys against an enemy infantry unit between the time it moves within range and the time that they come to grips (e.g. range 18", move 6"), and the averages obtainable for the three respective volleys are set at, say 1, 2 and 4 figures casualties, then the morale loss from taking 4 casualties in one turn, or 7 over three turns, (or better yet, both taken into account) should be more than enough to stop the attacking unit in its tracks. Conversely, if the identical situation were set in Napoleonic times, the range would be reduced to maybe 9" (move distance 6") such that the defending troops could get into one, and maybe two volleys at the enemy. Then if one average (short range) volley caused 4 casualties, then the morale rules should be adjusted such that, depending on the discipline of the troops, that may or may not be enough to stop them before the crunch. Of course, the discipline of the defending troops would tend to affect its firepower, and thus its stopping power. A Seven Years War infantry unit should have a range about equal to their move distance, allowing them to get in only one volley, but that one volley should be devastating and more than enough to stop the enemy. Altering to Suit The crux of the matter is, then, that as you create or change certain important parts of your rules, (movement, musket range, firepower, morale) other parts must be altered to suit. For example, if you take a balanced set of rules and double the weapons range without changing any other element of the rules, then you will double the number of shots projectile troops can fire related to movement distance, which will have the general effect of doubling the casualties per game, doubling the chance of a morale loss making such loss twice as severe, and quartering the chance of a melee. To compensate for doubled range and maintain a balanced set of rules, you can do one of three things, in descending order of preference: you can a) halve firepower, b) double move distance, or c) cut down on the morale results. By the same token, doubling the move distance of a set of rules without changing aught else might provide you with the strange experience of seeing an infantry unit moving from out of range into melee with an enemy unit without a shot being fired. Or the levy unit that should have taken two steady volleys from the Guard unit, takes only one, makes it past the single morale check (instead of two) and, to everyone's surprise, ends up crossing swords with the valiant enemy legions. Obviously the weapons range should be increased to compensate. To create the kind of rules that suit you, you should first determine the average casualties in figures that you want a unit-to-unit confrontation to result in per turn. Then you must co-ordinate your missile range with your movement, such that a unit will deliver a certain number of volleys per turn between the time an enemy unit comes into range and the time it comes into contact. Determine also how you want your casualties spread over the various volleys. The casualties at different ranges as an enemy infantry unit approaches should average out to the number you determined at the beginning of this paragraph. In doing this remember that the closer the target, the more likely it is to be hit; as a famous modern General once said, the average soldier, no matter how accurate his rifle, still cannot hit the broad side of a barn door past 100 paces. When you are writing rules for melee, it should be the same as your rules for firing, for simplicity's sake; however, the results should be more casualty- producing than the firepower, for the men were shooting, clubbing and stabbing each other at a range at which they could not miss. Once you have got this far, test your rules out with a few very simple actions - line two battalions of equal size up against each other and have a stationary fire-fight. Replace the casualties and do it again a couple of times. Change the range and go through it again a few more times. Then try moving a unit in column from out of range into contact with a stationary unit in line defending itself with firepower. After a few experiments of this type, you will get an impression of the average, high and low casualties. If it does not "feel" the way you want it to, modify slightly your method of determining casualties and try it out again. Once you have your movement and casualty determination worked out to your satisfaction, I would suggest a couple of "fight to the last man" battles to get an idea of how your basic rules work in a more complex situation. These little affairs can be quite fun and very instructive. Use equal teams that are well-balanced including all arms. You will stumble across complex situations you had not previously envisioned. You may also see the effect of converging fire, and the combined firepower of infantry and artillery in attack and defence. When you make a comparison between these test battles and the earlier unit-to-unit confrontations, you will start to get an idea whether or note the rules so far are working out to your satisfaction. If they are not, adjust the mechanics. This is an important determination before you move on to the next step. If you have done some play testing of your basic rules before you start to consider morale rules, it will help immeasurably. You will have gotten a good idea of how hot the pace can be. You should have an idea of when a unit's morale would go bad, and what you can base your morale considerations on. You will invariably come across situations where you say to yourself, "That should not happen", and will be able to make adjustments accordingly. The mechanics of determining morale, the situations that you want to have an influence on a unit's morale, and the results of a bad morale check, are all up to you. I am sure you have had experience with other sets of rules, and found many things you liked and otherwise. Build your morale rules according to the ideas you liked most, and they will be the best for you. Extras Once you have your rules basics squared away, you can start adding those extra rules according to your own particular tastes. By this I am referring to such subsidiary rules as will cver special weapons, special troops, special tactics, and what constitutes a charge, or an open flank, the difference in training of various troopsp how long it would take to perform certain tactical manoeuvers or evolutions, etc.; all according to your own interpretations of your own researches. This is wher the individuality of creating your own set of rules comes in, and the fun of it, too' Since your range represents weapons capabilities, firepower is your troop's training, and moral their discipline, then if these things are altered to suit the times, a well written set of rules, modified accordingly, could suit any period. The only things that would need drastic change are the individual rules that apply only to that period. The figure scale you use for your army will have an effect on your rules as well. For the size of the unit and the area it covers has a decided influence both on the amount of casualties it inflicts, and receives. A 48-man battalion has twice as many men to fire (volleys), and is twice the target (i.e. twice as many enemy can line up opposite it) as would be a 24-man battalion. This will have a definite effect on morale results. Also one must remember that the larger a unit the more difficult it is to manoeuvre, especially in line. A final note on wargames rules concerns the controversy between organised wargames, playability versus realism. Playability demands a fairly simple set of rules that might very well have to sacrifice some of the finer details to speed and simplicity. This can be gotten around by such physical artifices as mounting heavy cavalry 3 to a stand and giving it the same power as a larger 4 figure light cavalry stand or even larger 5 or 6 figure stands. It also generally requires opponents who know each other and get along well together, for there will invariably be certain basic parts of the rules that need to be understood (such as the exact way of moving troops, or what constitutes a flail etc.). If these things are not cleared up before the game begins, then the game may never end for arguments. If you are striving for realism, then you are going to need to continuously reference rules and tables that differentiate between types of troops and weapons capabilities, or you are going to need to memorise the essence of many of these rules. The more details that are incorporated into your rules the more the various elements of your rules need to be defined, including those parts of the rules that were previously understood. However, do not fall into the false assumption that if you write in volume that defines every part of your rules, that you will eliminate arguments. For even the most carefully written definitions contain loopholes, and are subject to differing interpretations. Remember that, just as wargaming is a microcosmic representation of our society's major conflict so also can wargames rules be compared to our laws and customs. (Do not forget that the civilised nations got together this century and prepared a comprehensive handbook on how to conduct a war - the Geneva Convention). Customs are an understanding between inhabitants of a region on how they should conduct themselves, and if each does accordingly, then everyone benefits. Laws are enforceable restrictions on hkow we must conduct ourselves, subject to the whims and discriminations of he who enforce the law. Customs are few and simple, and easy to remember. Laws are plentiful, complex and contradictory, requiring an expensive specialist to sort out. They often infringe upon individual rights for the benefit of the common good. Legal libraries are huge, legal proceedings may take years to get a simple result, and the results will depend strongly on judicial interpretation and precedent. Beware, for laws beget laws. It may be immediately obvious to you that I have a preference for simpler rules. My own tactical Napoleonic rules contain only one reference chart (morale: unavoidable for the particular period), after playing several games with them, I can now wargame all day without referring to them once. The game moves along quickly, despite the fact that my games invariably involve thousands of figures. will also modestly claim that my regular opponents prefer my simple but comprehensive rules to the many commercial sets we have from time to time imported from your country and elsewhere. I hope these guidelines will be of value to those who are working on their own set of rules. have used the horse-and-musket period as my main example for three reasons: 1) it is the most popular 2) it is the period in which the regimentation and wargames capabilities are most visibly obvious; 3) it is the period with which I am most familiar. Back to Table of Contents -- Wargamer's Newsletter # 173 To Wargamer's Newsletter List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1976 by Donald Featherstone. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com