Following the June editorial, a few thoughts occurred to me on the simplification of the Napoleonic game. Since defending infantry were unlikely to be able to fire more than a single effective volley, even against attacking infantry, the assessment of musketry at different ranges is unnecessary - whether or not the defenders held their fire to loose-off an effective volley at short range would depend almost entirely on their morale. Thus I am now ring to use a system where the attacker move through the whole musketry zone to contact in a single 2-1 min. move. The defenders then test morale (2 normal dice with additions and subtractions according to circumstances), and DOUBLE the morale scores to give a percentage effectiveness, except for morale scores 2, 3, 4 - indicating that the unit breaks without firing. Units with morale score 5-9 are considered shaken and break (after firing) if the attack is pressed home. Similarly the attackers may be broken by fire or (more probably) flinched into not attacking this move, when they may be counter-attacked. Nor need units necessarily be calculated in MEN; if Paddy Griffiths can effectively fight battles with units having only 6 status points, then our 20 or so per battalion should be more than sufficient to adequately reflect a unit's status. At the same time the effect of artillery fire can be simply calculated according to range, without the general having to worry too much about the type of projectile, unless of course trying to set houses on fire with howitzer shell, etc. So far I think I am on fairly safe ground, but I am less sure of myself when considering the length of real time represented by 1 period. The reduction of defender's musketry to I shot means that periods can be increased in length. Personally, I think that there is a fascination in the idea of 10 or 15 minute moves, but do not quite see how this works for artillery. There should be so many possible combinations of wheel/move/fire/limber/unlimber. Don't you have to have some kind of effectiveness per minute rating? We have already had a most interesting article from Paddy Griffiths on his 10 minute system, perhaps to this could be added a similar article from Harry Gerry (to add to his July and September '75 contributions). I have also read an article in the September and October 168 editions of the NEWSLETTER by Alan Hansford Waters in which he expounds the merits of large-scale battles with a regimentally based system - I would welcome more details of this from him. I think that Paddy Griffiths is right - we can simplify at the same time as we increase the realism of our games - all that remains is to find out how! Back to Table of Contents -- Wargamer's Newsletter # 176 To Wargamer's Newsletter List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1976 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