I'm rather sorry to have missed the issue with the "Do you like dice?" article. I don' t, they are an abomination, but I fear that from the intimations in this last issue, the only recognized competition for the die is the roulette wheel or chance cards.
Why?
I am only too familiar with the dice school of thought, which holds that the effectiveness of successive volleys by the same company vary by a ratio of 1-6 or thereabouts, 0-4 for Morschauser. The point is also easily advanced that the smaller force usually wins or loses a melee on morale or something, and is not likely to lose on numbers alone. Actually, nothing is so likely to demoralize a man than the knowledge that he is about to go up against two men each approximately his equal with bayonets.
The fact is, fire effect for the same six men or so may indeed vary as much as the roll of a die -- or given volley as against its predecessor or succession though I doubt it extremely. Even so, when a regiment of 500 men fires two times in succession, even if you allow for wild variation to each volley group in the regiment, you will come down to 3.5 per six men or thereabouts.
Since in the modern measure of a battalion represented in your newsletter suggests 3 o.r. to the section, and since very often as not as few as 30 men will represent a full regiment in an eariler period, it seems logical to me that in order to achieve verisimilitude a statistical mean might be arrived at which would (I admit, does, in my game) award an average number of hits for "shots fired."
Some will point out that fire effectiveness is usually different somewhat from volley to volley in military history, but I would insist that the difference is usually a result of some regiments being more or less skilled, and firing at different ranges, etc. Things are usually fairly close in similar circumstances.
In addition, by the simple expedient of using a fire effect table with simultaneous moves and player's option of simultaneous volleys, it is possible to give the two generals a considerable responsibility for the outcome of the battle. The probabilities are just as convincing, more realistic, in fact, than is the case when 6-1 is the power of dice over mind and matter.
The objection is sure to be raised that sometimes regiments do strange things and how can that be represented without some sort of random chance? Frankly, it can't be represented at all in inanimate miniatures.
The only fair way is to organise the game and assume that the average skills of the troops are more or less equal for the same category. In the skill game a regiment can still do amazing things, but it will depend upon disposition, type, timing, formation, and enemy action as well as numbers, not on the random pronouncement of a cubed oracle. The most realistic way to include morale in a game is to rely on such indications of morale as may be found in the reactions of one's opponent.
Some war game generals, for instance, after suffering a couple of reverses dealt by cavalry charges, will take elaborate pains against that arm, making them better infantry or artillery targets. In my last campaign by these rules, a costly but total victory for my forces against a single enemy corps so jolted the enemy high command that they burned their capital and massed back of a river, placing both of their country's ships of the line on that river to prevent a crossing. Since my own strength was approximately one third of their strength in this theatre of operations, his decisions were obviously a result of morale rather than physical conditions.
The use of an "average" score rather than a roll of dice has numerous advantages. In the first place, supported with guns became embroiled in a massive cavalry battle just over the river, the centre force was replaced by infantry which crossed and established a beach head, the left force simply turned back on seeing a company fort: on the opposite bank.
More and more troops were brought up, Charles' guns being the object of a battle too close for very many units to give fire before getting involved in hand to hand combat. By the time he saved his guns, Bob saw fit to abandon the towns and retire, now having 3 guns to 2, but untvilling to continue the bloodbath on the same ground.
This donnybrook resembled Inkerman of the same period, the tactics being rather elementary, the conflict exciting and the results extremely believable. Even though I knew all of the rules and tables, I was never sure from one move to the next just what was going to come of the situation.
For my own part I would rather, in such a battle as that, win or lose on troop strength and morale, strategy and position, than have the thing awarded to me by dice. I have been in a number of dice games on the simple systems of Morschauser, which allow you to tilt the odds a little by tactics, and I have won 8 of 10 musket period games, 3 of 4 modern battles, but I still prefer the straight stuff.
Back to Table of Contents -- Wargamer's Newsletter # 28
To Wargamer's Newsletter List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1964 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