Dear David,

Along with this issue's article on command control in Johnny Reb, please allow me to share some thoughts with you about Origins '93.

I was rather startled not to find any events [listed in the Origins convention program] using Johnny Reb; for that matter, I didn't see any Fire & Fury, On to Richmond, Stars & Bars, or Rebel Yell events. I did see several ACW events using a set of rules I've never heard of called Landscape Turned Red, which is probably the publisher's way of promoting these rules. If I had known of all this, the ACW Society might have been able to sponsor an event; with enough warning, we could have put together a Johnny Reb event, like we did recently at Twistercon.

I was also quite surprised not to see many historical miniatures events at all; there were some, but not the variety I expected. For that matter, where were all the historical board wargames, the long-standing bread-and-butter of Origins? Most of the listed events were GDW Europa stuff, and if you're not a member of that little organization, then you're left out of those events. Where were Third Reich and all those other WW2 games; where were all the ACW board games?

It had been nearly ten years since I attended Origins, which was the last time it was held in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. I guess the hobby has changed more than I realized. I pulled out my old program from that time and it was full of historical board games and historical miniature events.

I can remember ACW and Napoleonic miniatures events. I'll never forget the Waterloo miniatures game (sponsored by Empire Games) and walking into a room full of WW2 Eastern Front board games, along with several Russian Campaign and War in the East games set up for tournament play. Now Origins is dominated by fantasy role-playing, science fiction, and railroad games (railroad games !?). What happened?

I think it's a combination of things. The rift between historical miniature groups and board game groups over the lack of representation at Origins resulted in the creation of HMGS and Historicon, which drew attendees and events from Origins. Avalon Hill is now running its own conventions for its games only. Both of these situations are symptomatic of the "I'll take my marbles home to play with" mentality. The demise of SPI is still being felt to this day. No one is publishing over a hundred game titles per year any more, and hasn't for a number of years.

Time has taken its toll on those old SPI games from the seventies, games which are increasingly finding their way into the hands of collectors who will never play them. The encroachment of fantasy and role-playing is freeing an increasingly under-educated population of young people from having to actually read and understand rules. In most role-playing games, only one person has to be familiar with the rules.

Also, our system of education had been putting less emphasis on social sciences, including history. At one time, board games were a better gaming value for the buck, but now miniature gaming is where the value is. One can put together a nicely sized collection of figures and buy rules for a lot less money than it would cost to purchase board games, which go from $30.00 and up (way up). With miniatures, you only have to learn one set of rules to play an almost limitless number of scenarios. Yes, you do have to paint, but there are some people (like myself) who enjoy painting. The cost is even less for most role-players. So cost is a factor in Origins' downturn.

There are probably more hobby and socially related causes to contribute to the sad state of affairs which contributed to the lack of historical board game and miniature events at Origins '93. You may ask yourself if that's important. If you consider any Origins program as a mirror reflection of the state of the hobby, then yes, it's important.

Historical miniature gaming is now predominant over historical board gaming and the trend is to have miniatures-only or miniatures-dominated conventions. I'd wager that the days of Origins as a national hobby event (or at least as having any pretense of historical gaming) are numbered. Historical miniature gaming will survive and grow through HMGS and historical board gaming will probably wither on the vine.

I hope I'm proven wrong, and I hope that both types of historical gaming can survive and flourish together.

Speaking of conventions, what are the prospects of the ACW Society sponsoring a convention? "Volunteers" has been sponsoring an ACW board game convention for some time now. We [the ACW Society] do not have to hold a convention at Gettysburg [as "Volunteers" did]; perhaps a good site for a convention would be somewhere in Texas, across the border at Pea Ridge, or a little further away at Wilson's Creek. The convention wouldn't have to be at a battle site; any town of size with decent hotels and decent meeting spaces would do. (Hopefully the two would be together.) Perhaps some day we can have a joint convention with "Volunteers" board gamers. It would be great to have game rules authors like John Hill to hold seminars.

Speaking of authors of rule sets, I think a nice addition to The Zouave would be a question and answer column by the various authors of the more popular ACW game sets. Is that possible? Well, this letter is way too long, so I'd better close for now. Thanks for letting me get a lot off my chest.

Dear Dave,

I plan to run a Fire & Fury 15mm battle at our city's annual wargaming convention in 1994. These rules are ideal for convention gaming; the corps level [of the game] introduces some well-known personalities, the maneuver and combat mechanisms are quickly learned, and the overall command organization and unit status rules are easy to follow.

While our club plays several rule sets for variety, Fire & Fury is one of our favorites and we endorse those rules strongly.

As with all rules, it seems, we have a few questions and I'll ask them here, hoping that you can help us out. We'd appreciate feedback from you; you're welcome to write to me directly or to respond through The Zouave.

Our biggest concern is that in some cases, a disordered unit can be a less attractive target than a unit in good order. In fact the same unit becomes less attractive as a target when its status changes from good order to disordered. For example, a six-stand unit is engaged with an enemy unit at 180 yards (three inches). The enemy unit becomes disordered, fails to rally, and continues to fire at the six-stand unit. Should the six-stand unit fire back? The reward may not offset the risk. A thirty percent chance of eliminating one stand versus a ten percent chance of running low on ammunition exists. So, either sit there and take the punishment without returning fire or shift to a new target in good order. Neither decision seems realistic.

Similarly, artillery batteries will be used primarily to disorder troops and, if you don't mind "playing the rules," a battery will shift from one target to another solely trying to disorder fresh targets. What was the role of artillery?

We have experimented with three possible solutions. First, reduce the probability of running low on ammunition. Our preference is to roll three dice simultaneously for fire combat; one die for casualties, a second for leader casualties, and a third for ammunition; we see only a small correlation between these three events. We have tried a twenty-sided dice for the ammunition result (a "20" results in low ammunition).

Our second solution is to add +1 to the die roll when firing on a disordered brigade. Our reasoning is that a disordered union attempting to rally might be similar to a unit trying to change formation under fire, the latter being granted a +1 bonus on the fire chart. Also, perhaps a disordered brigade would be more susceptible to losing men through a heightened sense of vulnerability or panic. Any thoughts?

A third solution is to add +1 to an "already acquired" target, but this is too much administration for our tastes.

A second related concern is that with our interpretation of the rules, the following is possible. A disordered unit attempts to rally on the maneuver table. The unit fails, remains disordered, and is unable to move. A friendly unit charges through the disordered unit and hits its target. The distances are such that the disordered unit is within sixty yards (one inch) of the charging unit after contact, and although disordered and unable to move, it is able to support the charge. Seems odd to us. Any comments?

Finally, we have the age-old question of "How powerful is artillery?" In our refight of the battle of Atlanta, a scenario by the rules author, we found the Confederate assault against the Union left to be unstoppable. Our research on this battle is limited; however, we understand that the Union left flank held (with one source stating that the Union guns swept the open fields, driving the Confederates back into woods repeatedly). This result is unlikely in these rules. More likely is that the assaulting brigades might become disordered, have no problem rallying, and although their advance is slowed, they suffer few (if any) casualties up to the point where they reach canister range. While questioning the power of artillery, this example also points out the limited effectiveness of disordering an advancing unit. I'd love to hear your comments!

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