When I first started wargame campaigns, many years ago, I was striving to make the wargame campaign as like a real campaign as possible. To this end I carried forward all battle casualties from one battle to the next. I quickly realised that the result was usually that the side which lost the first battle also lost the campaign. This was because wargame rules make it very difficult for a weaker side to beat a stronger side. It was a very important lesson, and one which dictated how I would design all future campaigns.
I remember reading (in an old Wargames Newsletter I think) that a wargame battle will never be the same as a real battle – no matter how hard you try. And the more experience I gained the more obvious and true this proved to be. In fact the more you try, the more obvious it becomes. This is true in map campaigns, but even more so on the wargames table. Scale is impossible to overcome, as is terrain. So I quickly accepted that whilst trying to make a wargames campaign feel like a real campaign is a reasonable aim, the most important objective is that it should be enjoyable. After all, it is a warGAME.
When I created my current campaign I designed it to provide interesting and enjoyable wargames. That was, and is, the primary objective. To this end it was important that all wargames should be enjoyable for both players, and thus both should have a reasonable chance of achieving their aim.
My wife is my regular, indeed now my only, opponent. After many years we can anticipate what each other will do in a given set of circumstances. This is particularly so when we wargame, if only because there are a limited number of wargame options. Consequently the element of luck, in the form of a dice, determines pretty well all of our wargames.
Each casualty in our wargames represent 10% of the unit concerned. This is translated into minus 1 in all morale and combat tables. We use a 6 sided dice to determine all morale and combat, so minus 1 is a disadvantage, but not a deciding factor. In fact it is the same penalty as a unit gets for being conscript, whilst an elite unit gets plus 1.
During a wargame most units will carry out their orders, even if they are conscript. When they receive one casualty they will usually still be able to do so. Two casualties make it more likely that they will lose a combat or fail their morale. When they receive three casualties they automatically rout.
At the end of a campaign battle casualties are transferred from the wargames table to the campaign map. Next day the loser retreats one days march, winner occupies the town which had been the objective of the battle. Second day both armies halt, redeploy, resupply and replace all battle casualties except 1 for each unit. Any unit which suffered casualties during the previous battle will carry 10% casualties for the remainder of the campaign.
All casualties do not have the same effect on future battles. Cavalry and artillery casualties have a much more important influence than infantry. This is because of their role in the battle as a whole.
The attacking side must degrade the enemy artillery before they advance their infantry into long range, and even more so into short range, of the enemy guns. Failure to do so will almost certainly result in a failed attack and the loss of the battle. There are only two ways to degrade artillery. First is to kill their gunners. Second is to kill their supports, whether infantry or cavalry.
Counter battery fire in the Napoleonic period was not very effective. Nor should it be in our wargames. In my rules it requires a roll of six using 1D6. This will result in 10% casualties to the enemy artillery. They can still do serious damage to attacking infantry.
The most effective way is to charge the guns with cavalry. The cavalry advance half a move, the gunners test morale. If the gunners pass they fire at the cavalry at close range (2 to 6 for a hit). The cavalry then have to test their morale. If they charge home the gunners automatically rout with 10% casualties. The cavalry are then milling around the deserted guns, disordered or shaken, with 10% casualties. If the enemy cavalry are within charge range they are in serious trouble.
Our rules are simple to understand and use, but this example
will demonstrate that they still provide difficult tactical challenges even to
a player very experienced with their use.
I hope that this will also demonstrate that rules do not have to be very
complicated to have enjoyable games, even when the rules are fully
mastered.
whistlebarrow -
ReplyDeleteThat some wear and tear I think ought to be visited upon armies in a campaign, but a certain amount of recovery ought also to be available. Possibly your game design imposes quite narrow constraints; but your solution looks simple and elegant.
One approach I have taken to offset heavy losses, is to give a heavily overmatched army some compensatory advantages in (selection of) battlefield (terrain). There is no doubt such an army will take a defensive stance, and maybe have recourse to field works (such as Soult defending the Bidassoa River line).
I recall observing - this would be over 45 years ago - an 'Ancients Period' campaign battle in which a small Roman force ran up against a large New Kingdom(?) Egyptian. The Romans lined up along the right-hand third of their table edge - that's all they could cover in reasonable depth. The Egyptians right along their own. The Romans had, of course, no chance. But 'the wine had been drawn, and was there to drink', so the Roman commander got tore in. Whilst the Romans handily chewed up the Egyptian left wing, the rest of the enemy gradually enveloped the Romans and eventually swallowed them up.
I do believe there ought in war games to be room for such do-or-die actions like this!
Cheers,
Ion
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi Ion
DeleteI do agree that each wargamer should be allowed to determine what sort of wargame he wants to play, without any criticism. I suspect that there are almost as many "right way to wargame" as there are wargamers. I believe this is the reason that there has never, at least since the late 1960s, been one accepted set of wargame rules - at least for the Napoleonic period. Even with the advent of social media, and the resulting ease of exchange of ideas, we do not seem any closer to such a position.
Over the years I have gone through phases where I tried to recreate historical battles, which are usually uneven in numbers, but have never been really happy with the result. I have also taken part in wargames with uneven armies, but either limited objectives or terrain. These are more successful, but only when used as a "one off game".
Since I started my current campaign in 2009 we have fought 496 battles as wargames. Imagine the amount of work and imagination required to do so many games as "one off".
I appreciate that my solution will not be acceptable to all wargamers, indeed possibly not acceptable to very many. But it suits us, and has provided many happy hours over the years. It is the end product of more than 55 years of wargaming, during which time we have experimented with many different commercial rules. I guess its about time we found the right answer (for us at least).
regards
Paul
Tradgardmastare p,
ReplyDeleteThanks very much for sharing your thoughts. What you have written makes lots of sense and it has given me something to think about with regard to my own rules.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob
DeleteI am fortunate that my rules only have to please Jan and I. You write commercial rules, which are a completely different "ball game". Your rules are designed to find acceptance with, at least, a sizeable number of wargamers. And going by the success of your many books, you have achieved your objective.
I do admire writers of commercial rules, because they are brave enough to offer their rules to the general public, and be prepared to defend them in public. Despite many years of writing my own "house rules" I would never be confident enough to do so. Indeed I am not at all sure that my approach is the "right one". I do however know that it is the "right one" for me.
Fortunately the wargaming community is a very "broad church" and in general happy to accept that it is healthy that we do not all have to agree. I enjoy reading about other concepts, as you obviously also do, and over the years have been happy to accept new concepts and rule systems. Long may it continue.
regards
Paul