Those who have been following along in this blog will know by now that I am a fan of simple rules such as
Charge! In a way it has been a full circle for me. Years ago, my old friend Tom and I started out our "formal" war gaming (i.e. with rules) in high school with Jack Scruby's
Fire and Charge, simple with lots of dice rolling. From there, I tried and discarded many sets of rules such as the many iterations of the WRG Ancients, Column, Line and Square (still played with a group of local gamers on a regular basis), Fire and Fury, WRG "whatever", and many more. Who knew back then that a revolution was beginning?
A wise gamer observed this past week-end (as we discussed the
Charge! rules), that those who know the tactics of the era as opposed to all the rules, actually do better in the game. Think about that for a moment. Isn't that what really makes a good set of rules? The scenario was set up as a straight forward attacker/defender. With the exception of a stone wall and a artillery redoubt, the terrain was pretty much open, save for two woods, and a bridged river.
Now, like any war gamer who sets up a game, I had a pretty good idea of how I would have played it. Speed was essential for the Royalists in order for them to bring their slightly better firepower against the Federation. Perhaps more importantly a key advantage the RC had would be hand-to-hand combat. Under the rules, the Federation, about a third of whose troops were militia and/or lacking bayonets which put them at a -1 disadvantage in all melee die rolls. In the rules, such combats are relatively quick affairs with the results decided pretty much after the first (and usually only) round.
A piecemeal attack was not going to bring the Federation to defeat, but unfortunately, that's what occurred.
 |
The highpoint of the Royalist advance
|
 |
Another view of the battle
|
So, how do we make this a better game? The rules allow for two options regarding how the units move and deploy. For simplicity, I used the alternate move system (side a moves a brigade, then side b, and so on). The other, one with which I am well-acquainted, is written orders. Column, Line, and Square, the classic Napoleonic rule set beginning in the 1960's uses them and there are some of us left who play the game regularly. Next time, written orders, using simple graphics to show what the unit was to do.
The biggest errors on my side were making two assumptions. This was a convention game whose rules, though simple, were unfamiliar to most of the participants. A brief tutorial may not be enough. Secondly was the troop density. I had six players signed up, most of whom I did not know. How many units could they handle? Three per player was my baseline. That was now I think too many.
Ah well...everyone seemed to have a good time and enjoyed the rules. That I think is the main goal. I am happy to see it was accomplished.