Copyright 2003 T. Sheil & A. Sheil All Rights Reserved
Brief Articles toward making Better Games
All wargames are not created equally. They vary greatly in several ways. Some are more abstract, others more literal, insofar as the game area and figures. There are games that take account of every detail, and others that bypass many details in order to make a faster game. Some games are a "fight to the last man," while others are based almost entirely on morale. Complexity is a big variable. I have seen complex games that could take several day-long session to complete, and others that can be run in less than an hour.
One thing is sure: most writers of wargame rules have very little experience in a hot situation. I doubt the majority even had a schoolyard scuffle. (Nerds!!!!) Having never faced down a blade or looked down the wrong end of barrel of a gun, they miss a few key elements. It becomes even more evident when a game writer has never spent time in a military organization. Armies have a way of working that would show up in games.
After my Army tour, I lived a bit too wild and got involved in too many scary episodes. It seemed like wasted talent, but when rewriting wargame rules it came to work for me. There is a way people fight, and it should be reflected in games. My problem with re-enactors is that their mock fights are bound by rules for safety and fairness. In a real situation where bodily harm is likely and safety rules do not exist, it gets very different.
The old wargame rules I had to recall had been written many years ago, some prior to rethinking, some afterward. My rules were not meant to be precise historicalk re-enactments, first of all. They were not so much about a miniature war as a grown-up format for playing toy soldiers. My wargame rules are just that: Army men for big kids. They have added the necessary organization, standards and stability that makes them a fair game rather than random play. As a result, morale is not as much a factor as it would be in more historically-oriented and complex games. Mine is play war, pure and simple.
The old Featherstone rules had much to do with penentrating the armor of enemy tanks. That seems realistic, and it is to a point. However, the real Army taught me that there were other things that could stop a tank. Spalling is one of them. I could enumarate several more. They were part of my rationale for finding an infantry unit when I joined the Guard. Featherstone's clean World War II rules were nice, but they missed a few nasty aspects of armored warfare.
Thus, when I revived Operation Sandpit, I had to be VERY clear as to the intention of the game. Were we replicating small-scale modern combat? Only to a small degree....we were actually reviving rules for playing Army Men as a game. Combat had its place, but the rules were fudged on the side of play. In effect, what we have is an honest wargame. Operation Sandpit does not purport to replicate all of the real conditions of modern combat. It is a game based on modern war, but it is a game first and foremost.
Castle Cracker evolved from the early days of playing "Chainmail." Our crew favored playing a game that included both the "massed forces" and man-to-man rules. One thing we realized was that the writers of "Chainmail" had gotten too interested in weapons. Their rules gave certain implements a distinct advantage in hand-to-hand, man-to-man combat. The morningstar, mace, two-handed axe and two-handed sword were overwhelming, while the spear and sword came up short. In actual accounts of medieval close combat, the spear was favored. Dismounted French knights preferred to make spears of their lances than depend on maces or broad axes. The favorite battlefield weapon of the Samurai was a spear. The sword only came into play in situations where the spear was impractical. So why would "Chainmal" regard a spear as a weak weapon? Obviously, the writers were impressed with their idea of busting out armor. As with tanks, it is not armor penetration alone that makes a kill. One thing I learned from jujitsu, the Army and some other arcane studies (never mind!) was that weapon skill was personal. A warrior had his preferences, so a man who was good with, say, a mace would be the equal of a man who was skilled with the hand axe. The weapon was not as important as the man behind it. We dropped the idea of adding or subtracting for each type of weapon.
A man going into a fight will take the weapon with which he is most secure. This goes for everything from bar room brawling to Indian raids. A man who is good with a chain will take it. The fellow who prefers a club won't want a chain. Though outsiders may view the chain as more effective because of its appearance and weight, you can be sure that a ghood club man will be equally effective with his choice of weapon. All the "Chainmail" weapon rule did was fuel the fires of those with a fascination for odd medieval fighting instruments.
Another thing about weapons was environment. A chain is not very good when fighting in water or in thick brush. You need room to swing it. A club is fine provided you have room to swing it. In close quarters, a thrusting weapon would be better. Fighting in a tight hallway, swinging weapons are at a disadvantage.
Hand-held weapons drop an enemy either by impact / concussion or cutting. A concussive weapon tends to be more effective in a very close fight. A sword, though it cuts, also acts as an iron bar. An axe is like a sharp truncheon. Pole weapons give that extra second or two to drop the enemy, hence most are for cutting. Though a cut is more likely to be fatal, it is less likely to drop an enemy instantly. Cuts take a few seconds more than impact.
All of this knowledge was instrumental in reviving Castle Cracker. I wasn't trying to make a super-complex, ultra-realistic game of medieval combat. I wanted a playable game that made sense. In this case, the reality of close combat complemented the work. The original Castle Cracker employed the simple weapon rules, same as here, but now we have the extra satsifaction of being more in line with reality.
A real fight is chaos, adrenaline, fear, anger, fury and insanity. Everything happens fast. You are so involved in what you are experiencing and doing that you don't pay much heed to what else is going on around you. You can examine all that later. All you know is where you are, what you are doing, and what your adversaries are sending your way. No game could replicate it, because no game could impart the feelings. If it could, nobody would want to play it.
Some folks feel that realistic computer games give a feel for the real thing. In fact, they only give some of it. They do not give the feelings and they are unrealistic in several ways. I"ve played Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake and many others. They are fun, they require some fast thinking, but they are not like a real situation. The games fortunately do not teach real combat firing techniques.
Before computer games, there were man-to-man rules for everything from gladiatorial combats to Western gunfights. All were interesting games, but none could truly replicate a real fight. A real fight lasts only a few seconds and has little rhyme or reason, unlike games using hex squares, hit tables and many-sided dice. A game is but a game, and the best is only a simulation. We can try to make our games more realistic, but must always remember that they are still games. War is a very different thing!
I have to address a problem acknowledged by many, regarding wargames: nerds. I"m not talking about folks who are more inclined to indoor activities than outdoor sports. Nor am I about to pillory folks who are given to intellectual discussions. Folks who don't know how to handle tools are not about to get ther literary hammer, either. I"m not much of a sports fan myself, mainly because the things I like to do outdoors aren't considered sports. I have a 160+ IQ and am as comfortable with intellectual talk as with common conversation. And though I"m good with wood (I love my saber saw!) and wire and basic construction skills, I"ve never equated a handyman"s talents with being cool. None of it makes a person a nerd.
In my book, a nerd is the kind of irritating jerk who mistakes the play and virtual world for real life. He's the guy who brings his play world everywhere he goes, much to the annoyance of those around him. The problem with nerds is that every crew has at least one, and he can be embarrassing. The shame of it is that some nerds are really good guys, despite their nerdyness.
Get real, folks. Marshalling army men around the table does not make anyone a great general. Herding trolls through a make-believe dungeon doesn't make someone the Troll Overlord. Mr. Nerd is not a military leader, he is not a master of mysetries nor the commander of a merry troops of adventurers. If that guy ever faced a real adventure, he'd poop himself in no time flat! Keep perspective, folks, because games are games and reality is reality. Reality can be a LOT of fun, too. We live in a very interesting and diverse world with loads of interesting people, so there's no need for nerdelism. Get a life. Do something real. While all the nerds are talking about their latest elven game, the rest of us are doing things. Winning the latest round of dungeon-lizard-whatever can't hold a candle to pulling some real-life shenanigans.
War games are games, and military history is history. It's fun to play and fun to discuss, but Life has a lot more to it. Nerds, restrain youirselves!
I apologize if my plug for the Real World offended anyone, but it had to be said. I enjoy toy soldiering more because I like the real world.
The Sandy Hook Battle Games (so named because I like Sandy Hook) are simple, fast rules. Consider them a way of playing army men in a way that is more adult. The rules are not meant to replicate every adpect of battle. They are fun, and have some basis in history or literature (i.e. the sci-fi games).
Okay, so you might find them lacking. Even the advanced supplements might lack the depth of realism you want. There's a reason I left things open. Rather than make distinct sets of hardcore wargames, I wanted to present you with an opportunity to have games the way you like them. My rules, though complete games in themselves, are not the end of the line. They can serve as a basis on which to develop your own particular games. You can add your own special conditions, such as morale, command, specific attributes for certain weapons, etc. That is because the rules may be mine, but the game is yours and thus should reflect what you consider essential.
You probably know your favorite era far better than I. If you are dealing in a specific kind of war or a particular era or region, you likely have special knowledge that the average toy soldier fan doesn't. It stands to reason that by virtue of your knowledge, you recognize factors which would affect how a battle game in your era might be played. Maybe it's a weapon, a tactic or outside condition that the rest of us don't know.
Incorporating such items into game rules requires knowledge of the thing itself, its use, its advantages and its shortcomings. The shortcomings deserve special attention, since folks tend to overlook the deficits in favorite things. For instance, the early Panther tank had awful problems with its gears and drive. It was prone to break down. Many gamers ignored these, and so a tank with an obvious problem was allowed to act as a perfect machine. You need to acknowledge the flaws and, if severe enough, make account for them in your rule amendments. The other reason for this is to prevent any thing or weapon from being such a super piece that it throws off the entire game. Rarely was a single weapon or item so tremendous that it changed things entirely. Even the tank of World War I fizzled beause of its shortcomings.
In other words, your amendements have to be balanced, lest the game be lopsided and unplayable. There is no point playing if one side has such an overwhelming advantage that the other cannot win. While real life may or may not be fair, games need fairness in order to be played. Add what you will but adjust the game accordingly.
Likewise, any new thing you introduce into a game has to be assimilated properly. For a weapon, you would need to fit it within the parameters the game offers other weapons. How is the new weapon like those already in the game" Does it have the same range, the same impact or rate of fire" Begin by finding where it shares attributes. Then, you can work out the differences. For instance, a new rifle might be able to reload faster. Thus, though it is as accurate as any other rifle in the game, it can fire twice as often. Maybe it is reloaded faster, but takes just as long to get an aimed shot. You have two ways to go - fire two shots at one target per turn, or fire normally at long range - thus taking account of aiming - but fire doubly at close range where aiming is not as difficult.
One place that many make changes in in the matter of morale. My rules have made very little impact here. These are simply games that make toy soldiering playable. That is not to say that morale has no place in games. To the contrary!
The games of the 1960s had rudimentary morale rules. People were just waking up to the impact of morale in combat. In the 1970s, morale was developed out of all proportion, making many a game a morass of ponderous formulae rather than active game play. The truth lies somewhere in between, so that the game will be realistic but balanced.
Morale comes from discipline, determination and decision. Discipline is a matter of control on an individual and group level. Training instills it. A sense of obligation and loyalty affirms it. Determination is the will to win. Decision is the ability to choose the right response to a situation. It is a matter of knowing what to do in a situation. Training teaches it.
The Vikings and American Indians were formed along the "war party" system. In effect, each village was a military unit, trained from childhood as warriors. Discipline came naturally, because the order of things was set from the start. State armies, from the ancient Sumerians to modern forces, are organized along "military" lines. Discipline must be instilled and the order of things order taught by example and drill. Both systems can create a highly-disciplined, determined and knowledgeable soldier. We know that the Vikings showed amazing discipline, intelligence, and strategic expertise in their incursions. They knew when and how to strike, how to follow up the attack and how to consolidate their gains. The Vikings were able to defeat mounted knights and the best armies of the time. Of course, examples of modern troops showing discipline are common. The partatroopers who held Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge exhibitied dsicipline and determination against awesome odds.
A strong army will not break under pressure. It will respond appropriately to changing situations. Disciplined, knowledgeable and determined troops will take every change in stride, and will only retreat when it is evident that victory is not forthcoming. "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day."
Lesser forces are more easily defeated. If they cannot maintain discipline on both individual and group levels, they will lose their will to stand when facing nominal opposition. Internal strife and dissatisfaction would weaken such an army before it hit the battlefield. In a long campaign, desertion and mutiny might be serious problems. An army with serious disciplinary problems could be routed by nothing more than a show of force. (Ironically, the Vikings were masters at learning an army"s will asnd exploiting these kinds fo weaknesses.)
Another problem is the will to win. If troops feel strongly involved in the cause behind the struggle, they will fight far longer than those who are dissatisfied, unconvinced or unmoved. Soldiers fight harder when defending their homes, for instance, or when they have a powerful cause. The German Army had no problem rolling up its Russian adversaries until Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad. Though easily defeated in the field, the same troops showed tremendous resolve once the fight got to their own doorsteps. Italian troops were generally not convinced of the Fascist cause, and so had mediocre results on the battlefield. When the US entered the war, Itialian will to fight ebbed because many Italians could not bring themselves to fight a nation whom they regarded favorably. German soldiers fought doggedly, despite their widespread dissatisfaction with Hitler. The German soldier felt that he had to fight harder to protect his fellow troops. His loyalty was to his comrades, not the regime in power. The Iraqis will to win was nebulous from the start. Feeling neither unit cohesiveness nor any special allegiance to the regime, they surrendered in droves.
Knowledge and decision is key to morale. A soldier will actif he knows what to do in battle. Training instills the response needed. A man untrained tends to lose his cool the minute he is faced with a problem to which he has no response. The idea of drilling troops in the gunpowder era was to make their response automatic. They had a response to an attack. Modern war requires training in the arts of cover and concealment, as well as responses to everything from chemical attack to conventional firefights. The better and more comprehensive the training, the more a soldier will stand and fight. Training gives him confidence in his ability to meet a situation and deal with it successfully.
So how to include morale in a game" Think of each army in terms of three questions:
How disciplined are they" Can they act in concert, as a unit?
How strongly are they committed to the fight and the cause behind it?
How well trained are they" Are they on familiar or unfamiliar ground?
Obviously, a mob of medieval peasants will be a shaky commodity when facing a line of armored knights. One way to mitigate morale is the use of officers or commissars. By adding a bonus to moral when good leadership and / or inspiration is present, you can balance morale so that troops don't run off the field before the fight. A morale officer is a common item in modern military units. However, the actual impetus is in the hands of leadership or other comforts. If a strong leader like Robin Hood was leading those peasants, their morale would probably be much better than if they had been marched out by the local baron. Likewise, were a priest on hand, they might feel a religious inspiration to hold their ground. Add a bishop and those peasants would hold a lot longer!
One trick we used: a strong military leader can inspire attack. Clergy will at least inspire the ability to hold.
The Soviet Union used a two-prong approach to morale. Officers were expected to provide leadership, and a political commissar was there to strengthen commitment. Of course, morale could also be instilled negatively. The Turks would have special units behind the Army to handle deserters and retreaters. Troops feared them more than the enemy.
Werather and climate might be factors to consider when troops operate far from home. Napoleon"s men were totally unprepared for the Russian winter. In the 1930s, the French units in Southeast Asia were comprised mainly of North Africans. Desert dwellers did not have an easy time adjusting to rain forests and monsoons. While US troops have always done well, whether in temerate, tropical or arctic zones, other nations have not fared quite as well.
There are many factors that affect more, from supply problems to social ills. Use a reasonable barometer to determine moral rules. The human spirit is not always unpredicatable.
Napoleon said, "Always expect the best intentions of your enemy." In other words, expect your opponent to make a good showing and do his best. Napoleon ignored his own advice when he invaded Russia and at Waterloo, by the way. He expected his enemies to be less than they were, and they surprised him. Nonetheless, it is unwise to treat any army as being inherently stupid. Men can be very smart when it comes to protecting their own lives, regardless of the technology available to them. Look at our own history. The Viet Cong did not have our technology, but they were very cuning in using what they had. The Comanches may have been stone-age people, but they fought with extreme cunning and insight.
From the vantage point of technology and education, we tend to look at people I nthe past as being somewhat ignorant and primitive. This goes from foreign tribes who lived far below the technology of the time. How could a bunch of spear-wielding Zulus defeat a rifle-armed British force" Those Zulus were not stupid. The reason another, smaller force survived at Rourke's Drift was partly because they realized the Zulus were not stupid, and so met the attack intelligently.
I"ve seen home-made rules where natives are treated as stupid, ignorant savages. Those "games" are one-sided romps. History shows otherwise. Though the Zulu, Hadendowas, Fuzzy-Wuzzies, Comanches, Moros, Hottentots and Afghans were technologically backwards compared to contemporary European forces, they all posed a serious threat that required nothing less than a serious response. Somebody behind each army had the brains to direct a campaing, and those troops had to have a lot of discipline and determination to go up against the modern weapons of the time. Stupid, undisciplined savages do not pose a threat to a modern army, in any era. A man has to have discipline and determination to go up against firearms when all he's carring is a hide shield and a short spear. That kind of man will only follow a proven leader.
Charismatic leaders of native armies were more than mere personalities. They had to be intelligent, decisive and insightful. Be he Cochise, Red Cloud, or the Mahdi, you can be sure he had a lot going for him. How else could he inspire backwards nations to go up against modern armies, with a certainty of success" Factor this into colonial and Wild West games. Just because a man"s weapons are not the latest, doesn't mean he can't put up a serious fight. Just look at what happened to the Russians in Afghanistan.
Wargame rules are only a guideline - especially my rules. Add and adapt as you will, but by all means do it intelligently. Research and experimentation will provide you with a better set of rules for your games. Think, then do!
Our games were nothing special. They are really a way of playing toy soldiers with rules. Everything is simplified here. Of course, there was a method to it. These simple rules provide a sound basis for developing more complex historical wargames. Using our rules as a sort of "basic material," a much more complete game can be devised.
The basic factors of a wargame include:
Movement: here's a complex study in itself. Speed is integral to the outcome of a battle. Naturally, speed varies among the different kinds of troops. A light armored car is made faster than a tank, and cavalry can outrace infantry. Determining speed is a relative thing, and it has to be a balance between the different troop types and vehicles.
Next comes a factor that affect speeds most: terrain. Here you must determine how much a type of terrain will slow the different troop types. A forest will probably impede heavy cavalry, but prove a small obstacle to light horse. Swamps might be impassable to heavy vehicles, but a delaying obstacle to foot troops. Again, balance is essential. Your terrain may impede, but it ought not create such an obstacle as to make certain troop types unplayable. Balance and knowledge of terrain is essential.
Finally, there's the human factor. A forced march tires men more than a slow walk, and a charge cannot be forced for too long a distance without the troops getting winded. Rules should impose limits on charges and fast movement. In real life, speed comes at a price. While beneficial in a short move, it can debilitate if forces over too long a distance or too steep an obstacle.
For larger campaigns, movement and speed require exquisite care. Balance it out, because too much speed make campaigns quixotic, and too little bogs them down.
Firepower: too many people get their ideas about firepower from movies or abstract statistics. Neither is all the reliable. Guns have their advantages and limitations. Firepower"s effect has to be balanced with the rest of the game. Too weak, and the game lingers on. Too strong, and units are wiped out in the first few moves.
For whatever game you play, you need to choose one infantry and one artillery weapon as the "norm," or base firepower. For instance, a Napoleonic game would use the Brown Bess as base musket and Napoleon 12 pounder as base cannon. These are the standard for accuracy, range and impact. All other gun values are derived from them. For instance, an artilleryman"s carbine might have 2/3 the range of the Brown Bess, while a 24 pounder gun might have double the destructive power of a 12 pounder. For early World War II, the base rifle might be a bolt-action Mauser and a 50mm antitank gun. The M1 Garand would be factored at twice the firepower of the base rifle, while the 37mm gun has 3/4 the range and 2/3 the destructive power of the base cannon.
Range is the distance a weapon can strike, accuracy is the percentage of time it hits target at a given range, and impact is the amount of damage it will do at a given range. Weapons with similar characteristics will have similar results. Where they differ is where you make adjustments. For instance, the Mauser and M1 have about the same accuracy and range. The difference is that the M1 fires more rounds. Thus, to incorporate this in rules, you would adjust the rate of fire for the M1. Larger weapons generally have a slower rate of fire. In games, this limits their use enough to make better playability.
You also have to factor the aiming process in your rules. An trained, individual rifleman can turn and fire in any direction almost instantly. It takes added time for a tank to turn its turret, or a gun crew to swing their piece around. A manhandled gun takes longer than a turret. Of course, that is one reason rules for the musket era are not entirely compatible with modern arms. We factor in terms of the individual game. In a musket game, it might take one move to manhandle a gun more than 45 degrees. It may take the same time for a heavy tank to swing its turret around in a modern game. In real life, a tank"s turret swings much faster than a gun can be manhandled. Thus, what goes in a tank game won't fly the same way in a musket-era battle. Playability overrules us factoring in tank capabilities when devising a musket-era game. The two must remain incompatible, separate games.
Destructive power varies from era to era. Generally, the biggest gun on the battlefield does the most damage. A 24 pounder would be a monster in a musket-era game, but it would come up short against a modern 120mm gun. Destructive power is not compatible outside the era of the game. A 24 pounder might do ten points damage in a musket era game. That would not translate into its being brought into a tank game. In that game, the same gun might be factored to do far less damage. Thus, if you want a fantasy game of tanks versus musket, you have to come up with a whole new set of rules. Existing rule sets only work within their own era. Otherwise, playability and realism would be lost.
Destructive power includes: ability to kill an enemy troop, ability to overcome armor, ability to destroy equipment and ability to penetrate or otherwise overcome obstacles. A standard rifle could kill an enemy soldier, but would be unable to destroy a vehicle, penetrate armor or a bunker"s walls. An arrow might be able to kill an unarmored figure, but might not damage armor. Perhaps a larger arrow or crossbow would overcome armor, but it would not damage equipment. A catapult's shot could damage items and cause harm to a defensive wall. Armor would be meaningless: the shot would kill any soldier it hit, armored or not. All of thus must be calculated, with an eye toward realism and playability.
For armor, the destructive factors get complicated. For tank warfare, a gun"s effectiveness is a matter of accuracy, range and penetration. Much depends on the vehicle under attack. For example, a 37mm gun would penetrate a light armored car at any range, depending only if it hit target. The same gun would be ineffective against a heavy tank like the Tiger II, and would be marginally effective against a lighter Panzer 3. A knight in full armor would be vulnerable to a heavy crossbow at close range, but impervious to light Saracen archery at any range. The easiest way to resolve this is to devise a point system. A weapon does so many points damage. Armor has so many points. If the armor points are higher, it cannot be harmed by that weapon. If they match, there's a 50/50 chance of penetration. Armor lighter than the weapon would be penetrated. For projectile weapons, you have to add the range factor. A projectile will penetrate heavier armor at close range than it would from afar. Thus, the 37mm gun might break up a Panzer 3 at close range, have a 50/50 chance of doing it at medium range, and be ineffective at long range.
Likewise, you have to assign points to objects on the battlefield. Damage would be cumulative. A rifle or arrow would have no effect, but a series of hits by a catapult would break up a wagon or house. The same goes for defensive works. Regular bullets and projectiles are powerless, but bigger guns can have a cumulative effect on walls, ramparts and towers.
One last factor: supply. For campaigns and longer games, the problem of ammunition supply comes up. It would not be a major issue in a skirmish, but a larger battle might have troops running out of ammunition. Consider a supply rule if you must.
Morale: morale is a catch-all term, but it resolves to troops staying on the field and continuing to follow orders. Morale is not an issue in toy soldier games, but in wargames it has gotten increasing play. Real men do not normally fight to the last man, unless surrounded by an implacable foe. Real men will retreat when the going gets too rough, and they will rout if overrun. Some troops are more prone to run than others. Morale is what keeps one group fighting while another takes to its heels.
A soldier"s morale is affected by several things. First is his confidence in his ability to meet a situation. Training is the key to confidence. Next is his knowledge of what to do in a situation. Again, training provides much of what he needs. Familiarity with the situation, terrain, etc also help. For instance. an Arab soldier would feel very confident fighting in the desert, but would lose some of that if fighting in the tundra.
Belief in the cause is crucial. A non-believer or skeptic won't risk much, but a true believer might risk all even if all hope is lost. Belief in one's superiors is part of it. A soldier who knows he is supplied and has the benefit of good leadership will fight far longer than one who mistrusts his commanders. Roman soldiers had every reason to trust their army and generals, and so fought better. Italian soldiers in World War II mistrusted their leaders and felt ill-treated, contributing to their lackluster performance in combat. Leadership counts.
Then there's the matter of having a good leader at hand. Men led by a competent officer will fight better than lose with no leader or an incompetent one. Likewise, a colonel taking charge inspires more confidence than a lieutenant. Other morale-boosting individuals would be clergymen or commissars. The presence of a friar with a medieval unit would definitely increase morale. Soviet forces assigned commissars as morale officers.
It is a notable fact of untrained men that they can be brutal when they have overwhelming odds and the advantage, but scatter like flies when they meed determined resistance. Untrained or undisciplined fighter would be irregular, guerrillas and peasant armies. Of course, not all are so lacking in morale. A disciplined irregular or guerrilla unit can be very tough and resilient in battle. Disciplined peasants, such as the English longbowmen, are a force equal to any regular troops.
Don't forget fear. Turkish light troops were as afraid of their own army as the enemy. Turkish armies had troops with maces behind the lines to handle any retreaters. This fear can keep an army on line longer, though not too long! (You might have to take care of the mace men by a flank attack so that the regular can retreat!) Fear can also make men hold longer. For instance, against an enemy known for brutality, troops might hold longer because they fear capture more than death.
One other factor: elite units. Some units have higher morale because of some special aspect. They might be better-trained, have more combat experience, or have a higher cohesion due to a religious or ethnic ideal. Ancient units like the Teutonic Knights and Praetorian Guard, or modern ones like the Marines or Commandos, all share an ability to remain in combat longer and fight harder even without leadership and other perks. An elite unit will show obvious morale advantages.
Begin by developing a base morale for regular line troops - preferably infantry. These are the foundation from which you factor in morale bonuses or debits for other troop types. You boost the morale of elite units and trim that of poor units. Remember to add such things as the morale boost from the presence of a leader, retreat of the enemy within sight of the unit, etc.
Experiment with morale, as it is an important part of combat.
Communications: One snag we had encountered was communications. Specifically, when a unit leaves the main army on a specific mission, how do you get it to switch missions" Our problem arose because players would send out units with a specific mission, then change their mind midstream. The change would be strategic rather than tactical. Our solution: any unit leaving the main army on a mission needs to have a specific objective. This had to be written down and revealed once the objective was reached. The only way to change the unit's mission was communications. For modern armies, we decided that a radioman would have to be part of such a unit. Ancient units would have to be signaled by a semaphore or other system. The ancient communications required one move, and had to be visible. It was not necessary to reveal what the message was,, but only that a message was being sent. Of course, if the unit was not in direct line of sight with the army, it could not receive messages. We also developed the idea of a messenger, and orders be brought to a unit had to be written down. Written orders would be revealed when an objective was reached or a unit came in direct contact with the enemy. A later addition was that units calling for artillery had to have a radioman.
Of course, units with the main body of troops need no communications.
Man to Man combat: if you ever saw the old Chainmail rules for man-to-man combat, you had to admit that they certainly made much ado about weapons. If you were putting up an army, it would be in your best interests to stack the desk with two-handed broadswords, morningstars and broad axes. We were very concerned about making interesting miniatures, so our line troops had plenty of interesting weapons. The problem was that one fellow who decided to equip all his men with morningstars and two-handed swords. Rather than make an attractive army, he was out to start a baby arms race.
We were already disillusioned with Chainmail"s man to man rules. They were not very realistic. The spear got short shrift, when in fact is was preferred. French knight, when dismounted, would make their lances into spears. Why bother, if the spear is ineffective"
The point is that a man going into a fight brings a weapon he knows best. It is not the weapon alone, but the fighter behind it who makes a difference. A man who is great with a spear will defeat a man with a two-handed sword. Thus, we dispensed with the special man-to-man rules for specific weapons. Weapons only mattered when fighting as a unit. In close combat, it was human skill and a favorite weapon that won the day.
Here's where we got creative: using an idea borrowed from Little Wars to determine the outcome of combat between groups. We made close combat much simpler by merely removing a few figures and either forcing the rest back or capturing them. This was employed for ancient and medieval as well as modern rules.
In the old days, gamers rolled dice for every round of melee, factoring in numbers and morale. The problem is resolved when you realize that a real fight is much easier to decide. He who has the most men wins, unless the other unit has a decided advantage, such as training, superior weapons or armor. Thus, armored men can outlast unarmored men, and trained spearmen can fend off almost any attack.
The trick is to know the way fighting happens. One man to one man is a 50/50 proposition. Two to one is a 75/25 thing, with the 25 being only one of the two attackers being taken out of the fight. That resolves the next round to 1 to 1. A trained fighter can handle untrained men, and a group of men trained to fight together will overcome those not so trained. All things being equal, more overcomes less, and better overcomes lesser. This applies whether its" Medieval combat or a modern bayonet fight.
The tank and other armored vehicles are among the most mishandled items in wargaming. A tank is neither an invincible juggernaut nor a sucker for a bazooka. It is a special armored vehicle which makes for fascinating wargaming, if used in the proper context.
The tank"s heyday was World War II, when it evolved rapidly. So quick was the need for better armor, mobility and firepower that the tanks which started the war were woefully outclassed by war"s end. Most of those extant at war"s end were gone by the start of the next great campaign, the Korean War. World War II is still the favorite of tank gamers, and the army of choice for the serious tank fan is the Wehrmacht. German armor had a certain allure. Fewer focus on US or British armor, and fewer still on the Soviets. Nonetheless, it was the Soviet tanks which lasted well into the 1950s. The T34/85 and JSIII were part of the Soviet arsenal for many years, with the T34 showing up as recently as the Bosnian situation.
A tank is easy to understand. Basically, it is a tracked vehicle with an armored hull and turret, with a cannon or heavy machine-gun as its main weapon. The tank is used much like a chariot, using speed and superior firepower to rapidly advance against the enemy. Mobility is its greatest advantage. The main tanks at the beginning of World War II were very mobile, except for a series of heavy vehicles known as "infantry tanks." This latter category were slow-moving, heavily armored vehicles intended for use as infantry support. They were quickly upstaged by faster, maneuverable vehicles which made short work of infantry tanks. The lesson was clear: mobility counts. Equally important was the fact that tanks did not operate well alone. They needed infantry support to prevent the enemy"s infantry from taking advantage of a tank"s special vulnerability. Infantry had a number of tricks for ambushing an unsupported tank!
Once the idea of mobile warfare was suitably proven, tank development skyrocketed. Each nation sought to make a faster, stronger vehicle with better armament. The problems that inhibited tanks varied with each nation. German tanks were notorious for mechanical problems. US tanks were under-armored and under-armed. British tanks were too slow, and Russian tanks were too crude. By war"s end, all four nations had developed the next generation of super tanks - tanks that far outclassed the armored inventories of 1940!
Gaming with tanks is a matter of scaling down the immense range of their guns, calculating reasonable movement and the strength of defense armor. A 75mm tank gun could fire well over 1,500 yards! Translating that to a wargames table would mean an ability to hit targets across the room. Thus, gunpower is scaled greatly, insofar as range. The next problem is damage. Fortunately, the Army did tests to figure armor penetration. Experience shows that other factors affected armor, as well. Sloping of armor and angle of attack greatly influences the effectiveness of armor. For our purposes, we calculate armor based on various factors. We break it down into frontal, side and read. The front is a tank"s strongest side, while the rear and flanks are weaker. One result: it makes players more judicious in tactics, especially the benefits of side and rear attacks.
Toy soldier players have incessantly overplayed that amusing weapon, the bazooka. In fact, it has limited capabilities and is best used in ambush or defense. A bazooka will devastate armored cars and half tracks - in fact, any vehicle short of a tank. The problem is in employing it. It is hard to use against anything but a slow-moving target. Tanks unsupported by infantry are vulnerable because bazooka men can get within range to hit the weak spots. Infantry support keeps them at bay. Use a bazooka carefully, because it is not the ultimate tank-buster. Anti-tank rocket launchers only work when applied with the right tactics.
The kind of battle we envision requires troops to be in position to fight. In real time, our battle might last an hour or two at the most. That is not time to restore wounded men to fighting strength, or bring in paratroopers or other unusual troops. The paratroopers would have to be on the ground already, in order to participate. Otherwise, theye'd be landing right in the combat zone.
Let us face this bluntly: our game is a small battle of short duration. There is no time here for medical facilities to augment the battle, nor the entry of paratroopers, glider troops or air cavalry. H.G. Well encountered the problem of medics when devising his "Little Wars" rules. Although medical teams are a favorite type of toy soldier, as game pieces they are incidental. Defense of a hospital might be a nice scenario, but otherwise medics have little impact. Of course, the presence of medics with a unit would increase morale. Loss of medics in combat would negatively affect morale. That is something to consider.
Our game is an active fight, so special troops have no place. Paratroops are infantry here, having landed prior to the fight. The same goes for mountain troops and other special units. Engineers have limited play. They would already be engaged in their work when the fighting ensued. Keep perspective of these factors.
Though not applicable to the battle, special troops might factor in campaigns. In these, a strategic objective is sought. The individual games are but pieces of the campaign.
Rome: the Roman armies are perhaps the best-documented of ancient armies. Their strength rested on their strategic and tactical expertise, their superb logistics and the fighting spirit of the professional Roman soldier. The soldier was well-trained, well-fed and well-supplied. He had tremendous faith in his army, with good reason. The average Roman soldier could expect to retire by age 40 in excellent health. He enjoyed the best resources of the time, and knew it. That alone was tremendous incentive to fight well.
Though the Roman discipline seems austere, punishment for lapses were rare because the soldiers maintained military order on their own initiative. They knew the reason for it, and saw the results in their victories and the perks they enjoyed. Roman soldiers could be relied upon to fulfill their mission.
One misnomer is that units who lost battles were routinely decimated. In fact, this was only reserved for units whose lapsing morale and lax discipline led to the defeat. The Roman Army did not punish a unit which was defeated by a superior enemy. It only penalized those whose downfall was of their own making. When an army was defeated legitimately, the Romans studied the situation. They drew conclusions, developing new tactics and strategies for defeating that foe in the future. The only time they did not renew pressure on an enemy was their defeat by the Germans at Teutoberg Forest. In that case, they realized that their enemy would outclass them time and time again. (Though Rome easily defeated primitive southern German tribe, the tribes emigrating from the North were too much for them.)
Roman armies were made up of regular infantry troops in armor, cavalry, and various auxiliaries. The auxiliaries were usually foreign troops. And they provided archers, cavalry and other specialties. They served as medium to light troops. Rome excelled in engineering and supply, and its logistics were the best at the time. They also mastered artillery, using catapults and ballistae to great advantage.
Our Roman supplement to the Castle Cracker rules adds the use of formational fighting to the game. Rome excelled at this, and adding it to wargaming makes for more action and requires more thought. We had fun wargaming the Romans because they are well-organized and add such dimensions as specialized units (archers, slingers, auxiliary cavalry, etc), intense formation fighting and an array of tactical techniques, from siege work to artillery. We often gamed them in Roman versus roman scenarios.
Gaul: the Celtic armies of Gaul were formidable, ferocious warriors. Armed with fine metal weapons, these troops harried Rome for centuries. Only the organized Roman Army was able to handle them. Part of the Roman tactic was to exploit divisions between Gallic tribes, this dividing them and conquering them piecemeal.
The Gallic armies were not as strategically-adept as Rome, but their weapons were sturdy and reliable. Being mainly unarmored or lightly armored, Gauls preferred instruments that used finesse as well as impact. The Gallic sword and spear are more finely made than their Nordic counterparts.
Gaul excelled in two areas: chariots and cavalry. If you wargame Gaul, you need plenty of horsemen.
Greece: The early Greeks were among the first to use formational fighting. They built their armies around the Hoplites: units of armored, trained nobles fighting as infantry. Horses of the time were too small to carry armored soldiers, so cavalry were generally light spearmen who used speed and hit-and-run tactics. The full cavalry charge would not come until much later. Various light troops supported the hoplites, these being mainly spearmen. Almost all Greek troops carried the spear. Archers and slingers were part and parcel of a Greek force. They were lightly-armed men.
The Greeks were ingenious, mastering the warfare of their age. Their use of formations gave them a decided edge over such enemies as the Persians and Thracians. Weapons like Greek fire and ingenious tactics allowed them to overcame the vastly larger Persian fleet. One special aspect of the Greeks was Sparta, a warrior community famed for its ferocious warriors. Sparta"s methods for producing superior soldiers was practical, for the small city-state was a major power in the region.
What makes Greeks fun to wargame is that they are a lighter version of Rome. Their are fewer heavy footmen and fewer formations, so the auxiliary troops play a larger role in the fighting. Basically, it is as few slow-moving heavy units closing in, while the larger light units slug it out around them. We used to call it "wheeling chaos."
Macedonia: From Northern Greek, the Macedonians erupted with superior tactics. They employed a strategy centered around units of tightly-packed, armored infantry brandishing pikes. Called the "phalanx," this formation presented the enemy with a wall of spear points. Macedonia also made good use of archers, cavalry and light infantry on the flanks. Their greatest general, Alexander, used his Army to conquer Greece and most of the known world.
The Goths: the northern German tribes were very different from those of the south. Armed with steel weapons and oaken shields, these disciplined warriors sprang forth to overcome Rome and all who stood in their path. Goths and other Northern Germans were trains to fight in formations, most notably the flying wedge. Armed as well as any Mediterranean nation, and possessing excellent heavy cavalry, they swept across Europe. Gothic tribes looked like stereotypical Vikings, for many sported wings, horns and other decorations on their helms. The Franks overcame most of what are now Germany and France.
A combined Roman / Gothic Army utterly defeated the Huns.
The Huns: these Asiatic warrior on horseback introduced their own brand of mounted warfare, based on formation of horse archers using powerful recurve bows. Most Hunnic troops were horsemen, supported by infantry from client tribes. Their main weapons were the lance and recurve bow.
Running a Hunnic force against a similar army is a difficult wargame because of the speed in which things happen. Light horse archers really change the tempo of a battle, and it can be tough going for the infantry. If the Infantry gets to a safe location from which it can defend, and where the archery is negated, expect a heck of a brawl. You need to be organized and ready to adapt to fast-paced conditions to play a Hunnic war!
The Vikings: our favorite! The Vikings are not the semi-barbaric fiends of myth, but a highly-organized force skilled in open, sea, and siege warfare. Research shows that the Vikings were so fearsome because of their discipline, organizational skill and warrior spirit. They also were perceptive about the regions they hoped to invade. The Vikings always landed at a time when a region was ripe for the picking, usually after a natural disaster or in the midst of political or social turmoil. Being traders, they doubtlessly were good at gathering and assessing information. (In fact, the Norsemen had a very cunning mental system for assessing almost anything - it is a rather odd skill known by few.)
Viking troops were mainly medium and heavy infantry, sometimes supported by medium cavalry. They used oaken shields, chainmail, leather and scale armor. Weapons were a blend of finesse and breaking power. The Viking sword and axe are both very easy to handle, yet having strength to break through the armor of the time. Most units were organized by boatloads, and each boat was commanded by a leader either chosen or self-appointed. Vikings used various formations, the most famous being the flying wedge. Viking archery was especially potent.
The Vikings often hired out as mercenaries. A favorite post was the Byzantine Varangian Guard. There, they gained experience in Mediterranean warfare and technology. Vikings used it to good effect in sieges and raids throughout Northern Europe.
What's fun about the Vikings, insofar as Wargames, is you get the best of Ancient and Medieval warfare. You can play all sorts of terrain, and fight everything from cavalry battles to sieges. The Vikings allow formation fighting as well as standard medieval warfare, plus massed archery and cavalry. Of course, seeing as they raised the levels of civilization in Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, Holland, Russia, Poland and everywhere else they went, it stands to reason theye'd be great wargaming!
Knights: standard medieval armies are fine if you like a challenge. To be authentic, they consist of a core of armored mounted horsemen, some heavy infantry, a lot of medium infantry and occasionally a horse of peasant conscripts. These troops only have a few formations, but they make a real challenge in trying to get them where they will be most effective. Medieval armies had a few nobles, relatively, but many commoner soldiers and peasant conscripts. Archery varied from minimal to massed, and if you like technology, you can always add crossbowmen. The armored knight had but one tactic: charge! Infantry could form shield walls and spear walls, but formations were not as many as those of Roman times. A medieval fight was a romp of trained men in armor battling each other and trying to wreak havoc among the commoner infantry and peasants. No wonder the Vikings were so successful.
Mongols: they are like the Huns, but are almost all mounted and have armored units. Mongols fight fast and furious. They favor the lance, sword and recurve bow. Organized in units of ten, they were well-disciplined and used standard and trick tactics. Things like feigned flight were common Mongol tricks.
Samurai: the Japanese Samurai were a powerful warrior caste. Each Samurai led his own detachment of troops, usually half-armored spearmen and archers. The battles were between formations of spearmen and individual Samurai, all the while under fire from archers. Many wargamers like to add gunpowder to the game, fighting a later type battle. These formation-type conflicts, though not always historical, offer opportunities that don't exist in European warfare.
The Ninja was a Japanese assassin/spy., trained mainly to attack from hiding. They were great at fighting from ambush. Though occasionally forming units on a battlefield, the Ninja were ill-trained for massed combat.
Renaissance: the later Middle Ages add two new factors to the fight: guns and pikes. Heavily-armored troops range from knights to armored crossbowmen and mercenaries. The fighting combines medieval combat with formational pike and musket warfare. Definitely for the innovative gamer!