When I started dabbling in wargaming, longer
ago than you might believe possible, first of all I digested a couple of the
Featherstone books, and I got the hang of the basic idea of a game cycle comprising the “Three M’s” – Movement, Missiles and Melees (in that order), and
the alternate-moves approach which those books embraced.
I also visited a local club, and found they
had their own rules, typed up as a leaflet, but what they played was still,
recognisably, a branch of the same family.
Round about the same time, I read somewhere
that it was a lot more authentic militarily (and thus better, more serious,
more grown-up) to employ a
simultaneous-movement system, using written orders for each unit. I was
interested enough to try this, and found that – more authentic or not – the
overhead of writing, checking and managing the orders was extremely tedious,
and any increase in accuracy or compliance with the rules was negligible. There
were sheets of paper everywhere, the orders invariably degenerated into
unreadable, ambiguous wiggly lines and curved arrows, or abbreviations which
could mean almost anything, and the actual game moves which followed had only a
very slight connection with what the orders might have said. That crooked arrow
curving to left would be interpreted to suit whatever the player felt was in
his best interests from moment to moment. The amount of cheating in the game
actually increased, likewise the amount of argument. I recall a player claiming
that a solitary exclamation mark against a unit on his sheet meant “charge,
straight ahead” – what else, he protested, could it mean?
Simultaneous moves didn’t do it for me at
all. Of course, my old chum George Jeffrey would have claimed that it worked
perfectly for him and his club members (because they were all gentlemen), and
that if you couldn’t trust the people you played with then you shouldn’t play
with them. And I would have replied, as I would reply now, “wuff wuff”. I never
heard such bitter arguments over a supposed pastime as I heard at George’s club
nights.
However, alternate-moves did not always
result in calm perfection, either. One snag which was always troublesome in IGO-UGO
games was that some unit or other would get out of step with the rest of the
battle – one move ahead or one move behind – wrong, anyway. As long as everyone
moved only during their side’s movement phase, everything was fine, but things
became complicated when someone retreated during the enemy’s fire phase, or ran
away from a melee which might be during their own turn or the other side’s, or
even if someone wished to countercharge when being attacked. Suddenly you would
have a unit which was one move ahead of everyone else, and there would then be
a discussion of whether they should miss their next official movement
opportunity (since they had already moved), views of which frequently varied
according to what particular disaster might befall them if they now stood
still. This was one area, even of fairly well developed and stable rules, which
regularly caused confusion and disagreement.
Now then, although I found them too fussy
and too prescriptive to use in their entirety, the publication of the Wargames
Research Group’s “Wargames Rules 1685-1845” in 1977 introduced me to a variation on the
Three M’s which I found logical and pleasing – in very broad
terms, the move now became Missiles, Melees, Movement and – in particular – a
(charge) move to contact would now be declared but only partially carried out
during the movement phase, the chargers stopping some distance short of their target
at the end of their turn, to wait for fire and other enemy reaction before attempting
to complete the charge during the opponent’s turn. Of course, the full details
of the turn sequence were more fiddly than this, but they hung together well
enough if you kept your eye on that nippy old problem of who had moved out of
turn, and what should be done about it.
My personal approach to this made use of
some coloured counters – red “Attack” arrows, black “Hold” markers and brown “Withdraw”
arrows. In a later refinement, I got some custom, plastic versions made up for
me by Litko, but the game system worked well enough for years before I added
that extra level of elegance.
I’ll skip over the matter of activation –
exactly which units (and how many) might do something in a given turn; broadly
speaking, units moved only when it was their side’s movement phase, but there
were some oddball groups:
- Units which, as the result of reaction to a
morale test – possibly following combat – were stuck, unable to move, or else
were forced to retreat for a single move and were then stuck. These units would
be given a black “Hold” marker.
- Units which, as the result of such a test,
had just routed – they were required to run away for a move, and would then be
tested in each subsequent turn to see if they rallied or continued to run.
These units, in the turn in which they broke, would get a black “Hold” AND a
brown “Withdraw”.
- Units which were already running, and
needed to be tested to see if they rallied – these would be identifiable by the
presence of a brown “Withdraw” – the black “Hold” would not be present if they
were in a continuing rout.
- Units which were charging to contact (or
countercharging) – these would have a red “Attack” marker, which also served to
remind the players that they were eligible for an impetus bonus (or whatever
the rules allowed in this situation).
In what follows, note that all the
references to “Test” (as in “Test morale”) may be addressed in whatever level
of detail is required by your preferred rules – at times I have used detailed
morale tests (sometimes far too many of them), at other times I have taken
little trouble over them; it makes no difference – the point at which such
testing would be done (if any…) is quite clear in the sequence; the emphasis here
is on movement – who has moved and who has not, and the procedure with the
markers is to keep things in order (and it’s surprising how confusing this can get,
especially in a solo game).
Phases in a player’s turn (player’s own
actions are in a black font – anything which is an enemy action is in red;
anything which involved both players is in brown):
- Test units being charged (if they break and
run, give them a “Hold” marker and a “Withdraw”, if they are to retire in an
orderly manner then move them back and give only the “Hold” marker; if they are
able to countercharge, advance them to meeting point, mark them with an
“Attack” marker – melee is formed).
- Test routers who have been running since at
least the previous turn – i.e. any units which just have a “Withdraw” marker
(no “Hold”) – if they rally, replace the “Withdraw” with a “Hold”, and turn
them as appropriate; if they continue to run, they keep their “Withdraw”
marker, and they remain one move ahead of the game – move them back another
rout move.
- Fire artillery. When all artillery fire is
complete, enemy player removes losses, checks for staff casualties and tests
morale reaction as appropriate – as before, any unit which is halted or retires
gets a “Hold” marker, and any which breaks and runs gets both a “Hold” and a
“Withdraw”, and any retirals or routs are carried out now – out of sequence.
- Fire musketry. When all musketry fire is
complete, enemy player checks for losses and reaction as for artillery fire.
- Enemy chargers who are still able to
continue their attack now press home the charge, retaining their red “Attack”
marker – melees are formed.
- Both players now work out melee outcomes (including
losses, staff casualties and reaction) in accordance with rules – if the melee
continues into a further turn, leave it formed but remove “Attack” markers so
no-one gets inappropriate impetus bonus. Any melee losers who retire in good
order are pulled back, and get a black “Hold”; if they rout they get both a
“Hold” and a “Withdraw” and are turned around and moved back one rout move.
- Now is the Movement phase – the player may
move (activated) units which are not in a formed melee and which do not have
“Hold” and/or “Withdraw” markers. Charges may be declared (subject to necessary
morale tests), and charging units are moved part of the way to the target unit,
and given a red “Attack” marker (they will have the opportunity to complete the
charge at the beginning of the enemy player’s next turn).
- When movement is complete, remove all black
“Hold” markers from your own units – they have now (correctly) missed out on
the movement phase, and are back in step with the rest of the game. Units which
still have a brown “Withdraw” are still running, and will be tested for
rally/rout in the player’s next turn.
That’s the end of the player’s turn; now
the other player goes through the same sequence.
So, to summarise, units which retire or are
pinned for a single turn are given a black “Hold” marker which will stop them
moving again when it is their normal time to do so, and routers will keep
testing, out of sequence, until they are rallied, at which point they are held
for a move to get them back into step.
I fear I may appear to have explained
something relatively simple in a complicated way, and the plastic markers may
seem like overkill, but in a large battle I found this marker system works very
well, and avoids confusion in the very areas where the most critical pieces of
action are taking place.
