"Variable length bound & George Jeffrey" Topic

"I mentioned "The Nugget" because some of their resources are on-line and perhaps, these early musings could be found there."

Sadly not that far back, I'm afraid.

George and VLB had its own Yahoo forum. I was a member until George passed away. I had disagreements with him of what the COS could be. The problem I saw is with the gradual loss of men over time doesn't give a clear COS. If you are noticing that you are losing 20 men a minute in a fire fight when can you say enough is enough and change their orders and have them break off? You seemed to be locked into combat until morale breaks causing a clear COS.

According to George if your troops take 20 casualties a minute but the other side may take 18. Your troops will break when they reach 20% losses and the other side will break when they reach 25%. Thus you can calculate to the minute when your troops will break. The bound may have variation but everything else is predetermined.

The problem with VLB was the sequence of events and putting them into a clear and distinguishable perspective, to be able to order them into a chain that flowed.

What would happen is both players would agree on the time and distance factor and move to action accordingly but then some unforseen event occurred which both players did not see nor take into account and before you knew it you were half way through working out an action when something else should have occured first.

This often turned games into a farce and frustrated people no end. This is why we did VLB in a kind of backwards version, we decided to go along more so with how Empire factored their telescoping of time, their pulses. However, we did not follow Empire fully, we did not like the Grand Tactical movement so much but did like the way it portrayed Engagement zones and the limitations these imposed. How troops of formations given other orders to hold could not interviene in nearby combats which were outside their Engagement ranges.

We, however, did not like how a formation caught outside the engagement zone could not change orders until the next hour. We, instead decided to use our own system for this where if the enemy was sighted but outside engagement range could become activated by following the chain of command from above and get new orders to react by the CV (command value) of the commander above. Or a commander, could race to that part of the field over time and change the orders of a subordinate command to react to a changing situation after it was known to him.

We still use ordered turns as per most rules systems but because you can have between 2-6 turns per hour each turn is not really any set amount of time, instead it is based on levels of activity during that hour; Hourly Intensity.

We also, as I have said earlier, allowed a gentlemans agreement between both sides where, instead of Grant Tac movement or how it is done in VLB both players can decide the number of turns (bounds) where they do not intend to change course or reaction so to speak and follow orders so as to advance time to the engagement ranges to conclude combats.

for example, Side A is on defense and side B is the attacker. Side A sets up in defensive mode and places guns in his line up etc. Side B also sets up as per our set up sequence and all is set. Side B then calls out his attacks, Side A then decides how much time (turns) he is going to allow Side B to advance before he begins to open up with Artillery, remembering that firing at extreme range is usually fruitless and a waste of ammo.

So, side B now knows how many turns he can advance before Side A fires and moves accorndingly. Once done it could be a single turn or as much as a full hour but whatever it is the actual game time and real time is sped up dramatically. The fire is then carried out and so on. Combat is initiated and followed through. Reaction and responses are activated by both sides capable of doing so and also carried out. This can create situations where the conflict expands and becomes "general" thus causing out telescoping of time to grind to a halt and normal turns are played out.

Situations might later arise where Hourly Intensity declines so much that activity is so reduced that most if not all action has been broken off. When troops are broken off from contact, meaning they have retired from engagement ranges then the whole process can be repeated once new orders have been given out after time has elapsed in reaction times coupled with commander ability. Troops not commanded to react to enemy actions cannot commit to new attempts to engage until ordered to do so which can only be done once the apropriate amount of time has elapsed due to actions and reactions.

sounds complicated I know but when played out in sequence it works and works well. If however, you drill down to individual chunks of time such as minutes etc you are just increasing the chance of confusion, this is why we stayed with turns even if no set time was given to a turn as such. It has more to do with what the enemy is going to allow you to do before he "wants" to react to your actions provided he can see them on the table and the correct amount of time has passed.

Regards,
Shane

>"The opposing army is not your objective, it's just the other guy trying to prevent you reaching your objective."<

I don't think Napoleon would have agreed with that. His objective always seemed to be to destroy the enemy army. Once accomplish that and all else will fall in your lap.

Some game systems can employ double turns if they are just moving and no contact is made. This is not variable even though it varies between one a two.

In my WWII two game I sometimes use the rational that a turn is just the critical and exciting parts of a period of time and don't necessarily include a lot of 'junk' time. Time that a lot of combat or maneuver isn't being done.

So while a turn is listed at little over a minute the next turn may not follow iimmediately in real time. But may be several minutes later. A kind of variable gap between turns.

I am so happy I did desire to play Nappy's, you cannot say this period is dull or boring. Even if we conflict with each other over things we still learn a great deal more than had we not argued or debated a point of contention or learnt from another poster who contributed something we did not know. Any many people over the past 30 odd years have added tremendous amounts of ideas and innovations to our hobby that have given the rest of us great enjoyment or inspiration.

Shane

Dear Shane you are really sensitive aren't you. Let me explain a little your statement at the beginning of this thread describe your "famous" rules and how they where Variable bound length. My point was that you where wrong your rules as you describe them have almost not relation to George Jefferies concepts. That was all I was pointing out, as to be some how frightened by you yes I guess I am quivering in my boots. No really the issue is not your enthusiasm which is amazing and is reflected in the mass of writing you place on this website, my real issue is your inability to understand that what you seem to think is the only correct way (cleaver you in not saying, but you sure imply that by you massive writing proving your interpretation is the only way to view the subject under discussion) is only one way to portray the period on the table top. Not only that but your rules are in the minority of what the vast amount of gamers want, I say this because I am in the same boat, From Valmy to Waterloo also caters to a very small portion of the gaming community and yours I would expect to an even smaller number of gamers. In today's gaming community the amount of detail and complexity is in direct opposition to what most gamers are looking for. Look at what are the most played games and why! Most gamers are not interested in the amount of detail that you or I for that matter want. Which is fine in and of itself.

But to be so arrogant and suggest that your detailed command rules are second to none is just amazing, you seem to confuse amount of detail with result. Again I have been accused of this same offense but I do have the decency to understand that those gamers that want the amount of detail that From Valmy to Waterloo contains will find the game without me spending vast amounts of space on the board.

The ideas that you espouse in the below paragraph are interesting but what are your really doing is constructing a number of limits to the players ability to move his units as he would want to at any time. So in the end result what have you managed to do, yes hinder the ability of units to move, if you look at what a Warmaster Napoleonic game would do you have the same result, you limit the ability of the player to move his units. But have you really created something that reflects command and control, not sure. But let's look at what you are trying to do; you like most designers are trying to show how units of the period reacted to orders from their commanders and their reaction to enemy units. Time elapsed to change an order really! I am sure that Davouts boys at Auerstadt would not change an order until the proper elapsed time! But why did the commanders change orders, two things, they achieved their objects or not. That is the simple answer the more complex deals with why they could or could not change orders. Then you say commander can react personally ok sure but is the gamer putting the commander in the position where he can see an event, is this really what happened. In some cases commanders could "read" the battle and be where they needed to be but it seems to me that in your rules it is easy to over come this by placing the commander in the spot where he needs to be. So in my view your command and control rules have more "stuff" than most others but in the end is it more effective or a better reflection of what took place on the battlefield during the period than any other set of rules? The real issue is what is the focus of the design is it the micro management of the battalions with lights etc, and account being taken about ground condition ( is it soft, is it hard, is it rocky is it sandy, is it weedy is it wheaty) if so great you might have the most stuff than any one else so may be you win. However, look at some of the newer games with more of a focus on the Brigades being the combat element, you seem to deem them less than your perspective (rather a close minded view) or are the designers really reflecting something that your are missing or not interested in. Probably the latter but who knows.

So please widen your perspective . Years ago talking to Jean Lochet he talked about other designers writing about their own rules, to paraphrase him "every battle played with the rules was a perfect reflection of the period and the only problems occurred when others played the game and did not understand the objective of the designer" of course said with a French accent.

Also, my Command and Control rules are second to none that I have ever seen and take into account elapsed time, reaction to enemy units, changing situations and abilities of commanders to adapt, change and react to changing situations once the amount of time has elapsed that it might take in order to change or adapt to a new situation. Troops are committed to previous orders and carry them out until the correct time has elapsed in order for them to react and carry out a change in plan. I have provision for commanders to react personally to a changing situation that they might see and react accordingly, they have set parameters they can act on depending on ability, level of command and capability based on time and delayed reaction times.

To Shane so the rest can avoid/
>>>>>Shane for some one who has so much to say you really get upset when some one does not agree with you.<<<<<
This has got nothing to do with it, my anger was as a result of your veiled snide comment :
>>WK response
It was not veiled in the least you sated that you applied George's concept of variable length and then you described your game and you missed the concept by a mile. Snide, only if you take it as an insult and I guess if I was wrong then yes probably and insult but you are wrong so not snide in my view.<<
>>>>>I also find it amusing that so many games profess to be variable length bounds without really understanding what George's concept was. Shane's description is one.<<<<<
It was uncalled for and unprovoked. It is a simple case of someone who does not like it when another is vocal and feels strongly about his words, and likes to speak out. It seems to rattle you somewhat for god knows what reason? Some people feel threatened by those who voice out and speak their mind or have alot to say, do you feel threatened?
<<WK responded
Unporvoked, you describe your wonderful game as if it used the variable length bound as described by George but that was a false statement, probably due to you not understanding the concept. As to rattling my no but immensely amused in your reaction to me or any one else that disagrees with your or criticizes you game. Threatened no sorry not by you but you seem to real hope that people are threatened by you, which makes your rather small in my view<<<

p.s. judging by the time it took you to respond to my reply you knew your words would provoke a response and a negative one at that. And yes, I admit I returned to check for your response also.
Do yourself a favor and avoid talking to me if you cannot be civil. Let's drop it; I do not wish to derail such an important and interesting thread.
<<<WK responds
Well I am sorry but I did not realize that I was supposed to have a fixed schedule in responding to messages, I will be sure to keep that in mind in the future, do you have any guide lines as to when I am to respond that would help us poor mortals to keep our place. As to a favor please define civil to me, you make a ridicules statement and some one points it our and you get really really indignant, please grow up and respond to the issue, are your rules using the concepts of variable length as stated by George and nicely explained in this thread by Sam. You missed the concept sorry.<<<

Ps I will wait the appropriate time to respond to your response how does that sound?

"The problem with VLB was the sequence of events and putting them into a clear and distinguishable perspective, to be able to order them into a chain that flowed.

What would happen is … then some unforseen event occurred which both players did not see nor take into account and before you knew it you were half way through working out an action when something else should have occured first."

This clearly illustrates that you are suffering from the same problem as Sam – misunderstanding the concepts of VLB. In your case you apparently do not understand the "dialogue" process. The fact that an "unforeseen event" occurred was because you failed to include the movement of all forces in your dialogue. If you dialogue correctly the COSs come out in the right order and everything works. I know this is difficult for some people to grasp. "You mean I tell my opponent EVERYTHING? Even about my cavalry sitting behind this hill that he can't see but will sweep round and take him in flank?" Quite simply, yes. If you don't you get the unforeseen event. If you do, don't worry, he CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT until the message flows allow him to (by whiuch time it will probably be too late).

"I'm so happy that I never wanted to play Nappys"

VLB is generic, not specific to Napoleonics.

Sensative? no, not at all, but telling people you are amused at me for not understanding the concept rubbed me the wrong way so I let you know.

As for selling my rules like a hooker in times square I will respond in saying that I own your rules, Valmy to Waterloo. I was given them years ago by another who told me he thought they were rubbish and a ripe off of Empire, not my words but if you are going to go down this path then so be it. Personally, I have read your rules and felt the same way, I know of no one in my local area who uses them but have spoken to a few who said they could not use them because they were way too complicated, much more so than my own and they did not agree with your perception of national characteristics. I agreed, and would not use them myself.

I find your own response here to be from a closed mind, you have never seen my own rules but yet you make comments which are very uneducated, you accuse me of not understanding the VLB system but yet I explained very much in detail that I did understand them. I went on to explain that we felt they did not work properly and so introduced our own version which did things a little differently. What is the crime with that? I also find you to be a very little man obsessed with and threatened by me because I write a great deal. You have already basically told me to shut up and go away, I can assure you I will not. You seem a little obsessed now in creating a greater argument between us, fine, I do not care for it but so be it.

As for saying that I do not like Brigade or divisional sized games what is wrong with that? it is my privilege to say what I think and you have to get over it. Freedom of speech and all that mate, if you don't like it, tough. I always added, that many players prefer this style of play and good for them, its just not my cup of tea. Get over it William, everyone is different, if we were not then this world would be boring.

You are a rules writer and designer and so am I, you wrote your rules long ago and published them, not many people seemed to like them or play them so are you bitter about that no ???

As for me, I wrote my rules years ago also, I never published them and used them in our own group only. Since I have been here on TMP I have been asked by over 50-60 people for copies of my work and have sent them. I explained that my style of rules is not what people want these days and admitted that VERY clearly to them and not to be disappointed by their format. I never professed that my rules would be the revolution of the war gaming world but I did say that they were very detailed and accounted for much of what happened on the field. My Army lists and command control is well researched and full of detail and depth. You sir have never read them but yet you comment like you have.

The response I have received from recipients of my work has been very large and for the most part people have commented positively of their style and what they try to achieve. I have had some negative comments with several people privately via email and never responded in the negative back to them. Just in the past week 7 people from TMP have asked for a copy of my work and all were impressed.

This is what this boils down to, you don't like it that I am getting (or making my own attention) about my rules, it aggravates you. Your own rules pretty much bummed in the broad sense of the world and you are a little bitter about it. So what I do aggravates you because I profess to know something about the period. I am sorry if you feel this way mate but its not my fault. This makes you a little small in my view.

Seems we got a rules war here.

Shane

IMHO the effort put into producing wargames rules should concentrate less on volume and more on "thought and play test" as to how to bring about an innovative gaming process that is reasonably quick and easy to learn but nonetheless historical.

Writing extremely lengthy rules that contain multitudes of factors & charts is actually far easier than producing a set of rules that has far less charts, factors etc, BUT produces a similar historical result.

This is what William is commenting upon when he mentions "In today's gaming community the amount of detail and complexity is in direct opposition to what most gamers are looking for."

Most enthusiastic gamers can collate umpteen different rules and factors right down to "Old Guard manning artillery" or "Wind Strength & Direction affecting Smoke Dispersal" . I believe that is actually moving in the wrong direction with regard to functional rule sets, we should be aiming for accurate yet simplistic systems.

To introduce Variable Length Bounds is also moving in the wrong direction. While George's ideas may in theory seem good, they are not in practise particularly playable or easy to communicate to a wide and varied audience. (After all the Dennis/Knight Napoleonic Rules admit that the system is rather daunting and with the "change of situation" rule limited to less than a page of explanation, open to misinterpreation.)

The appeal of the vast and/or complicated rule set within the wargaming community is narrow, as is reflected by current trends. After all it's not by sheer luck that Empire (however a good a set it is) has been surpassed by far simpler and some may argue, more elegant systems.

At times less is more.

DB

"After all the Dennis/Knight Napoleonic Rules admit that the system is rather daunting"

Quote:
"If all this sounds rather daunting, new players may wish to use the 10 minute time segments on which this set is based as "moves" in the conventional way. If they do, they will soon get the hang of working out how many "moves" they can do before the next Change of Situation, then doing them as one bound."

Note they said "If". In other words you might find it so, but not that it necessarily is.

"and with the "change of situation" rule limited to less than a page of explanation, open to misinterpretation."!

Quote:
"CHANGES OF SITUATION
A threat is defined as any enemy movement which, if continued, would cause their force to come into contact with, or within range of, your own force, even if this would need further changes of direction, e.g. a flank threat. A threat is also caused by enemy opening fire on your force."

I think that's a straightforward definition, don't you?

I find it very sad to see two grown men bickering like infants; what a great advert for the hobby of Napoleonic wargaming!!!!!! Please guys, cut it out!

Bill, I own your rules I love them to bits; for me, they are pretty much the "complete" Napoleonic rules. I can just never find enough time to play them to a conclusion. Shane, your rules contain some fascinating and intelligent concepts.

As to the VLB system, back in the 80s and early 90s, a small group of us spent a considerable amount of time trying to get this to work. Our final conclusion was that it was a wonderful concept that just had too many inherent problems to enable it to function effectively. VLB is elegant in its concept but impractical in application, largely due to the sheer number of COS that a division or corps could encounter once it got into close combat with the enemy. For example, consider d'Erlon's main attack at Waterloo (excluding Durutte as he was doing his own thing in his own way!). One COS could be the loss of men to artillery fire during the approach; would the rout of the Dutch-Belgians be a COS? I assume that the receipt of fire from the British line would be a COS, what about the moment when that line seemed to the French to give way? The arrival of the British heavy cavalry could be a COS. Meanwhile, add in all of the COS for the allies on the ridge and you approach chaos.

VLB may have a future, but I suspect that it will be in computer battle simulations if anywhere.

As to Dave Brown's comments, I can only agree that a greater emphasis should be placed on thought and playtest than on complexity and volume. So many "factors" that appear in the more complex rules can be abstracted into simpler systems to make the game flow.

Dear Shane
So let me get this right I criticizes your statement on George Jefferies variable bound concepts, point our that you seem to me like a hooker on times square hawking your wares, and from this your very astute psychoanalysis convinces you that I am a little man with a bad set of rules, and that no one wants to play with me, and I am bitter about any one writing ad-nausea about how his rules are the best thing since sliced bread, and oh yes it's a rules war. Well if you say so.
Love William

"VLB is elegant in its concept but impractical in application, largely due to the sheer number of COS that a division or corps could encounter once it got into close combat with the enemy."

I see you have fallen into the same trap as the others. "sheer number of COS"???

"For example, consider d'Erlon's main attack at Waterloo … One COS could be the loss of men to artillery fire during the approach"

Casualties due to artillery fire are not a COS. The point at which the artillery FIRST opened fire is a COS, but seeing as d'Erlon probably expected that his likely action at that COS would be to do nothing except continue the advance.

"would the rout of the Dutch-Belgians be a COS?"

Only for the Dutch-Belgians themselves and their senior commanders.

"I assume that the receipt of fire from the British line would be a COS,"

yes, but if you are talking about musketry rather than artillery then musketry fire is part of the tactical engagement.

"what about the moment when that line seemed to the French to give way?"

Either they give way or they don't. If they really did give way then the threat created by their advance ceases which causes a COS. If they didn't give way, no COS as the threat they represent still exists.

"The arrival of the British heavy cavalry could be a COS."

It could be if the French see it as a threat.
So what's that 4 or 5 COS's? Work out when they occur, arrange in time order and resolve them one by one. Simple, job done.

"Meanwhile, add in all of the COS for the allies on the ridge and you approach chaos."

If the allies on the ridge create a threat to the French attack then possibly, but stationary units do not constitute a threat unless they are artillery that open fire (but we already took account of that in the first COS above).

Guys,

The Courier brought Jeffrey to the US for an Origins and a friend who was a designer with A/H on observing George run a game said he doesn't have any rules and his concepts cannot work. Nevertheless, he was the pied piper with dozens of acholytes hanging on his every word.

After Origins George returned to Great Britain with a good amount of the Courier's wealth and an agreement to provide a set of rules. Instead he provided dozens if not hundreds of hours of audio tapes whith his ramblings on his theories of Napoleonic warfare. He didn't have a copy of the rules and couldn't reduce his concepts to a set because it was not possible. If anyone ever read his Altmark Napoleonic Rules they know they too are nothing more than a bunch of ideas, some nutty and some outdated, not rules.

I playtested George's rules with Wally Simon's group and we fairly quickly came the the conclusion the he had no rules. Somewhere I have a book Wally made up of copies of some letters which flew back and forth. The final letter, from Peter Dennis, began, "George, you are brilliant but….," and that was the end of that.

A few years ago when there was a lot of strum and drang about what a great idea the VLB was I took a hard look at it. I do not remember the details which have mercifly disappeared from my brain, but basically, it doesn't work because YOU CANNOT MEASURE A CONSTANT, TIME, WITH A SERIES OF VARIABLES, EVENTS.

God rest George Jeffrey but more aptly God rest the VLB.

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

"I playtested George's rules with Wally Simon's group and we fairly quickly came the the conclusion the he had no rules. Somewhere I have a book Wally made up of copies of some letters which flew back and forth."

Go to the Yahoo Group mentioned earlier in this thread. You will find several versions of GWJ's rules "Code Napoleon" including the "Blue Book". The K&D rules discussed here are everything that CN should have been but never were because GWJ could not explain it to the Americans.

"basically, it doesn't work because YOU CANNOT MEASURE A CONSTANT, TIME, WITH A SERIES OF VARIABLES, EVENTS."

How odd. This thread is rife with basic misunderstandings of the concept. No wonder it never flew!

No one is trying to measure time with anything. What VLB does is identify key events (which it calls Changes of Situation) and then work out how long it takes to get from one COS to the next. That is not measuring time, but rather using time to decide what occurs in each "bound" (e.g. how far a force moves).

Mike,

Your reply to my post seems to encapsulate all that is wrong with the VLB system as propounded by yourself and others.

For example, you state: "Casualties due to artillery fire are not a COS. The point at which the artillery FIRST opened fire is a COS..", so, casualties do not cause a change of situation? That is a very interesting assumption to make and one which is probably not borne out by history. On many occasions, the accumulation of casualties has very much caused a change of situation in that the troops suffering them may no longer be prepared to carry on obeying orders (for example: the Battle of New Orleans) or the formation commander has decided that his plan is no longer viable.

You also state, with regard to the Dutch-Belgian rout,that this would be a COS: "Only for the Dutch-Belgians themselves and their senior commanders." I suggest to you that this is wrong; having the immediate enemy run away certainly engenders a change of situation. What is to be done? Do you pursue them? Do you deploy to hold the ground won? Do you exploit the opening by attacking neighbouring units in the flank? It is probably also a COS for the neighbours of the routing troops who now find themselves with a very real threat to their flanks.

Again you state with regard to the apparent giving way of the British line: "Either they give way or they don't. If they really did give way then the threat created by their advance ceases which causes a COS. If they didn't give way, no COS as the threat they represent still exists." This is so very wrong. Try to remember that the Napoleonic battlefield was covered in smoke from black powder; perception was everything. On the ridge the French believed that the British infantry had given way whereas, in fact, it appears that they had merely redeployed to allow the heavy cavalry to charge. Taken together, the memoires of Captain Clark of the Royal Dragoons and Captain Duthilt of the 45eme Ligne illustrate this beautifully; the latter believed that the French had broken the British line, thus removing the "threat" while the former noted that the British line had "been wheeled by sections to the left" out of the way of the French attack but was still firing on the French flank. For the French, the threat had vanished as Duthilt's memoires clearly show: "Then we reached the plateau and gave a shout of "Victory". However, it was not victory as the threat was still in being, albeit in a different position.

Where both the VLB system as propounded and your argument break down is in the assumption that there is a simple, logical order to a battle; this is simply not the case. For example, you state "So what's that 4 or 5 COS's? Work out when they occur, arrange in time order and resolve them one by one. Simple, job done." But, what if the resolution of one of those COS creates a COS for a formation that was not originally involved? Resolving that COS may create a COS for yet another formation etc. At this point, chaos has truly enveloped the table top battlefield as the order in which the COS should be resolved becomes very unclear.

The COS for the allies on the ridge were exactly that, not COS for the French.

Also Mike, please cut out your constant comments about "the Americans"; VLB Napoleonics have not worked anywhere! It is nothing to do with nationality. Ultimately, VLB is utterly brilliant in concept but utterly flawed in execution. Sometimes, it may be wise to admit that it is you that does not understand rather than assuming that everyone else does not.

colinjallen wrote:
<Q>Also Mike, please cut out your constant comments about "the Americans"; VLB Napoleonics have not worked anywhere! </Q>

So you have been present every time someone has tried to play VLB Napoleonics then?

I personally have played in several games which I enjoyed and which I felt gave a reasonable representation of a Napoleonic Battle. And George was not present at all of them.

I know they can work quite well. But I can easily see how some people might not be able to get them to work.

If anyone playing is being ultra-competitive for example the whole thing could bog down or even fall apart.

"you state: "Casualties due to artillery fire are not a COS. The point at which the artillery FIRST opened fire is a COS..", so, casualties do not cause a change of situation?"

Casualties are an inevitable result of being shot at. The COS occurs when the firing starts. A second COS occurs if and when a unit breaks under fire. Remember that a COS gives the commander an opportunity to change orders. He would not have a reason to change orders after the firing had started since this is as far as he is concerned "business as usual".

"the accumulation of casualties has very much caused a change of situation in that the troops suffering them may no longer be prepared to carry on obeying orders"

I.e. they break as mentioned above causing a COS.

"You also state, with regard to the Dutch-Belgian rout,that this would be a COS: "Only for the Dutch-Belgians themselves and their senior commanders." I suggest to you that this is wrong;"

Since the Dutch Belgians are stationary they do not consitute a threat to the French. They happen to be in the way, but enemy troops have a habit of doing that. Therefore if they run away it is neither a new threat nor a threat removed. There is no need for the French to change their orders – in fact the impediment to fulfilling them has just removed itself, ah, victory!

"It is probably also a COS for the neighbours of the routing troops who now find themselves with a very real threat to their flanks."

Yes.

"Again you state with regard to the apparent giving way of the British line: "Either they give way or they don't. If they really did give way then the threat created by their advance ceases which causes a COS. If they didn't give way, no COS as the threat they represent still exists." This is so very wrong."

Ah, my apologies, my mistake. You were referring to the BRITISH line apparently giving way not the French. The British line were stationary so they did not consitute a threat anyway (see discussion of Dutch Belgians above).

"Try to remember that the Napoleonic battlefield was covered in smoke from black powder; perception was everything."

Absolutely. Which is why the K&D rules include maximum visibility distances.

"Where both the VLB system as propounded and your argument break down is in the assumption that there is a simple, logical order to a battle; this is simply not the case."

Is this not true of ALL wargames rules? We move our units so many inches each turn, and roll dice to see how many are killed – all very simple and in a logical order. All wargames are abstractions to a lesser or greater extent. Live with it.

"But, what if the resolution of one of those COS creates a COS for a formation that was not originally involved? Resolving that COS may create a COS for yet another formation etc."

Please could you suggest an example of how resolving one COS creates another.

"Also Mike, please cut out your constant comments about "the Americans""

I am sorry, but I cannot change the facts: GWJ was commissioned by the Courier (an American magazine) to publish "Code Napoleon". This was all set to happen except that the more GWJ tried he could not explain to Ned Zuparko and others how the game worked. Due to this failure, the Courier eventually canned the project. So it was indeed the Americans who failed to understand VLB concepts and thus withdrew funding. We Brits were not involved.

Derek,

Fairly obviously, I have not; my point was that Mike seemed intent on repeatedly pointing out that they were never grasped correctly by "the Americans", rather than accepting that the failure of VLB Napoleonics is not a national phenomenon. In stating that VLB Napoleonics have not worked anywhere, I was merely stating the obvious. If they work, why are there not many successful rules sets out there based on them?

Indeed, you state that they can work "quite well"; I prefer rules that work somewhat better than "quite well", to be honest.

As to your last comment, none of our group were ultra-competitive; in fact, our whole experience with VLB Napoleonics was based on trying to find a way to get them to work properly, rather than being competitive in any way at all. On and off, we worked on them for about 7 years; after that time, we decided that, despite the intellectual elegance of the concept, they just did not work on the table and could not be made to do so without becoming utterly bogged down. Ultimately, a turn based system, for all its many inherent faults, works well.

A group in South Africa seem to have picked up the VLB concept quite happily and without any direct contact with GWJ (as far as I know):
link

Mike,

A commander might have many reasons to change orders once firing has started. To state otherwise is nonsense!

Troops who no longer carry out their orders do not always "break"; the may stop moving and start firing rather than advancing, the may start to break down into skirmish. At those points the commander very much as to make a decision.

I would question the concept that commanders did not see stationary enemy troops in front of them as a threat; I can just imagine d'Erlon riding up the ridge thinking "ah, those British types hold no threat to me!".

As to the enemy running away not being a change of situation, it is almost by definition one; the situation has changed and the commander needs to decide what to do.

As to how resolving one COS can create another, let us imagine that a British formation in line is part of a potential French COS. To the British left is another COS involving an Hanoverian brigade from another division and corps and another French formation from another corps, which should be taking place a few minutes later. The first COS is resolved and the British carry out a "tactical countermarch to the rear" (after all, the British never rout!) exposing a new British formation (possibly from the same corps as the Hanoverians) behind it to the attacking French. This new British formation now has a COS but does it occur before or after the Hanoverians' COS? This will depend on how fast people are moving, who can see who and how long it took for the first COS to be resolved in "table-top" time. So, we have a new COS generated and confusion as to when it happens.

Finally, having met and listened to GWJ on several occasions, I cannot accept that it was "the Americans" who failed to understand; it is far more likely that it was GWJ who failed to explain his concept. The concept has succeeded no better in the UK than it has in the USA.

I have a headache

Well, they have a set of rules; do they work effectively? Who knows? Note that their rules state:

"In particularly involved periods in a game players may need to resort to making short moves which do not take them all the way to the next Event. In such cases Commanders are not entitled to react unless the circumstances indicate an Event has occurred.. "

In other words, when it gets busy, resort to moves;).

How odd. This thread is rife with basic misunderstandings of the concept. No wonder it never flew!

I'm possibly being -like, but I must make the observation that some of the folks here who seem so rabidly against VLB (I've never tried to play it) seem to be, from my memory, the same folks who fought with Bob Jones over Piquet on rec.games.miniatures.historical. And please, I mean no disrespect to these good folks, but I do find it interesting.

I don't know the game and have never tried it, even though I moderated many of the posts on the VLB yahoo group before I handed it over to Ned. But another thing I am noticing is that one or two here, no disrespect meant, seem to confuse level of command represented. Some of the things mentioned by Gouvion St Mango concerning lower level units seem to me to be like a wargamer that wants to represent a division commander's perspective but also fire each individual fire arm, and even resolve individual soldiers tossing grenades, or keep track of individual figures' wounds.
--
Tim

By the way, that is my last post on this topic; there is no point debating with "true believers".

"A commander might have many reasons to change orders once firing has started. To state otherwise is nonsense!"

Suggest a few reasons then?

"Troops who no longer carry out their orders do not always "break"; the may stop moving and start firing rather than advancing, the may start to break down into skirmish. At those points the commander very much has to make a decision."

That is all taken care of in the tactical engagement. A Tactical Engagement is triggered when opposing troops come within 100m (musket range).

"I would question the concept that commanders did not see stationary enemy troops in front of them as a threat; I can just imagine d'Erlon riding up the ridge thinking "ah, those British types hold no threat to me!"."

Why are stationary enemy troops a threat? What are they going to do, throw rocks at you? The commander has two choices when faced by stationary enemy troops:
1. Advance on them and clear them out of the way.
2. Manoeuvre aroound them and bypass them.

That decision would have been made and orders issued before the attack commenced.

"As to the enemy running away not being a change of situation, it is almost by definition one; the situation has changed and the commander needs to decide what to do."

Since stationary enemy are not a threat, their running away does not remove a threat or create a new one.

"As to how resolving one COS can create another, let us imagine that a British formation in line is part of a potential French COS."

Let me stop you there. Please explain why this British line is a threat to the French. What are they doing to threaten them?

"Finally, having met and listened to GWJ on several occasions, I cannot accept that it was "the Americans" who failed to understand; it is far more likely that it was GWJ who failed to explain his concept. The concept has succeeded no better in the UK than it has in the USA."

I too met GWJ and have played in a number of VLB games. Kriegsspiel too which is somewhat similar to VLB in its execution. I did not seem to have difficulty grasping the concepts but then maybe I have that sort of mind …

To some extent you are right. GWJ was awful at explaining anything and was always going off at tangents which confused everybody. However, the fact remains that American failure to understand VLB killed off Code Napoleon. It did not kill off VLB. K&D's rules were published, but only as a small press publication in pre Internet days did not achieve great popularity. I have cited at least one example where other groups around the world have taken the VLB concept and run with it.

ahh William, all I see is a little man with a closed mind who passes judgements on things he knows nothing about.

p.s. the first step in self confidence is to love yourself before you can love another, try it.

Mike,

Obviously, you know "that American failure to understand …" is rather pointy language that an American not familiar with all the parties invovled may take exception. That is not a statement meaning one or a few Americans but Americans in general. It's a real leap to make that statment based on:

"the more GWJ tried he could not explain to Ned Zuparko and others how the game worked. Due to this failure, the Courier eventually canned the project."

One man failed to convince another man. Maybe it was due to a poor explanation, poor listening, or just poor communication on both parts. But it's not an inability of 304,059,724 people to understand GWJ's concepts.

"cited at least one example"

Really. I can cite examples of people who believe the Earth is hollow, man has never been to the moon, aliens live in the ocean, and UFOs like to visit the Mid West. And all of them on the web too--pictures even. One example of a group is hardly a testement to the popularity of a rule set or how one nation of millions is incapable of understanding rules so easily digested by others.

I know Ned Zuparko personally (via emails) and I also own his rules. I have spoken to Ned several times privately and discussed many topics, I am far from thinking Ned is incapable of picking up the concept George was trying to expound to him. I personally think Ned might, if he had issues with the concept, thought that it would not, or could not work rather than not be able to understand them.

I don't know, Ned has to answer that himself, I will email him and let him know of this thread at least.

He might respond.

Shane

The DBx syndrome

"It's perfectly obvious what the rules say. If you can't understand the concept then you must be thick". Or American

I'm neither, but I expect that MS will infer otherwise

"One man failed to convince another man. Maybe it was due to a poor explanation, poor listening, or just poor communication on both parts."

No, one man failed to convince a number of men. The fact that most of the men he failed to convince were American may or may not be relevant. I do know that before he died he was quite bitter about the negative reactions to his rules, particularly from those he was in contact with in the US.

"One example of a group is hardly a testement to the popularity of a rule set or how one nation of millions is incapable of understanding rules so easily digested by others."

I never claimed it was a"testament to popularity" merely that at least one group in SA (and I know of one or two others in the UK) have had no trouble getting to grips with VLB.

"but I expect that MS will infer otherwise"

Why should I? I have tried in this thread to explain the concepts in simple terms. If I thought what you suggest I wouldn't bother …

[ some of the folks here who seem so rabidly against VLB (I've never tried to play it) seem to be, from my memory, the same folks who fought with Bob Jones over Piquet]

Really? I like Bob a lot, and have always liked Piquet. We've been internet pals for years. Unlike the Jeffries VLB, Piquet works because it divides actions into sequential and decisive elements that can be clearly understood and agreed-upon without a referee or some interpretive guru telling me what I do or don't know or see at any given moment.

[Some of the things mentioned by Gouvion St Mango concerning lower level units seem to me to be like a wargamer that wants to represent a division commander's perspective but also fire each individual fire arm, and even resolve individual soldiers tossing grenades, or keep track of individual figures' wounds.]

Then you must not be aware of my identity. I'm the guy who routinely gets criticized for my games "Grande Armée" and "Might & Reason" being so vague and abstract and simplifying small details, as well as for abstracting issues of time and scale. I am exactly the opposite of the person you stereotype me as.

VLB did not fail because of detail-mongering pointy-headed wargamers… Nor because of some genetic defect in the dumb Americans. But I do find it curious that the only reasons its handful of advocates can come up with for the failure of the game ever to catch on, anywhere in the world for over a quarter century, is that the unwashed masses aren't smart enough to understand it.

I rather think that a whole lot of very smart people tried very earnestly for a long time to get it to work, and concluded that it couldn't be done. Indeed, I think people bent over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to the concept, and demonstrated a great deal more indulgence with it, than most people do with bad game designs.

But I recognize that one of the Eternal Truths of TMP is that you can offer 1,000 examples of something, and yet two or three people will always emerge to contradict you with an idiosyncratic personal example, which in their minds disproves the assertion globally and negates all 1,000 examples.

"I rather think that a whole lot of very smart people tried very earnestly for a long time to get it to work, and concluded that it couldn't be done."

But it CAN be done. I have seen it and done it and know of others who have too. In this case this is the exception that proves the rule. You say it cannot be done. At all. Ever. I can simply disprove that because I and others have done it.

You can show as many examples as you like of people who say it can't be done. I can show you ONE person who has done it (me) and your argument falls to the ground.

[You can show as many examples as you like of people who say it can't be done. I can show you ONE person who has done it (me) and your argument falls to the ground.]

"I had a broken watch once… It still told the correct time, twice a day!"

-- Mark Twain.

Guys,

It was Peter Dennis, not an American, who put paid to Code Napoleon.

All events are measured by a COS. It begins and and it ends an event. Each event is or rather can be of a different length and when you have 12 different units on the board each operating on a different time you have chaos. To the extent that George is attempting to represent the Past, Present and Future within the same parameters, Wells and Einstein would be impressed. I however, was not. I like wargames not time machines.

And you still cannot measure time, a constant, with events, which are variable, as measured by the length of the multiple events contained within the COSs.

Good Gaming.

Bob Coggins

"It was Peter Dennis, not an American, who put paid to Code Napoleon."

How? Please explain.

"All events are measured by a COS. It begins and it ends an event."

No. A COS IS an event. Events do not have a duration. An event occurs at a particular time.

"Each event is or rather can be of a different length"

No. Each BOUND can be of a different length. (Hence the name, see?)

"and when you have 12 different units on the board each operating on a different time you have chaos."

That's where you are going wrong. You should NOT have 12 different units each operating on a different time. They may have COSs relating to them occuring at different times, but since you know when those COSs will occur you can arrange them in time order and resolve them one by one. In practice it's usually just a case of looking over the board to find the next COS that is due.

"To the extent that George is attempting to represent the Past, Present and Future within the same parameters"

Showing yet again that you do not understand the concepts. There will never be any past events (COSs) on the table. The next COS becomes the present COS when the game is updated to that point. All other COSs are in the future.

"And you still cannot measure time, a constant, with events, which are variable,"

As I said before, a VLB game does not measure time with anything.

"as measured by the length of the multiple events contained within the COSs."

Once more, no. A COS is an event. there are no "multiple events contained within the COSs."

"The fact that most of the men he failed to convince were American may or may not be relevant."

If its relevance is questionable, then your devise rhetoric does your argument a diservice.

Mike,

Don't put it on the Americans there were a number of Brits who were in the playtest. The more questions we asked the less responsive he became which I found curious because at Origins you couldn't shut him up.

As I wrote, after a year of frustration, Peter Dennis wrote George a drop dead letter which opened "George you are brilliant but…" Not surprisingly he did not respond. Afterwards all attempts to find a set of rules stopped.

For the last Quarter Century one group after another has picked up the mantel of Code Napoleon and the VLB and has been unable to deliver a playable set of rules. I suppose I should not be surprised, for hundreds of years men believed you could change iron into gold.

Nevertheless, you are more brilliant than I. I await your playable rules – In writing in one coherent document, not unsupported claims on the Message Board, if you please.

Good game designing.

Bob Coggins

"If its relevance is questionable, then your devise rhetoric does your argument a diservice."

Eh?

"Don't put it on the Americans there were a number of Brits who were in the playtest. The more questions we asked the less responsive he became which I found curious because at Origins you couldn't shut him up."

Yes, I was involved in the playtesting as well. A lot of the tables in the draft CN were devised by me. GWJ became more and more frustrated that so many people couldn't (or wouldn't) understand what he was on about. It was very sad, really.

"As I wrote, after a year of frustration, Peter Dennis wrote George a drop dead letter which opened "George you are brilliant but…" Not surprisingly he did not respond. Afterwards all attempts to find a set of rules stopped."

That's interesting. I did not know about Peter Dennis' letter. Even more interesting that he went on to publish the only really playable set of VLB rules that I have seen.

"For the last Quarter Century one group after another has picked up the mantle of Code Napoleon and the VLB and has been unable to deliver a playable set of rules."

I know. I was active in the Yahoo Group until it degenerated into the Napoleonic drill discussion shop when I lost interest.

"Nevertheless, you are more brilliant than I. I await your playable rules – In writing in one coherent document, not unsupported claims on the Message Board, if you please."

Alas, I cannot comply. As I said, the only playable VLB rules I have seen and used are those published by Hard Cover Designs (i.e. Peter Dennis), sadly now OOP. As he holds the copyright, I am not at liberty to publish them here or anywhere else.

Did GWJ ever actually write down a set of rules and submit them to the Courier? As a player I can testify that it is somewhat difficult to play a game using rules you've never read and cannot refer to. And as a former publisher I can testify that it is even more difficult to publish something that has not been written.

Don,

No, there was never a set of written rules only an outline with charts and hundreds of hours of ramblings on audio tape.

Neither was his book published by Altmark, The Napoleonic Wargame, a written set of rules. Rather it was a bunch of rather eccentric and outdated ideas.

He was the prototype Pied Piper as evidenced by the fact that gamers still waste their time on his so called theories.

His one contribution was, he walked away with a good part of whatever wealth the Courier had, crippling it for the remainder of its existence. This alone did great harm to the American wargaming community.

And Don, I own over 300 rules sets and while I haven't recently checked, I do believe I own some of your rules.

Bob Coggins

"No, there was never a set of written rules only an outline with charts and hundreds of hours of ramblings on audio tape."

Yes, there ARE written rules. As I have said before there are several versions of "Code Napoleon" in the files section of the Yahoo group, including the so called "Blue Book" (I believe that was the version that GWJ took to the states). They are much more than just "an outline with charts", but I have to agree that they are probably incomplete.

"He was the prototype Pied Piper as evidenced by the fact that gamers still waste their time on his so called theories."

I do actually play VLB games and I don't think I am wasting my time.

"His one contribution was, he walked away with a good part of whatever wealth the Courier had, crippling it for the remainder of its existence."

Can you verify that statement in any way? I was under the impression that Courier had promised GWJ a large sum of money on publication of the rules, but since that never happened he never got the cash, a fact that left him embittered until his untimely death. I can believe that Courier paid him an up-front retainer, but I would be very surprised if they had as you suggest given him lots of money BEFORE he produced the goods.

Mike,

I can only go on what the publisher of the Courier, Dick Bryant told me.

Bob Coggins

Gentlemen, if I may, I would like to offer an alternative suggestion as to why VLB never made a significant impact on hobby wargaming. I had the opportunity to play a VLB game with George at a Wargames Developments Conference many years ago, and still possess a copy of Code Napoleon [aka the Blue Book] and the Peter Dennis/Knight Designs rules somewhere amongst my papers. I think [though after reading some of the contributions to this thread, I begin to wonder!] the fundamental concepts of George's VLB, and believe that it is perfectly possible to apply them when umpiring a 'closed' game with separate displays or maps, such as the Prussian Kriegsspiel and its derivatives, when umpires, rather than players, administer the rules and update the displays/maps. But to attempt to create a VLB set of battle rules to be administered by the players themselves, as George appeared to be doing, resulted in a lengthy and quite complex rulebook that was, frankly, far from easy to read and assimilate, whilst the dialogue between players that was necessary to establish the next COS created a perspective of the action unfolding upon the tabletop that made me feel more like an observer, analysing the events, than a participant therein. Whereas, if I give an order to an umpire in a Kriegsspiel, who then returns to tell me how my troops are acting and what I can observe of the enemy, there is a greater illusion that I am playing the part of the general, because I am not stepping outside my role to discuss what is happening on the battlefield, as in the following example:
VLB WATERLOO
Arthur Wellesley [calculating that French cannon fire scything through the ranks of his troops is causing an average of 7 casualties a minute] Hard pounding gentlemen!
Napoleon [consulting his watch] Indeed, mon cher. Such losses will reduce those battalions to breaking point in 23 minutes, so that you will have a COS at precisely 3:57pm!]
Blucher [interrupting] Meine lieber kamerad, I have to tell you that my Prussian troops will appear on yonder crestline, and visible to your through your perspective glass at 3:38pm, so it is you that must first suffer a COS…]
Arthur Wellesley [failing to suppress an aristocratic sneer]Hard luck, Boney, old chap!
Napoleon [muttering under his breath as he thumbs through Code Napoleon] Merde!
And so on…
In my opinion, VLB works as an umpire tool, but cannot operate sufficiently smoothly or easily to create a two player, face to face, open game that is actually enjoyable to play. Such games of toy soldiers are, IMHO, best controlled by simple rules, that allow players to engage in the out of character banter and chat which make them pleasant social occasions.
I have some sense that I

arthur1815: good point. Perhaps it would also work as a solo game.

"In my opinion, VLB works as an umpire tool, but cannot operate sufficiently smoothly or easily to create a two player, face to face"

Arthur,

I would have to agree with that!

I would also add that George's legacy was to get people at the time and those who have come in contact with his ideas (knowingly or otherwise) since, thinking more about Napoloeonic games, rules and how battles themselves were conducted.

It will be interesting to see if any of those who regard VLB as a total negative can claim this in 20 years time!

Arthur,

After that example of yours, I really have to give VLB a try!

About VLB as an umpiring tool only: Isn't the whole point of VLB that you can have limited control and still play it without an umpire?