"Variable length bound & George Jeffrey" Topic

Hi guys,

I am in contact with Ned Zuparko currently and he has given me the OK to place his words here, I will add to it as he allows only.

Hi Shane,
I can try to fill you in.

There has never been a published set of rules. The Yahoo group people have not been able to make a playable set that "works". Once George died in 2001 the wind went out of many sails. Most people had their own projects going, so no one wanted to write the set alone. I knew the most about it but didn't want to write the set. I think the group hoped one person would do the lead writing while others tested and suggested ideas.There were a couple of snags for playability that we weren't able to overcome. Some people say (and have said) those are impossible obstacles. They are probably right – however, they are the ones who misunderstood how VLB worked in the first place. So they may be wrong for the right reasons, or they may be right for the wrong reasons!

I wouldn't say VLB had a huge number of people working on it or trying it – but I would say when the COURIER published GWJ's articles (I was the Napoleonic editor at the time) and and I wrote for EE&L about the ideas, a lot on influential people read about it. These articles did not have rules, just ideas, and so many smart people were curious about them, and for a variety of reasons. I think most folks already had their own systems and were wedded to them, but are always looking for new ideas that they can adapt for themselves. Some people were looking for a new set of rules. Some are just curious to see who this new guy is who is getting the attention. Some take a look to assure themselves it is no competition to their own ideas. There can be a variety and combination of motives in every individual.

Me, I was so taken with the ideas that I dropped my own Vive l'Empereur! rules (which had just come out) and gravitated towards VLB. My rules were good, but I saw them as another step on an evolutionary deadend. So I was actually motivated to learn these new ideas. GWJ, besides VLB, had opinions about Nap warfare and other ideas like"the moral battle" where "fight or flee" was the basis, depth of formations, and especially his time/motion ideas for calculating change of formation time for grand bodies of troops (published as Tactics and Grand tactics of the Napoleonic Wars by the COURIER), all of which I admired a lot. So my ego was not bruised by moving away from my rules.

My own feeling is that the design is elegant and can, in every theoretical discussion, have a logical outcome to any problem posed to it. (So I think it would work very well for a computer-based design or, possibly, for a hex-based boardgame or a hex-based miniatures game, where locations and opponents are defined by the game surface). That is what makes it so appealing.

The problem has come in playability. First, GWJ's "combat charts" are relics and were never really finalized. He had an original set with a sort of bounce stick (ironic that that is now making a comeback on TMP) but we "Americans" tried to get him to update that into a simple table of some kind for playability. He used casualties as a basis for breakpoints, and in 2001 Tom Dye and others had gotten him to think about using "cohesion" factors instead. Thus, the "current" drafts on the website are in some ways less complete than his originals.

Second, his original rules went down to battalions and squadrons, and skirmish lines and said he could fight Waterloo in three hours. When we tested the game in the '80's players would immediately break down to those levels to try to gain advantage. GWJ maintained that the proper way was to hurl brigades and divisions at each other, and that if we "fought it wrong" of course we'd get unplayable detail. Playtesters told him that if the rules allowed it, the rules should be playable and that he was in denial. So the author blamed the players and vice versa. By 2001 he agreed that the game needed a "basic unit" probably the brigade, so rewrites began around that but again it meant a unfinished and incomplete set of rules.

When we had formations side by side and they moved forward in parallel and met the enemy straight on, even if at different times, the dialogue and game worked OK. When formations crossed each others' axes, or players tried clever traps and attacks with a few battalions here or there, or swinging wide to come in on flanks, etc, we would lose track and end up bringing the game down to pro-rating movement inch-by-inch or minute-by-minute.

My personal opinion is that the VLB system probably cannot be successfully made into a rules set UNLESS it is actually tailored to the way GWJ thought battles were fought. If it were, people could certainly say what a lousy set of rules, history wasn't like that. (But if GWJ's interpretation is correct, then his rules would be "right"). But all of this is in the (very large) VLB Yahoo site archives.

For me it remains a very interesting puzzle. I hold no great hopes or belief that it is possible, but it might be. Things players would never have considered in the 1980's (like using brigades as basic units) are now accepted. (Although Jim Arnold's Generalship Napoleonics did use brigades – and wasn't commercially popular). So I think CN's last chance would be to examine George's fighting-interpretation, then reexamine his original rules, and then try to write it that way. Of course you may have to be careful what you wish for – the game may be too boring for some if it doesn't match their own historical interpretation.

- Ned

Yup. That's pretty much the way that I – and everybody else – remember it.

Hi guys,

Here is some more information Ned has graciously allowed me to put up here :

Hi Shane,
I saw this post on TMP. It contains what I think is a misleading phrase, though I do not know how Bob meant it to be taken. I may have misinterpreted:

"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".

I inferred from that sentence that the COURIER had paid a lot of money to George who pocketed it. The COURIER did indeed pay for airfares and expenses associated with the project. For an an amateur magazine that is absolutely nothing to sneeze at, but I would not want readers to think think George was dishonest or pocketed money from the CN rules.

I do know that until the day he died George regretted having cost the COURIER that money and his desire was to produce a workable set of rules which he would give to the COURIER for free even after being released from his contract.He did produce a Tactics and Grand Tactics book for the COURIER which they offered for sale.

His leaving the scene approx. around 1988 or 1989 or so was not specifically due to anything Peter or I wrote to him (though our letters did more or less remove his collaborators and cut the contact between us until, for me, the summer of 2001 when Tom Dye called me and told me of George's return via the internet). It was because of Yvonne's death due to cancer leaving him with young children to raise alone and his financial situation by that time.

I have skimmed through the TMP thread and I do recognize many names who at one time or another participated in the VLB Yahoo site, or were involved in early days of playtesting, or who knew George before me. (If Derek H is Derek Hodge, he would be an example, if I remember correctly.).

I do notice some very heated opinions here on the topic. That is nothing new, I guess. When the VLB site began I tried to invite many people to participate, especially individuals in the hobby whose past work or articles I respected a lot. I did not realize that in some cases I had invited people who had already had some negative "history" with each other elsewhere, and in some cases they brought that with them to the VLB site. All who have met George know he was no slouch in the ego department, but I have found there are many for whom that can be said. That doesn't negate any of their arguments, of course, but sometimes ego, jealousy, and attention-seeking can muddy the waters of an already opaque discussion, memory, or claim.

Just about any sliver of an idea I ever had about VLB is in one posting or another on that site, probably buried among hundreds of others. Thanks to guys like Tim Marshall and Chuck Hamack running that site we have had a lot of interesting discussions since 2001. (We began around July 4, 2001 and GWJ died in November of that year.) Once the impetus to design a rules set faded and other conversations set in, some readers left, and may have checked back in periodically to see if some rules had been produced, and then left again.

If readers would like some background about my early collaboration with George that I posted on the VLB site in 2001, they can look at messages 179, 183, 189, 192, 203, and 204. If I have those number right, this was a series of postings I called "Read This First" for readers new to the concept and site.

One thing that amuses me over the years is when other people claim to have their own "Variable Length Bound" rules but that they work in some different way, such as extending or reducing a turn in some way. GWJ (for George Waugh Jeffrey) came up with the VLB and defined it. Therefore, since I am a pedant, there is by definition only one "right way" of defining VLB, the GWJ way. (Note that that does NOT mean VLB is good, bad, works, doesn't work, or anything else). If other rules sets want to say they are similar, or better, or have their own way of varying moves or turns, that is OK with me – just don't say it is a "VLB" set if it isn't. And I am sure there are plenty of people who would be more than happy to say their set isn't anything like the GWJ ideas! :^)

BTW, I explained once on the site that there are different elements to sort out here. There is VLB which is a system which can theoretically apply to any era (which I think would also be good for a computer-based application) , then there is Code Napoleon (CN), which is George's Napoleonic (almost)-rules set which is a Napoleonic game using the VLB system. Then there is GWJ's interpretation of Napoleonic warfare. These are not the same things, though they all inform each other.

I am not against the idea of participating in the discussion, and can probably dish out the theory pretty well, but I have forgotten much and probably said it better somewhere on the VLB site (where I still contribute). But if anyone has questions for me they can ask me. Also, as I told you before my past attempts to get signed up on TMP and post with my computer failed several times; if you wish to share my emails there you may.

I only wish the internet had been around in the '70's and '80's. It would have saved the lives of many trees and also miles of audio tape when I worked with George on these ideas from 6000 miles away.

Please add to it that I also saw Arthur Harman's posting about VLB making a better tool for umpires than for players without an umpire and that I think there is a lot of truth to that; however, like Mike Snorbens says, dialogue can work.

Best Regards,
Ned

Guys,

The first rule of game design is if you cannot play the rules you do not have a set of rules. George never had a set of rules.

The second rule is if the gamers cannot understand how to play a game the fault is with the designer. The fault was with George that the gamers, American or English, could not understand what was going on.

Anyone who read, and I dug it out and have it in front of me, "The Napoleonic Wargame" would see at once that he never wrote a set of playable rules but rather presented a bunch of ideas/concepts. So too was it with Code Napoleon.

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

"The first rule of game design is if you cannot play the rules you do not have a set of rules. George never had a set of rules."

True, GWJ never had a set of playable rules, but Peter Dennis did …

""The Napoleonic Wargame" would see at once that he never wrote a set of playable rules but rather presented a bunch of ideas/concepts."

I don't think GWJ ever saw that book as a set of rules. If he had he would never have been so determined to publish CN.

"So too was it with Code Napoleon."

I would not dispute that. The nearest GWJ came (IMHO) to a playable set of rules was the "Blue Book" (before he was forced to try and dot all the i's and cross all the t's for publication), but even that wasn't really playable. Again IMHO (and as has been expressed by others above) the game resolved at too low a level, battalions and squadrons, which caused no end of confusion in the minds of the readers.

There is a very useful summary of George's VLB concepts in a few articles he wrote in 'Miniature Wargames', the UK magazine back in the 1980's. Copies of the articles are on the Yahoo VLB site.

I recall being very excited when I first read them, but would be the first to acknowledge that the 'dialogue' aspect was the absolute crucial point and probably the most difficult to implement. There was nothing complex or new about the associated mechanics of move rates, firing or general combat since they were incidental to the VLB principle.

I think it is significant that a brigade-level unit has been touted as the most appropriate level of representation since that reduces the number of unit interactions. Even Art Pendragon, who has acquired a prodigious knowledge of battalion-level 'grand manuevers', has suggested that his ongoing rules design 'Remembrance of Glory' might have a brigade-level option.

I don't subscribe to the view that VLB is unworkable.

- Allan

"when the COURIER published GWJ's articles"

In what issues of the Courier did the VLB articles appear??
I skimmed thru what I have, but only found a battle report in volume IV.

Thanks
Cliff

Allan et al,

I own 3 copies of the Dennis/Knight "rules." Dennis acknowledges they are inspired by but not Code Napoleon. It has many interesting ideas but the rules are so thin you can drive a truck though the gaps.

If you think Code Napoleon can work then make it work and host, not umpire, a game at a convention.

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

"I own 3 copies of the Dennis/Knight "rules.""

3 copies? He only produced two different sets (ACW and Napoleonic).

"It has many interesting ideas but the rules are so thin you can drive a truck though the gaps."

What gaps? Just because rules are short doesn't necessarily mean they have gaps.

"If you think Code Napoleon can work then make it work and host, not umpire, a game at a convention. "

What Alan actually said was:
"I don't subscribe to the view that VLB is unworkable."
He didn't say:
"I don't subscribe to the view that Code Napoloeon is unworkable."

Allen,

"There is a very useful summary of George's VLB concepts in a few articles he wrote in 'Miniature Wargames', the UK magazine back in the 1980's. Copies of the articles are on the Yahoo VLB site."

I had forgotten that they had been been put up on the Files section. Well worth a read for anyone who has an interest in the period, gaming, or rule writting.

"I recall being very excited when I first read them, but would be the first to acknowledge that the 'dialogue' aspect was the absolute crucial point and probably the most difficult to implement."

I never looked at Napoleonic games in the same light after I read the articles.

For me'dialogue'works, but alongside the need for an Umpire, or as an Umpire's device, as per Arthur's comment.

Having said that my group plays that way all the time.
Although we are not a competative outfit and tend to take turns at being Umpire.

Actually, that's an excellent idea. For all the people arguing that VLB works, I'd love to see it offered at a wargame convention sometime soon. By all means, please, show us all how! I would certainly attend. In fact, I bet it would be the best-attended event of the Con.

"Actually, that's an excellent idea. For all the people arguing that VLB works, I'd love to see it offered at a wargame convention sometime soon. By all means, please, show us all how! I would certainly attend. In fact, I bet it would be the best-attended event of the Con."

I would agree it is a good idea. However, I fear I cannot oblige … unless you are prepared to pay my expenses to fly over to the States … :-)

I have friends and family in the UK. If you put on the game, I will either be there, or they will, and give me a report.

"I have friends and family in the UK. If you put on the game, I will either be there, or they will, and give me a report."

Except that British "shows" do not work like US "conventions". Individuals cannot book tables to run games, only clubs can. Getting a table at one of the bigger shows (like Warfare or Salute) is almost impossible unless you are an established club "on the circuit" due to the pressure on space. I know I've tried, but I am not a member of a club.

Even then, the way that "party" (participation) games work at UK shows is not like what happens in the US. In your cons you get a 3 or 4 hour slot for a game. In the UK, a party gane usually runs for an hour or less and often uses simple rules designed to attract the "general public" rather than hardened wargamers.

Methinks your ardor for this project has suddenly cooled somewhat.

A pity it can't be done, then….

wow, our conventions down here are far less formal or as strict as both the UK and USA. There are of course, limitations but not as stringent as what you say. We have clubs and individuals who put on convention games which will go on all day, every day of the convention, sometimes 3-4 days running depending on the show.

Shane

"Methinks your ardor for this project has suddenly cooled somewhat."

Not at all, it's just that your proposal is not practical given the constraints of the UK show circuit.

I will restate my case:
1. I was involved in the development of CN, in particular the charts and tables.
2. I was in regular contact with GWJ and indirectly Ned Zuparko.
3. IMHO, GWJ had a workable concept. The problem was that he couldn't explain it to many people in such a way as they understood it. Whether that was a failing on his part or their part is moot. The fact remains that some of us (mostly in the UK) did understand it.
4. Actually the best effort from GWJ in presenting his ideas was the "Blue Book", although it was incomplete. I did attempt to edit the Blue Book to try and fill in the gaps, but this was not really successful. IMHO, CN resolves at too low a level to be workable.
5. The only workable set of VLB rules I have come across were those by Cliff Knight and Peter Dennis. I have successfully played these rules without an umpire. Therefore IMHO, the VLB concept does work.
6. Kriegsspiel uses a lot of similar mechanisms to VLB (e.g. movement and casualty rates), but depends on the use of an umpire.

I also note that Bob Coggins claims there are gaps in the Dennis rules but to date has not said what he thinks these gaps are.

Mike,

Give a wargamer a gap and he will drive through it. The rules such as they were were no more than 24 pages with lots of charts and few rules covering what occurs when this or that happens. In the US this leads to interminable discussions and disagreements which lead to arguments and games that are never finished.

I have no doubt that your group can happily play the rules because you guys agree with the designer and you have good will towards each other. However, a good set of rules has to be designed to be played when the designer and his happy acholytes are not present. Else you just have happy group rules which can only be played by the persons in the group.

The test of a playable set of rules is whether or not they are played and I have never seen or heard of the Dennis/Knight rules being played or even referred to till the VLB was raised as a topic on the TMP.

Mike, its simple get Code Napoleon published in a playable form and I will recant. You and all you guys have had a Quarter Century and were/are unable to do it. Do you need a Century? A Millenium?

Good Gaming.

Bob Coggins

"Give a wargamer a gap and he will drive through it. The rules such as they were were no more than 24 pages with lots of charts and few rules covering what occurs when this or that happens. In the US this leads to interminable discussions and disagreements which lead to arguments and games that are never finished."

I have many sets of rules much less than 24 pages long that are played by both Americans and Brits. In fact often the sheer simplicity removes much of the "arguments and disgreements" about interpretation that seem to afflict more complex rules.

Fr'instance my army level ACW rules are a mere 7 pages long!

This IMHO, epitomises a fundamental difference between US and UK gamers. US gamers seem to insist on "every i crossed and every t dotted". This is one reason why Phil Barker writes in such obtuse phrasing in the DB* series of rules. For some reason apparently UK gamers do not have this problem and are often quite happy with what, to US eyes, would appear to be nothing more than "a few guidelines".

This of course has nothing to do with the understandability or otherwise of the VLB concept.

"I have no doubt that your group can happily play the rules because you guys agree with the designer and you have good will towards each other."

The other people I have played VLB games with have never met either GWJ or Peter Dennis, so they can't agree or diagree with them. Good will, certainly, but isn't that a requirement for any enjoyable gaming experience?

"The test of a playable set of rules is whether or not they are played and I have never seen or heard of the Dennis/Knight rules being played or even referred to till the VLB was raised as a topic on the TMP."

Maybe you hadn't. Not surprising really seeing as they were a "small press" publication produced in pre Internet days (so no easy publicity vehicle) and now long out of print. But as you say the test is whether a set of rules is played or not. I have repeatedly stated here that I do play the Dennis VLB rules. You make no mention of how many players are necessary to prove playability. Popularity is irrelevant.

"Mike, its simple get Code Napoleon published in a playable form and I will recant. You and all you guys have had a Quarter Century and were/are unable to do it. Do you need a Century? A Millenium?"

Not as simple as that. I do not own the copyright on CN. Come to that I'm not sure who does … I have also stated here more than once that I consider CN itself to be unplayable – not because of the VLB concept but because of the low level of resolution.

As to the time frame, there was a period from about 1985 when GWJ dropped out of wargaming due to personal health and family reasons until July 2001 when the Yahoo group was set up (ie.e about 16 years) when nothing was done with CN. It was George's project, if George was not driving it, it could not progress.

You and Sam insist on challenging me to produce a workable VLB game. I maintain that the Dennis/Knight rules do that. Apart from claiming that the DK rules are "full of gaps" (a statement that you have not qualified), you have done nothing to refute my position.

Mike,

Do you still have a copy of the DK rules. I still have the Blue Book and Mr Sutherland's rules but no longer have my DK set. Would it be possible to get a photocopy of them as I would like to give them another run.

Colin

Yes, I have a copy of the DK rules. Happy to send you a copy. Contact details?

count me in too Mike if okie ?

sdev2749@bigpond.net.au

I own 3 copies of the Dennis/Knight "rules." Dennis acknowledges they are inspired by but not Code Napoleon. It has many interesting ideas but the rules are so thin you can drive a truck though the gaps.

I'd like a copy of the Dennis/Knight rules too. Maybe Bob would part with one of his sets?! If not Mike perhaps you can find me a copy. Contact me off list. ae_res at yahoo.com

Hi Mike,
colinjallen@yahoo.co.uk

Thanks,
Colin

I'm pretty sure that it's impossible to post a paper copy of Dennis/Knight rules for everyone interested (yes, I'm interested too). Is there any change to get authors permission to make a digital copy?

"I'm pretty sure that it's impossible to post a paper copy of Dennis/Knight rules for everyone interested (yes, I'm interested too). Is there any change to get authors permission to make a digital copy?"

Dunno. Anyone have any contact details for either Peter Dennis or Cliff Knight?

This link might interest a few of you, it has ended but no one bought them. You can speak to the owner I guess if interested.

auction

I have been sent a couple of email addresses for Peter Dennis. I'll attempt to contact him. Will report back here (or in an new thread).

In the US copyrights expire, lest protected. My guess is they have been out of print since the first publication and are long past the copyright date.

If so the rules are in the US public domain. I have no idea what the expiration time is in UK but should be surprised were it not long past.

A good faith letter to the publisher and the address given by Cliff Knight should protect anyone who desires to reproduce them.

I don't sell my rules, even duplicate copies. The value I place on them is not worth the anger generated of persons who think they have a right to have them at their price. Though not for sale, were they the price for Napolonic Rules for a Large-Scale Wargame would be between $50 USD and $75. USD

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

"In the US copyrights expire, lest protected. My guess is they have been out of print since the first publication and are long past the copyright date.

If so the rules are in the US public domain."

Since the rules were published in the UK they are subject to UK copyright law, not US law. So, no, they are not in the US public domain.

"I have no idea what the expiration time is in UK but should be surprised were it not long past."

In the UK, copyright exists from the date of orgination until 70 years after the death of the author. I don't know about Cliff Knight, but I am assured that Peter Dennis is still very much alive. (He did some of the art work for the Field of Glory rules).

"A good faith letter to the publisher and the address given by Cliff Knight should protect anyone who desires to reproduce them."

The publisher is (was) Hard Cover Designs, a company I believe set up by Peter Dennis. I do not know but I believe that the company no longer exists.

What address given by Cliff Knight?

Under UK law a "good faith letter" would have no standing. Any reproducer must have the written permission of the copyright holder.

"the price for Napolonic Rules for a Large-Scale Wargame would be between $50.00 USD USD and $75.00 USD USD"

I do not understand this. Are you saying that you do not wish to sell your copies, but if you did you would ask that price?
For a second-hand set of rules you claim noone is interested in? Surely you jest?

Ratisbon's claim didn't chime with what I (thought) I knew. So I did some Googling

"In the US copyrights expire, lest protected. My guess is they have been out of print since the first publication and are long past the copyright date.

If so the rules are in the US public domain."

"I have no idea what the expiration time is in UK but should be surprised were it not long past."

American copyright law would appear to be similar to the UK copyright laws with respect to duration – after 1978 anyway

Copyright Law of the United States of America
and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code

§ 302. Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 1978

(a) In General. — Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death.

From here. God bless the FoIA

link

Unless any other 'experts' know different, caveat imitatus

VLB ideas were very influential for me when I was doing the original work on Matrix Games in 1988. My answer to the change of situation was to says that if a player said something was critial (by making an argument about it) then it was critical. If you give players only a limited number of arguments to accomplish a goal then they hone in of what is most important rather than die the death of a thousand papercuts going turn to turn.

It was a thrilling idea because it broke the mold about "turns". I've played in Science vs Pluck so I know the idea can work but it really depends on having a good referee. So many games do…

Chris Engle

Curious, A/H lost the copyright for the use of the title "Civilization" to Microprose because it did not keep the product in publication. Seven years sorta rings in my ear.

Mike, what I wrote is were I selling the price would be from $50/75. But I am not selling because people get upset when I tell them my price. This is because in this hobby gamers think they have a right to a product at the price they want to pay.

But just for you Mike, I have an unpublished copy of Napoleonic rules by the Arnold Hendrick. Its unique. The price is $750. USD

If you have a copy of the Dennis/Knight rules. In the introduction on page 2 Cliff Knight lists his mailing address and if Dennis owned Hard Cover the address on the title page is most likely his.

You do have a copy don't you?

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

Mike, what I wrote is were I selling the price would be from $50/75. But I am not selling because people get upset when I tell them my price. This is because in this hobby gamers think they have a right to a product at the price they want to pay.

You've obviously never heard of supply and demand! I wouldn't get upset if someone offered me a set at $75 USD I'd just say no thanks as they aren't worth that much to me. I think Mike was surprised that a set of rules that you don't play and you think are unplayable you put such a high value on. I'm surprised too. I think you'd be pushing it to sell them for $10, there just aren't enough people who want them that badly – that old supply and demand thing again.

Rules would count as a book, and book rules are different. I think you will find AH lost the trademark, which is a different field altogether.

"But just for you Mike, I have an unpublished copy of Napoleonic rules by the Arnold Hendrick. Its unique. The price is $750.00 USD USD"

Never heard of him, so no interest. They must be awfully good rules to be so valuable though. Or is it just their rarity value?

"If you have a copy of the Dennis/Knight rules. In the introduction on page 2 Cliff Knight lists his mailing address and if Dennis owned Hard Cover the address on the title page is most likely his.

You do have a copy don't you?"

Of course I have a copy. Perhaps you didn't notice that I have been quoting from it a number of times in this thread?

But they were published at least 20 years ago (No publication date, so can't be sure). Stangely enough, people do tend to move and I believe Peter Dennis is now located in North Wales rather than Nottinghamshire.

Anyway as I stated in a previous post I have been supplied with a couple of email addresses.

"I think Mike was surprised that a set of rules that you don't play and you think are unplayable you put such a high value on."

Absolutely right, Fred.

I recall seeing the VLB described many years ago now. An interesting concept but my concern was that recognising that a change of situation occurs is only one part of the story. The history of warfare includes missed opportunities where perhaps one side (or both) fail to realise that a COS has occurred. I can see that for an umpire moderated game (or perhaps computerised event-driven games) COS could well work but for the open face-to-face game I had my doubts.

Guys,

Supply and demand has nothing to do with it. The value of the Hendrick rules is in the fact that it is unique. Most likely to 99% this is not relevent. However as a document in wargame design it is unique and to 1% it would have value. In that context the price is $750. USD

As for the copyright, I should be surprised were there a significant difference between rules and books. Could it be that as long as you protect your copyight by mainting it in print, republishing it, the copyright extends to 70 years but as soon as you fail to publish every 7 years it expires.

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

"The value of the Hendrick rules is in the fact that it is unique. Most likely to 99% this is not relevent. However as a document in wargame design it is unique and to 1% it would have value. In that context the price is $750.00 USD USD"

But if no-one wants to buy them then they are effectively worthless.

That's how auctions work. You can offer an item for sale, you can even set a reserve price, but if noone bids, you don't sell and the item is effectively worthless.

But surely you knew that?

"As for the copyright, I should be surprised were there a significant difference between rules and books."

Since rules are published in book form, the same copyright law applies.

"Could it be that as long as you protect your copyight by mainting it in print, republishing it, the copyright extends to 70 years but as soon as you fail to publish every 7 years it expires."

No. Not in the UK at any rate. I am not familiar with US law, but I believe it is the same – or did you not read and understand Connard Sage's post?

"my concern was that recognising that a change of situation occurs is only one part of the story. The history of warfare includes missed opportunities where perhaps one side (or both) fail to realise that a COS has occurred."

One of the possible responses to a COS is "do nothing", thus effectively ignoring the event. A commander may well decide to do nothing at a given COS only to regret it later.

If you wanted to, you could add characterisation to the commander's response, so that the player could indicate what he WANTED the commander to do in response to a COS but then would have to roll a die to see if he actually did so. Failure to make the required score would mean "do nothing". You could grade commanders so that the brilliant ones have a very small chance of failing to respond whereas an incompetent commander would fail more often than not.

That of course is the beauty of the VLB system. It is very easy to "bolt on" additional rules like this if you wish.

"I can see that for an umpire moderated game (or perhaps computerised event-driven games) COS"

Yup, that's Kriegsspiel.

Mike,

You have stated that main reason why Code Napoleon doesn't work is because it tries to represent Large battles, but is resolved at the level of battalions. This makes sense to me too, as a common rule of thumb says it's not smart to have more than two levels of command down in a game.

Could CN (or Blue Book) however work in smaller battles with about one corps or only couple of divisions for each player on the table, or is there something more profoundly wrong with the system?

[The history of warfare includes missed opportunities where perhaps one side (or both) fail to realise that a COS has occurred. ]

Not to mention all those times when there was in fact no COS, but the officer on the scene erroneously thought there was, and thus decided to act on his own because he was convinced he knew better than his boss… or believed that changed circumstances had made his boss' orders obsolete… or his orders gave him room for leeway… or his orders were confusing, like: "Wait for Pender's brigade to arrive, and then it is crucial to begin the attack at Noon…" (Noon comes, Pender hasn't shown up, what does he do?)

That was one of our observations about VLB back when we were trying to make it work: there was no way, in the VLB system, that Sickles would ever advance into the Peach Orchard!

"Could CN (or Blue Book) however work in smaller battles with about one corps or only couple of divisions for each player on the table,"

In theory, yes. But take a look at the Blue Book and various drafts of parts of CN (all available on the Yahoo group) and you will see that they are incomplete (sections missing), have some clumsy mechanics such as Reaction Tests at very small critical distances, long wordy complex explanations and so on.

The trouble is that what you suggest was not GWJ's intention. His aim was to play multi corps battles yet still resolve at battalion level.

"or is there something more profoundly wrong with the system?"

IMHO there is nothing profoundly wrong with the VLB concept. There is something seriously wrong with the way GWJ tried to explain it and implement it in CN.

"It was a thrilling idea because it broke the mold about "turns"."

Yes, and these concepts work very well in both matrix games and things like Science vs Pluck.

The only thing is, I'm not convinced that in fact GWJ was the first to come up with the concept. In the last couple of years I've run a few games of the 1956 British Army Tactical Wargame (recently declassified), and although time is notionally divided into subunits of one hour, the whole flow of the game is driven by committing units to planned operations with times for execution, and those planning times and operations can be interrupted by the actions of the enemy, requiring a (delayed) response, so it is possible to get inside the enemy decision loop.

They are designed to be run by an umpire (well, a team of umpires), plus assorted squaddies to move counters around on the maps, but in fact it is possible to run the game with one umpire. Sometimes game time flys by, whole days at a time, other times it is an hour-by-hour slog as attacks and counterattacks come in. It works because the units of resolution are fairly high (battalions for a corps sized engagement and minimum time unit of one hour), but you can play a week of real time action in an hour or two of game time.

The value of the Hendrick rules is in the fact that it is unique. Most likely to 99% this is not relevent. However as a document in wargame design it is unique and to 1% it would have value. In that context the price is $750.00 USD USD

So Bob, if you didn't have a set of these rules and I offered you one for $750 USD would you buy them off me? :-)

Mike,

To you the Hendrick rules are not worth the price. To me they are worth $750 USD as a document, as a set or rules and as a point of reference. If someone wants it that is the price.

Bob Coggins

…take a look at the Blue Book and various drafts of parts of CN (all available on the Yahoo group) and you will see that they are incomplete (sections missing), have some clumsy mechanics such as Reaction Tests at very small critical distances, long wordy complex explanations and so on.

At least "CN – Revised – August 2002" seems to be quite complete. "Blue Book 1981 – Verns Retype" is missing the diagrams, but Ned says he has them. I guess I just have to print out both rulesets and see by myself.

Also, there's a third ruleset in the files section named "Command, Control and Communications – Wargames Rules for the Napoleonic Period" made by Scott Sutherland. It seems to be the same game you linked earlier in the thread. Do you have any opinion about how it compares with other VLB rules?

"the Hendrick rules … To me they are worth $750.00 USD USD as a document, as a set or rules and as a point of reference."

But since you could never sell then at that price that is not a "real" value.

Page 4!

…and a variable length discussion-thread.