"Variable length bound & George Jeffrey" Topic
283 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Game Design Message Board Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral Napoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleIs there finally a gluestick worth buying for paper modelers?
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Book Review
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
arthur1815 | 21 Jan 2009 3:18 p.m. PST |
I note Mike's comment that it was George's intention to fight large battles with battalion resolution with VLB; if he is suggesting thereby that we should not attempt to apply the VLB concept to smaller actions, I must beg to disagree. I'm sure that George, were he still alive, would have no objection to people taking his basic concept of VLB and adapting it to suit their own gaming preferences. Any wargame rules designer who publishes his work, whether privately or commercially, must accept that the players will tinker with/adapt/add house rules and so on – just as theatrical companies rarely perform a play exactly as written by the author! Of course, trying to make George's original concept work is also an equally valid pursuit
Whist writing, I must agree with those who have pointed out that real life/battles do not come pre-packaged as 'critical events', COS et cetera; that the significance of an event at the time it occurs is a subjective interpretation by each of the observers/participants; that we have the luxury of hindsight when judging the significance of events in the past. IMHO, the Reisswitz Kriegsspiel of 1824 used a form of VLB [in the general, rather than GWJ sense of the phrase] by providing umpires with movement/fire effect rates per two minutes, whilst allowing them to advance the action in time as far as they considered necessary before updating the players on their situations. This works well, because players are free to compose orders and don't have to plough through mechanical rules or calculations; which leads one to wonder, why bother to try to devise a player administered system, when umpire control in a closed game is simpler and often more realistic? |
Grizwald | 21 Jan 2009 3:47 p.m. PST |
"if he is suggesting thereby that we should not attempt to apply the VLB concept to smaller actions, I must beg to disagree." Not at all. I was only suggesting that one of the reasons GWJ had so much difficulty in explaining VLB was that people were seeing (what they thought were) COSs for every battalion on the table and the losing the plot. In the last 20 years we have realised that "two levels down" is a practical way of doing it, so CN ought to have resolved at brigade level rather than battalion. This is what the K&D rules do. "I'm sure that George, were he still alive, would have no objection to people taking his basic concept of VLB and adapting it to suit their own gaming preferences." I'm sure he'd be delighted! "IMHO, the Reisswitz Kriegsspiel of 1824 used a form of VLB [in the general, rather than GWJ sense of the phrase] by providing umpires with movement/fire effect rates per two minutes, whilst allowing them to advance the action in time as far as they considered necessary before updating the players on their situations." Again, agreed. I have already aluded to Kriegsspiel as being in a number of respects similar to VLB exactly as you suggest. "which leads one to wonder, why bother to try to devise a player administered system, when umpire control in a closed game is simpler and often more realistic?" Simply because traditionally (Featherstone et al) wargames were designed for the "two player, no umpire" model. Having an umpire was (in pre WD days) always seen as a nice to have extra but not essential to the game mechanisms. You are quite right of course that having an umpire greatly simplifies the system (removing the need for the "dialogue"). In Kriegsspiel the unpire effectively works out the dialogue himself based on the orders received from the players and determines the next COS, i.e the point at which he updates the map to before asking the players for new orders. As we know, this is a much more intuitive process than the somewhat artificial GWJ dialogue. |
Last Hussar | 21 Jan 2009 4:37 p.m. PST |
These rules- are they the 2 small A5 books with 1 block of 2mm= 1/2 battalion- from COS etc above I think they are the 2 sets I have (1 Nap, 1 ACW). I have not read the entire thread because it was getting personal and argumentative, so if I repeat stuff sorry. Also I don't know where they are at the moment so I can't check terminology etc. I grasped the basic concepts of them- plot for each division- work out when you and opponent will first come into contact. Move all divisons that far eg 1 div contacts enemy at 40mins, 2 div at 20 mins, 3 Div at 30 mins. Move all divisions 20 minutes worth of movement. I liked the idea that if one unit didn't immediately retire/run you rolled to see how long that engagement would take, and move everything else that much. eg a 20 min engagement by 2 Div- move other units 20 minutes more, or until they got CoS. Once the 20 mins is up find out casualties. This much is basically Kreigspeil, as Mike says. Where I did have problems, so never played them, was the confusion with Cohesiveness and Casualties- he told you how to calculate casualties, but did not apply this loss in any signeificant way. Plus it was a lot of book keeping with the fact that units regained the cohesiveness. However I liked the idea of variable length combats that you didnt know the result of until 2-3 turns later, and incoroprated the combat matrix/time idea into a ACW rule set of my own that needs playtesting. |
ratisbon | 21 Jan 2009 5:22 p.m. PST |
Fred et al, Your desires to diminish the price I put on a set of rules only proves the point that wargamers think they have the right to determine the price and will go to any length to attack the value of an item they think is priced too high. To me Hendrick's rules are worth $750. USD That's the price you will pay if you want the item – no less. Actually as it is unique that is the price you will pay me if you want it. Why is it necessary to attempt to prove the rules are worth less when I have no intention of selling them for less? Would I pay you $750 USD for a set of rules? I do not know but before I considered it I would have to know they are unique and were written by an Icon of the hobby. Mike et al, What is curious is that George designed an outline of a set of rules which required corps/army commanders to move and fight battalions and half batteries. As I wrote before I look forward to seeing a complete set of rules using the variable length bound. Till then you cannot measure time with events because events are variable and time is a constant. Good gaming. Bob Coggins |
donlowry | 21 Jan 2009 5:53 p.m. PST |
>"why bother to try to devise a player administered system, when umpire control in a closed game is simpler and often more realistic?"< Because it is not always possible to con somebody into being an umpire instead of a player. (Admittedly, there are some people who,for whatever reason, enjoy the job -- er, role.) |
Defiant | 21 Jan 2009 7:52 p.m. PST |
I agree with Don, I do tend to play umpire of my games a great deal of the time but still manage to play as much as I can as well. However, if you are called upon to be an umpire constantly you really have to enjoy doing so or you will get bored very quickly. I umpired several campaigns over the years where time was measured not in minutes as in VLB but in hours. The same concept but on a greater scope. I remember trying to manage the movements amongst everything else for two massive multi-corps armies over a very large map trying to plot accurately every movement of every formation down to Brigades and battle groups. Calculating every encounter to the hour and sending the information to each side and letting them know of the current situation taking into account time delays and messangers etc. This task was exhausting to say the lest and I know that trying to do the same thing on the table top would not be any easier, I am not saying it cannot be done because obviously it can but you really need someone dedicated and above all with a great ability to cooralate and measure time and motion accurately. This is not a task many people would excel at nor enjoy that I know. Personally, my mind set allows me to do so if called or asked to do it but I really did not enjoy it and felt the players had a much easier job. I made mistakes and wrongly calculated engagement times and locations of engagements (not that they knew) but on a table top down to btln it would be worse and open to argument simply because both sides might contest your book keeping amongst other points of contention. Regards, Shane |
NedZed | 21 Jan 2009 11:13 p.m. PST |
Cliff, I have the old COURIERS in a box but not to hand at the moment. I will try to check and let you know where the initial GWJ articles can be found. However I can tell you that they would be in the years 1981 or 1982. -Ned |
NedZed | 22 Jan 2009 12:12 a.m. PST |
Hi Sam, You wrote"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!" In the COS system GWJ used a COS (change of Situation) would be the receipt of an order or seeing the COS himself (or getting a message/report about an unseen COS). It should be noted that for his game there was a definition for what a COS was and it would be for a specific commander(s). The COSs are part of his command and control rules. He was interested in defining when a commander could change what he was already doing. So a COS wasn't ANY change that affected any battalion, soldier, tree, rock, or brigade on the field. It had to be something that changed HIS situation that would cause him to have to stop carrying out the plan and mission he was already doing. In your example, If the general received the confusing order you gave as Wait for Pender and it is crucial to attack by noon, at 11:00 AM, the receipt of that order would cause a COS for that general. That means the player can now intervene in the game for that general. He now has to make a decision about his confusion and interpret it in tabletop terms. He has to commit to something at this point that can be laid out on the table with lead figures. He could choose to do nothing and thus "lose" his chance to issue orders in response to the orders he himself had received and opt to just sit still and hold his position. I do not know why the player would choose this option, but he could. Perhaps he assumes someone will give him new orders later.In this came Pender could arrive and noon could arrive but your general would be doing nothing. Or, he could choose to exercise this COS later in the game by defining by the clock or by an event or a point on the ground, when/where he will "have" his COS and write orders. For example, he might say in the dialogue that he had received an order and would issue orders when Pender reached x point on the table (perhaps indicating the spot with his finger or a mark), or when he received a message from Pender. If those conditions never happened, then he would never get a chance to issue orders. When one of those conditions did happen, he could exercise his COS. Or he might just say I will use this COS at noon and issue orders then.Then, at noon, those orders must be issued; then, at noon he either issues orders or else loses the COS, and must hope another will arise in the future. If it doesn't, he won't be issuing orders. Of course if Pender came up at 11:30, too bad for your general . Another option would be when he got his orders and had his COS he could write his orders at that moment but in the orders identify when they would be put into effect. For example, at 11 AM he could write down his attack plans and send them to his subordinates telling them to begin their action at noon (or when Pender reached x point on the ground). The point is that when the General receives his orders he has a COS and the player must COMMIT himself to one of these solutions at 11 AM. Thus in the dialogue you'd say at 11 AM this general got new orders, which gives him a COS which he can choose not to use, or will delay it to the future when x condition occurs, or will right orders now that will go into effect as soon as they reach his subordinates or when he designated a specific game condition and it occurred. So a COS is a use or lose situation (or delay it to a specified future event/time). I am not familiar enough with Sickles and the Peach Orchard to understand the context. Could you expand on those circumstances, and then I might be able to give you a response.
Best regards, Ned |
Defiant | 22 Jan 2009 1:01 a.m. PST |
Hi Ned, I am not sure but I think it pertains to a General Sickles who commanded a Corps at the Battle of Gettysburg 1863. His forces were lined up in or along a peach orchard
the whole meaning of it also eludes me. someone will know much more than I do about this. |
Grizwald | 22 Jan 2009 8:22 a.m. PST |
"To me Hendrick's rules are worth $750.00 USD USD That's the price you will pay if you want the item – no less." They may be worth that to you but they are almost certainly not worth that to anybody else. "Why is it necessary to attempt to prove the rules are worth less when I have no intention of selling them for less?" It's not, but you cannot assess worth by putting an arbitrary price on something. "they are unique and were written by an Icon of the hobby." If Hendrick is an "Icon of the hobyy" he must be a very obscure one, as nobody here seems to have haerd of him except you! By contrast, there have been a couple of threads on TMP recently asking about Prof. Gerard de Gre. Several people knew of him and found information about him and it turns out he is quite an "icon of the hobby" himself. In fact, de Gre may have been the first wargamer to advocate the use of the ‘unit system' of mounting several figures on a single base or stand! "As I wrote before I look forward to seeing a complete set of rules using the variable length bound." You already have them (3 copies apparently). They are the Knight & Dennis rules. "Till then you cannot measure time with events because events are variable and time is a constant." I repeat (yet again): Nobody is measuring time with events. Events are NOT variable, they occur at instances in time. The length of time between two events IS however variable. Now, which bit of that did you not understand? |
50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick | 22 Jan 2009 9:16 a.m. PST |
[I am not familiar enough with Sickles and the Peach Orchard to understand the context. ] It's just one example of a subordinate commander deciding, on his own, that he knows better than his boss, and re-deploying his forces according to his own preference – not as a result of orders, or a COS. |
Whirlwind | 22 Jan 2009 9:23 a.m. PST |
As a follow on from Martin Rapier's post above, I would suggest that these VLB ideas are very similar to (British) military wargaming even now. The only thing is – it isn't really a game. It is there to identify and smooth out problems in various courses of action – it cannot survive 'oppositional' playing and it isn't designed to model 'subordinates' initiative', because the whole point is to improve and test the plan. Regards |
Fred Cartwright | 22 Jan 2009 9:30 a.m. PST |
Would I pay you $750.00 USD USD for a set of rules? I do not know but before I considered it I would have to know they are unique and were written by an Icon of the hobby. Well I think you've just answered that one, if you can't give a definite yes! However consider this – if your house were to burn down (and I hope it never does) would you be able to persuade your insurance company to pay $750 USD for the rules you lost? I seriously doubt it. |
Grizwald | 22 Jan 2009 10:09 a.m. PST |
"I would suggest that these VLB ideas are very similar to (British) military wargaming even now." You've apparently not come across Virtual Battle Space 2 then: link link and here it is actually in use training the British Army: link |
Grizwald | 22 Jan 2009 10:17 a.m. PST |
"It's just one example of a subordinate commander deciding, on his own, that he knows better than his boss, and re-deploying his forces according to his own preference – not as a result of orders, or a COS." Er
no. Sickles received orders from Meade directing him to take up defensive positions on the southern end of Cemetery Ridge, anchored in the north to the II Corps and to the south, the hill known as Little Round Top. That is a COS. Sickles' response to that COS was to write orders for his corps to march almost a mile in front of Cemetery Ridge. He disobeyed his orders from Meade. There is nothing in VLB that says a commander HAS to obey orders. This does come back to what I said earlier about commander characterisation. It would be difficult to allow for this possibility in a one player vs. one player game (in any set of rules not necessarily VLB). |
Whirlwind | 22 Jan 2009 10:48 a.m. PST |
Hi Mike, I was referring to the wargaming part of the staff planning process. Regards |
ratisbon | 22 Jan 2009 11:17 a.m. PST |
Mike, Arnold Hendrick was hardly obscure. He started with Old Colony, which founded the original Courier as a teen. He was involved in the design of one of the first fantasy roll playing games. As an adult he made his living designing games for board wargame companies then for computer game companies winding up heading the online game development for AOL. To my understanding he cashed in his stock options in the late 90s and retired to a mansion in Virginia. As for Professor de Gre, he made a number of contributions to miniatures wargaming. We even traded letters based on an article in Jack Scruby's Table Top Talk. A review of the Dennis/Knight "rules" reveals the "turn" such as it is, is 10 minutes. And yes the armies might move through 5 blocks of 10 minutes each till combat begins. The problem is once units enter combat and get results of 10,20 or 40 minutes all units are reduced to 10 minute "turns." And for an army game to use 10 minute increments is a formula for an unplayable game neither is it a reasonable representation of the "lens" through which an army or corps general views the battle. Nevertheless the "rules" presume to measure time when it comes to combat which can last 0, 10, 20 or 40 minutes. Quite apart from the fact that no firefight ever lasted 20 minutes, much less 40 minutes, without additional units being thrown in, the event of combat presumes to randomly measure time, placing the units in the combat on a different time, as measured by that event, than units not involved in that combat. Neither is there an explanation of what occurs when a brigade moving at 10 minute intervals crashes into a 40 minute combat which is 20 minutes old with the outcome already decided. Without going into great detail, on the historical battlefield written orders did not occur. Corps, division and brigade generals managed by riding around and given standard deployment rare was the occasion when a brigadier was farther than one minute, a division general farther than 5 minutes or a corps geneneral farther than 10 minutes from any unit in their command. The "rules" say the players compare and explain the movements/actions of their units to each other and by doing so determine the length of the bound and COSs. Lets see, two competitive gamers happily agreeing to one getting the short end. What's the rule to determine disagreements? Umpires? What about them? The "rules" only mention umpires in passing and define neither their duties or authority. Whatever it is, the Dennis/Knight "rules" is not a playable set of rules such as Grande Armee, AOE, Shako or General of Brigade. Lest you write a playable set of rules, don't tell me the Emperor has a new set of clothes when he doesn't. Good gaming. Bob Coggins Good gaming. Bob Coggins |
50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick | 22 Jan 2009 11:45 a.m. PST |
[There is nothing in VLB that says a commander HAS to obey orders.] Now you're just being silly. And arguing for the sake of arguing. If there's no obligation to obey an order, then the game is wasting everybody's time by requiring the writing of orders. If a corps commander can do whatever he wants, as soon as he gets any order or COS, then you're wasting everybody's time by waiting for a COS. This is part of what we discovered when we tried to play VLB. Joe: "I want my corps to attack Schnockendorf." Steve: "You can't. You were ordered to defend Schlurpriedel." Joe: "Ah, but an enemy artillery battery just opened fire on my left flank. That's a COS! Now I can change my orders!" Steve: "But that artillery isn't anywhere near Schlockendorf, and besides, you can only change the orders for the units UNDER you – not for yourself." Joe: "No problem. I'll just write new orders for all my divisional commanders to attack Schlockendorf. I won't change MY orders." Steve: "But General Snorbens has ordered you to defend Schlurpriedel!" Joe: "Ah, but there's nothing in VLB that says I HAVE to obey orders!!!" |
NedZed | 22 Jan 2009 12:31 p.m. PST |
I introduced the GWJ "Blue Book" of rules to Dick Bryant and edited articles by George for The COURIER in my capacity as Napoleonic editor. Dick and others really liked the concepts and articles and wanted to publish GWJ's rules. Arnold Hendrick was the first to be asked to edit GWJ's set of rules by Dick Bryant for the COURIER. It was my impression that Dick thought that though the rules were difficult to understand in the form he wrote them, Arnold would be able to edit and reword them in a relatively short space of time for publication. Arnold tried to do just that but was unable to do so. I do not recall the time spent but I believe it was perhaps (my memory fades here) a month or maybe a couple of months, but not much longer. I think I was working with George on his Tactics and Grand Tactics book idea around that time. When Arnold could not produce the rules in a publishable format, I took over that job. |
ratisbon | 22 Jan 2009 3:07 p.m. PST |
Corps generals tend to follow orders unless they don't. Bernadotte did not follow orders at Austerlitz and got away with it because of his political position. Buxhowden abandoned his wing command at Austerlitz and got away with it because of his political connections. At Kulm Eugen did not follow orders when he screened the army from Vandamme sucking in the Czar and the Russian Guard. The problem with most rules is they don't take politics into consideration when at the corps level all generals are political and thus have a much greater leeway than most rules allow. Good gaming. Bob Coggins |
donlowry | 22 Jan 2009 3:38 p.m. PST |
Sickles got away with it too, even though his corps got badly whipped because of his disobedience -- partly because Sickles lost a leg in the battle himself (the leg is now in the Smithsonian!) and partly because he was an influential politico in NYC, and partly because (due to his wound) he got to Washington, DC, and to Lincoln's ear, before Meade had time to write his report or file charges. (Incidentally, Sickles was the first man in the US to get away with the plea of "not guilty by reason of temporary insanity" when he shot his wife's lover, who happened to be the son of the man who wrote "The Star Spangled Banner." That was before the War. It was a scandal, not because he shot the man, nor because he got away with it, but because he forgave his wife!) As for Arnold Hendrick, I've heard of him, but then, I'm older than the moon. |
Defiant | 22 Jan 2009 3:45 p.m. PST |
>>>>>The problem with most rules is they don't take politics into consideration when at the corps level all generals are political and thus have a much greater leeway than most rules allow.<<<<< Mine do, I have an Insubordination rule for impetious commanders and I also take into account commanders like Bernadotte who even fail to turn up ! yup, flying my flag again ;-p |
Grizwald | 22 Jan 2009 3:54 p.m. PST |
"Arnold Hendrick was hardly obscure.
" I have been involved in wargaming for well over 30 years. In all that time I have never heard of Arnold Hendrick until you mentioned him here. I HAVE heard of gamers like Gerard de Gre, Pat Condray, Fred Vietmeyer, Charles Grant (snr), Stuart Asquith and Don Featherstone. Somehow I don't think Hendrick is in the same league. I don't know of any UK gamers who have heard of Hendrick either. "A review of the Dennis/Knight "rules" reveals the "turn" such as it is, is 10 minutes. And yes the armies might move through 5 blocks of 10 minutes each till combat begins. The problem is once units enter combat and get results of 10,20 or 40 minutes all units are reduced to 10 minute "turns."" Nope. basic misunderstanding of VLB again. The end of a firefight is just another COS. Yes, you might have a sequence of COSs occuring at 10 minute intervals if there are a lot of firefights going on at once, but seeing as you resolve a firefight at the highest level possible that number is minimised. So it is POSSIBLE to get a sequence of COSs at 10 minute intervals, but not mandatory. If the next COS is not for 20 or 30 minutes, then you have a VARIABLE LENGTH BOUND. Simple, innit? "And for an army game to use 10 minute increments is a formula for an unplayable game" Disagree. "Nevertheless the "rules" presume to measure time when it comes to combat which can last 0, 10, 20 or 40 minutes. Quite apart from the fact that no firefight ever lasted 20 minutes, much less 40 minutes, without additional units being thrown in," Evidence plaease? "the event of combat presumes to randomly measure time, placing the units in the combat on a different time, as measured by that event, than units not involved in that combat." Nope. Wrong again. (You STILL don't get it do you?). The event of combat does NOT "randomly measure time". A combat does have a variable duration (not the same thing at all – did you study Physics at all?) "Neither is there an explanation of what occurs when a brigade moving at 10 minute intervals" A brigade does NOT move at "10 minute intervals" Depending on its formation it moves at a set speed (measured in metres per minute). "Neither is there an explanation of what occurs when a brigade moving at 10 minute intervals crashes into a 40 minute combat which is 20 minutes old with the outcome already decided." I quote: "INTERRUPTED ENGAGEMENTS Where fresh troops are sent into the flank or rear of an already engaged enemy, the Tactical Engagement is recalculated from that point using the new CVs of the forces involved. NOTE: fresh troops may not be "fed in" from the rear through an already engaged brigade." Seeems pretty clear to me what happens. (I'm beginning to wonder if you are "reviewing" the same rules that I have in front of me
) "Without going into great detail, on the historical battlefield written orders did not occur." I beg your pardon? I can offer ONE historical example that refutes that statement. (I only need to offer one beciase that is enough to disprove what you say): Lord Raglan sent a written order to Lord Lucan stating "Lord Raglan wishes the cavalry to advance rapidly to the front, follow the enemy, and try to prevent the enemy carrying away the guns. Horse artillery may accompany. French cavalry is on your left. Immediate." A written order that was (sadly) misunderstood with tragic consequences. But it doesn't matter really since the K&D rules simply state that the commander may write new orders at a COS. The "writing" part is simply so that the players have a record of what was ordered when. In reality such orders could of course be verbal. "The "rules" say the players compare and explain the movements/actions of their units to each other and by doing so determine the length of the bound and COSs. Lets see, two competitive gamers happily agreeing to one getting the short end. What's the rule to determine disagreements?" Why should there be any disagreements? "Umpires? What about them? The "rules" only mention umpires in passing and define neither their duties or authority." The K&D rules do not require an umpire. As I have said before the idea of dialogue removes the need for an umpire. If you don't need an umpire why describe duties and authority? "Whatever it is, the Dennis/Knight "rules" is not a playable set of rules" That is your opinion. I have played them successfully so they are by definition not unplayable. |
Grizwald | 22 Jan 2009 4:02 p.m. PST |
"If there's no obligation to obey an order, then the game is wasting everybody's time by requiring the writing of orders." Why? "If a corps commander can do whatever he wants, as soon as he gets any order or COS, then you're wasting everybody's time by waiting for a COS." No. The point is he CANNOT do ANYTHING until a COS occurs that affects him (receiving an order is a COS). He can do whatever he wants but ONLY at a COS. "This is part of what we discovered when we tried to play VLB." If you misunderstood how COSs work then no wonder you had problems. Joe: "I want my corps to attack Schnockendorf." Steve: "You can't. You were ordered to defend Schlurpriedel. [snip]" I think your player Steve has just discovered the meaning of the word "friction" in a wargaming context! Annoying isn't it, when your subordinates don't do what they're told
incompetence, misunderstanding of written orders, sheer bloody-mindedness or thinking they know better than their commander
hmmm, how true to life. |
Grizwald | 22 Jan 2009 4:03 p.m. PST |
"Corps generals tend to follow orders unless they don't. [snip]" Hah! Finally something we actually agree upon! |
donlowry | 22 Jan 2009 9:34 p.m. PST |
>"The point is he CANNOT do ANYTHING until a COS occurs that affects him
."< So a commander can never have a change of mind or second thoughts, unless there is a CoS? If it turns out that the orders he gave will require his men to march clear around the world to attack the enemy from the rear, he couldn't, after a few years, decide maybe that was a bad idea? |
NedZed | 22 Jan 2009 10:27 p.m. PST |
Cliff, You can look at COURIER Vol III, No. 3, Nov-Dec 1981 New Concepts in Wargaming Part I Timescale – complete with photo from my dining room of one of my Vive l'Empereur! games :^)
then Part II , Game Mechanics in Vol III No 4 Jan-Feb 1982 p 17. Also see issue No. 85 in 2002 page 5, Code Napoleon for a posthumous article. Best regards, Ned |
ratisbon | 23 Jan 2009 12:13 a.m. PST |
Mike, Write as you may, the so called rules are unplayable. To represent them otherwise is to misrepresent them. I indeed studied physics. I also studied the Tactical Engagement Chart which randomly, based on a die roll, determines and states the length of combats in minutes. My evidence that 40 minute fire fights did not exist is that no infantry carried more than 60 rounds into battle and at a rate of 2 rounds/minute they did not have sufficient ammunition for a 40 minute firefight. I will not even go into the fact that at 100 yards the expected hits is from 0 to 3%. But at 1% for argument a unit would be long gone before 20 much less 40 minutes were reached. Balaclava was not a Napoleonic battle. Raglan had sent a number of orders (unwritten?) which Lucan ignored for his inability to see what Raglan saw. Raglan then issued a written order which Lucan again was unwilling to follow for the lack of his ability to see
.till Nolan who carried the order said there are the guns my Lord and the rest was history and a snappy poem. Whoops, the so called rules do not specify combats are recalculated when new units enter the fray. And I could go on but what is the use, as you are in a state of denial. If the so called rules have to be explained on the TMP you do not have a set of playable rules. When you do, let me know and I will have a look. But after 25 years I am not confident that I'll ever see a playable set of Code Napoleon. Good gaming. Bob Coggins |
Grizwald | 23 Jan 2009 2:10 a.m. PST |
"So a commander can never have a change of mind or second thoughts, unless there is a CoS? If it turns out that the orders he gave will require his men to march clear around the world to attack the enemy from the rear, he couldn't, after a few years, decide maybe that was a bad idea?" Without a COS, no. But it is likely that after a while of his non appearance his superior commander would start to send messengers. Such things happened in history
|
Grizwald | 23 Jan 2009 2:31 a.m. PST |
"Write as you may, the so called rules are unplayable. To represent them otherwise is to misrepresent them." Write as YOU may, your statement is STILL incorrect. The rules ARE playable, because I have played them. That is a fact that try as you might you cannot deny, unless you claim I am lying. "My evidence that 40 minute fire fights did not exist is that no infantry carried more than 60 rounds into battle and at a rate of 2 rounds/minute they did not have sufficient ammunition for a 40 minute firefight." Your statement is entirely based on the assuumptions that: 1. The troops continued to fire at a sustained rate of 2 rounds per minute until they used up all their ammunition. 2. No ammunition restock was provided 3. That the term "firefight" necessarily only includes musketry. Actually, I agree that "firefight" is an incorrect term. That is of course why K&D use the term "Tactical Engagement". I see no reason why a tactical engagement could not last 40 minutes or even longer. "I will not even go into the fact that at 100 yards the expected hits is from 0 to 3%. But at 1% for argument a unit would be long gone before 20 much less 40 minutes were reached." According to your theory, no infantry battalion could last even 20 minutes in close combat before suffering catastrophic casualties and routing. How come we don't read that in the history? "Balaclava was not a Napoleonic battle." So (according to you) somewhere between 1815 and 1854 there was a major change in the British army that dictated that orders that had hithrto only been verbal must in future be written down? "Raglan then issued a written order which Lucan again was unwilling to follow for the lack of his ability to see." So you admit WRITTEN orders were used in battle in the Crimea. I repeat: what changed between 1815 and 1854? "Whoops, the so called rules do not specify combats are recalculated when new units enter the fray." I beg your pardon? I quote (again, because you obviously did not read it the first time): "INTERRUPTED ENGAGEMENTS Where fresh troops are sent into the flank or rear of an already engaged enemy, the Tactical Engagement is recalculated from that point using the new CVs of the forces involved. NOTE: fresh troops may not be "fed in" from the rear through an already engaged brigade." I think that's pretty clear that combats ARE recalculated when new units enter the fray. Which bit of the quote did you not understand? "And I could go on but what is the use, as you are in a state of denial." On the contrary, sir, it appears to be you who are in denial. When I present a clear refutation of your argument you seem to totally ignore it. "If the so called rules have to be explained on the TMP you do not have a set of playable rules." I am only having to explain them here because you (in particular) seem to be unable to understand plain English. "But after 25 years I am not confident that I'll ever see a playable set of Code Napoleon." I don't think you will either, but there again we are NOT (now) discussing CN, but rather the VLB and the K&D implementation of it. It seems that in your mind VLB=CN whereas CN is only a (failed) attempt at implementing the VLB CONCEPT. Is it perhaps that you don't understand the difference between a CONCEPT and the IMPLEMTATION of a concept? |
Major Snort | 23 Jan 2009 3:07 a.m. PST |
Regarding the timescale for firefights, Clausewitz wrote about this in "On War": "What do we do now usually in a great battle? We place ourselves quietly in great masses arranged contiguous to and behind one another. We deploy relatively only a small proportion of the who;e, and let it wring itself out in a fire-combat which lasts for SEVERAL HOURS
.When this line has gradually exhausted part of its warlike ardour in this manner and there remains nothing but cinders, it is withdrawn and replaced by another." and: "After a fire combat of SEVERAL HOURS' duration, in which a body of troops has suffered severe loss, for example, a quarter or a third of its numbers, the debris may be lookeds upon as a heap of burnt-out cinders." Perhaps the suggestion that no firefight lasted 20 minutes needs to be revised? |
Allan Mountford | 23 Jan 2009 5:20 a.m. PST |
'Perhaps the suggestion that no firefight lasted 20 minutes needs to be revised?' Albuera would be a decent enough starting point. There were at least two major firefights that lasted more than 20 minutes. Significantly, I don't recall reading that ammunition supply was a problem in either. - Allan |
Connard Sage | 23 Jan 2009 5:27 a.m. PST |
|
Grizwald | 23 Jan 2009 6:08 a.m. PST |
Oops. "IMPLEMTATION" -> "IMPLEMENTATION". |
Martin Rapier | 23 Jan 2009 7:55 a.m. PST |
Yes, trying to calculate the length of firefights based on rates of fire and ammo carried is an exercise in futility. All you can do is look at how long real firefights take for X numbers of troops and work back from there. If it was all about ROF and ammo, then it would be physically impossible for a modern rifle company (able to fire off its entire basic load in ten minutes, even at slow rate) to conduct an 18 hour firefight – yet exactly event happened in Helmand in the last couple of years. |
Ditto Tango 2 1 | 23 Jan 2009 10:40 a.m. PST |
I have been involved in wargaming for well over 30 years. In all that time I have never heard of Arnold Hendrick until you mentioned him here. Same here, but all the same, I've been very interested in hearing about him here. -- Tim |
ratisbon | 23 Jan 2009 10:52 a.m. PST |
Martin, Modern Warfare is not an apt example mostly because targets are fleeting. Evenso, it heartening to see Marines and Army guys empty a magazine over a wall or around a corner without looking. In the Napoleonic wars and in the Civil War soldiers typically carried 60 rounds. My rule of thumb is at and inside 100 yards the probility for a hit is 1% and more tactically inside 50 yards the probability is about 5%. Above 100 yards the probability to hit is about .02%. Firefights within 100 yards rarely occurred but when they did one side or the other quickly retreated, in either good or bad order. What most likely occurred was steady fire at over 100 yards punctuated by a series of jabs, advances, by the attacker. Inside 100 yards units tended to melt away very quickly. As for saving ammo, one units started blazing away it was hell to pay to get them to stop. So, from the time they start firing, say 200 yards to the time the combat comes to an end the soldiers are firing at a rate of 2 rounds per minute. This gives them 30 minutes or so maximum till the unit need revictual. But inside 100 yards with a reasonable rate of hits of 1% units would quickly melt away. As for Clausewitz he was talking about divisions and corps not brigades. If one looks at the most modern of Napoleonic battles, Ligny, the III and IV Corps used their assets to deliver a series of very sharp jabs, attacks, with the intent of capturing St. Armand and Ligny. As one brigade retreated another was committed to the attack. The original brigade was reformed, if possible, and recommitted if necessary but eventually the unit would burn out. And if enough brigades were burned out to the extent they were incapable of further combat, the division/corp would eventually burn out. Good gaming. Bob Coggins |
Camcleod | 23 Jan 2009 11:08 a.m. PST |
Ned Thanks for the issue numbers. I also found in Courier issue Vol.IV #1 p.11 – 'The Battle of Neumarkt – A VLB game' Cliff |
NedZed | 23 Jan 2009 1:25 p.m. PST |
I hope this weekend to be able to read the thread here and make some intelligent comments. (BTW Snorbens is very familiar with VLB concepts and actually can zero in on a point to explain it succinctly and without the verbosity I usually have.) I hope people understand that I am not out to convince anyone that their opinions or systems are less valid than mine. Since I was in on this from the very early days, though, I do have some facts, opinion, knowledge, perspective, and background that might shed some light for those on TMP not familiar with George or CN or VLB. That might help them decide whether or not they would like to read more on the subject over on the VLB Yahoo Group website. Every topic, debate, and question about VLB that is in this thread has also been discussed in detail at the VLB site (plus some irritating or less-than-friendly exchanges). Love the concept or hate it, the design arguments there can be very intellectually stimulating IF you are into that sort of thing.I suppose I could just cut and paste some old posts there and bring them here, but, as the moth to the flame, I am drawn to any discussion of the subject. So while Snorbens gets into detail on things like Peter's rules, perhaps I can provide some basic VLB explanation or GWJ interpretation here for those who are unfamiliar with it. Someone remarked about Peter's letter to GWJ or the playtesting reports that were circulated. I was the one who collated those, and included some no-nonsense letters of my own and Peter's in the packets, I am familiar with them. Yesterday I was looking at my correspondence register from those days where I kept track of who sent me mail and received mail from me; several of the recipients (or people from their groups) have been on the TMP thread. Quite nostalgic, really! -Ned |
Repiqueone | 23 Jan 2009 3:08 p.m. PST |
Tim said: "I have been involved in wargaming for well over 30 years. In all that time I have never heard of Arnold Hendrick until you mentioned him here." Same here, but all the same, I've been very interested in hearing about him here. -- Tim One of my constant amusements over the last 45 years of wargaming is the regionalism and parochialism of Wargaming. Every group, and the denizens of HMGS East are no exception, sees the personalities and ideas of their particular group as being the "history" of wargaming.
I am constantly struck by just how "unhistorical" this historical hobby is. To 90% of the wargamers of the world, and to at least 50% that did know of Mr. Hendricks, he was a very marginal influence on the hobby. It rather reminds me of efforts such as Pat Condray's to write a potted history of wargaming, but it seems it only covers a 300 mile radius from Baltimore. Good thing that Scruby, Bowden, Getz, Fisher, and others were from outside the sacred circle or you'd swear those guys in Baltimore invented the whole damn thing! One truly understands the creation of legends when one observes the hagiography around that Group of 200 (apparently) in Wally Simon's Basement. As for VLB, I will only note the conversation NEVER moves beyond the present point. I invite anyone to view the archive on Yahoo going back nearly a decade and find anything more concrete, usable, or, for that matter, honest about George Jeffrey's and his VLB rules. This thread is a microcosm of years of postings on that site. It's like watching Beckett's Waiting for Godot! Will someone please have the mercy to put a bullet in the beast and call it for what it was- a sham, a fraud, a failed idea, a fiction, or best yet- a really, really, really unsuccessful concept! No? Well, then, I'll suppose this Frankenstein Monster will be terrorizing the townfolk for years to come. |
Grizwald | 23 Jan 2009 3:16 p.m. PST |
"As for VLB, I will only note the conversation NEVER moves beyond the present point. I invite anyone to view the archive on Yahoo going back nearly a decade and find anything more concrete, usable, or, for that matter, honest about George Jeffrey's and his VLB rules." Agree with you about Code Napoleon, but the K&D rules are a workable implementation of the VLB concept (as I have been at pains to point out here). So yes, the conversation HAS moved on. Why do people find it so difficult to separate concept and implementation? |
Repiqueone | 23 Jan 2009 3:42 p.m. PST |
Mike, no personal offense meant, but in the form that Jeffrey stated it, it is incapable of implementation, and even in various permutations of that concept in mad attempts to find the secret incantation that would make it actually function, I have seen nothing, absolutely nothing, that indicates that it can be implemented. It may be right up there with Ponce de Leon's Fountain of Youth, the Seven Cities of Cibola, or the Lost Dutchman Mine as an illusion slathered upon a dream and sugared with wishful thinking. The most brutal way to put this is "if the idea is such a great concept-where are the actual, printed, purchasable playable rules?" Anyone? It's so quiet
uh, huh, I thought so! If the "game" were providing a forum for a wide range of people that have never written a commercial rule set to pontificate on how one should be written, then VLB has been a tremendous success. |
NedZed | 23 Jan 2009 4:51 p.m. PST |
"I invite anyone to view the archive on Yahoo going back nearly a decade and find anything more concrete, usable, or, for that matter, honest about George Jeffrey's and his VLB rule". Hi Bob, I have no objection to anything you say except when words like "honest" and "fraud" are used (and by the way, I have used the word "fraud" in a particular context in a specific letter to George in 1988, which I will not go into here, so I am clear-eyed on that score no matter how ethereal I am about VLB and unicorns and leprechauns). It may that I am misinterpreting your words, but as perhaps the main GWJ contact for most of his VLB life on this side of the Atlantic at least, I do think my postings on the VLB board, and here on TMP, have always been, at the least, exceedingly honest. (I can assure you that my correspondence and conversations with GWJ have also always been brutally honest.) It is also my opinion also that there has been no fraud by anyone. And, as you say, there is nothing on this TMP thread that hasn't been on the VLB site – including your postings above. :^) Sincerely, Ned PS: Trajanus, you win the pool. ;^) |
Major Snort | 23 Jan 2009 5:03 p.m. PST |
Bob, You can aply your rule of thumb as much as you like, but I will continue to believe the words of those who actually fought in Napoleonic battles rather than the unsupported claims of some fellow who posts on TMP. BTW Clausewitz was not talking about divisions and corps. |
NedZed | 23 Jan 2009 7:03 p.m. PST |
Bob wrote:"One of my constant amusements over the last 45 years of wargaming is the regionalism and parochialism of Wargaming." I was in California during the '70's and '80's, and did not have extensive local connections, but subscribed to as many publications as I could. I hesitate to list names for fear of leaving out some important names, but Jack Scruby was here in California, Norm Flam's THE LAST GRENADIER was a hub of activity, Brian Stokes had a group in Southern California, near me Larry Duffield opened The Gametable. In the SF Bay area were a lot of connected players (I think mainly Empire and spinoffs), many through the redoubtable Charlie Tarbox. Guys like Edi Birsan and Ray Iwasaki or Steve Payne ran games or at their locations. Kip Trexel developed an Empire campaign system. I cut my teeth on Column, Line, Square with Dion Osika's group. I heard of the WWW; Terry Griner's group in Washington State, but really a lot of the wargaming influences that went national came from other parts of the country, at least from my knowledge gleaned from reading (beginning in the mid-60's) The Courier, The Armchair General, the PW Review, Hal Thinglum's MWAN, The Avalon Hill General, Wargamer's Digest, Campaign, Strategy and Tactics, and from England Don Featherstone's Wargamer's Newsletter and also The Nugget when it came out from Wargames Developments (which is where I heard of George Jeffrey). From Indiana Fred Vietmeyer was a huge influence with his Column, Line, and Square rules. A young Bob Jones wrote some articles criticizing aspects (ie the use/misuse of "National Characteristics) of the CLS-type systems and then came out with his own Le Jeu de la Guerre, but it didn't seem to make a big splash. Ray Johnson, Jim Getz and Duke Seifried came, I think, out of the midwest (Frappe, Napoleonique). Scotty Bowden from Texas developed the Empire system and by 1980 that was probably the most popular or influential and had supplanted CLS ideas. CLS used a 1-20 basing, Napoleonique a 1-30, so, I think, Scotty used a 1-60 to allow different basings to be used in one game. (The 1-60 became the standard, and rules like mine that used 1-100 were seen as out of the mainstream). Jim Getz, who I still admire greatly (even though our design ideas diverged) joined Scotty and Empire. Charlie Tarbox and others in Northern California were Empire advocates. There were other rules sets then by a variety of individuals, but none of them had the same traction. Gary Gygax had a set of medieval rules, Chainmail that had a fantasy appendix in it that I think grew into D&D. At this time "Origins" was the big national convention. I think it began as an Avalon Hill company convention that later expanded out. The COURIER was published in Brockton, Mass., EE&L in New Jersey; when magazines are published, their attached wargaming groups often game some prominence. Though it was a personal production, Wally Simon's PW Review (Wally and his Review were particular favorites of mine), and through it the Potomac Wargamers near Washington D.C. got some exposure. Pat Condray was another East Coast name. So the northeast, I think, become an "influential" area and led to HMGS and Historicon etc in later years I'm sure I have left some rules and people out, but my point is there were different centers of gravity and this often led to rivalry. I bring this up because The Courier Napoleonic editor prior to me had done a game review column of the current Napoleonic rules; he judged mine the best. I had no idea that would happen, but soon after Dick Bryant contacted me and asked me if I would be the Napoleonic editor. I accepted, but I think there may be other designers who might have thought the fix was in or mine were chosen to avoid picking someone else's. I was naive about all that at that time, assuming all wargamers were a happy fraternity. :^) I solicited articles from everyone I had ever heard and I think got some good ones. However, from my correspondence for the COURIER and also for EE&L, and then from my experience as the miniatures chairman for the Pacificon convention under Larry Duffield who successfully brought the Origins national convention to California one year (which angered many on the East Coast who felt it was too far to travel and that the main wargamer groups were in the East or Midwest), I learned about many of the quarrels in the hobby. I was, I think, the miniatures chairman for that Origins convention.Don Lowry's Campaign magazine printed some letters after the convention from Greenwood and Shaw from the Avalon Hill Company defending themselves against charges of not fully supporting the move to the West Coast. Larry Duffield rebutted those letters in a following issue. Some people wouldn't advertise in some magazines, some groups or individuals or companies or conventions felt they got short shrift compared to others, and many people were willing to criticize others for personal reasons, etc etc. When I talked to different people on different sides, they could all justify their negative feelings for each other and give chapter and verse for their feelings. I could be wrong but I think THE COURIER, near its demise, became vulnerable to loss of advertising when people got their noses out of joint. At that time the main Nap history texts available were Chandler, the Esposito/Elting West Point Atlas, and Rothenburg. Others were starting to come out in the '70's and '80's but nothing like what is available today. My painting guides were a Richard K Riehn pamphlet and the two volume Funcken set. Fred Vietmeyer's work was still the dominant source for organizing figures for companies and battalions, along with Ray Johnson. Games wanted to portray the big Napoleonic battles, but still have companies whose pompons were colored correctly. But players were still spending lots of time over the table, unable to "finish" a battle in an evening. The search was for the realistic simulation that could be played quickly with whole armies (but really turned out to be battles with a corps or two to the side). Back then boardgames were growing to monstrous sizes. So when GWJ appeared to have a system that could give big battles in an evening, and still had battalions and squadrons on the table, it was very appealing. However, it was only really known through The COURIER, and through word of mouth or through individuals or groups I contacted about it. So It can't be said to have had a huge footprint, but I think many of the current and future designers of note have at least discussed it, or at least their understanding of what it "was". Some of them tried to make the rules (or, at least the concepts as gleaned from magazines) work and gave up frustrated. When I began promoting GWJ ideas it was in this milieu. There were strong feelings then, some about VLB, some about other people, groups, or rules, which all became part of the mix. Thus you will still see people who criticize the rules/concepts, and some who criticize them quite gleefully, and others who think they see something in them that might work (Though this is a much, much smaller category of people). -Ned |
ratisbon | 23 Jan 2009 9:28 p.m. PST |
Captain Snort, Anecdotal evidence is unreliable. Much of it is based on diaries and letters from soldiers in their first combat and what the hell to they know? As I am interested in wargame design. The IMP for the norm is 1% or whatever. Individual fires can deviate from the norm but in the end the probability is a series of fires will achieve the norm. You wrote, "BTW Clausewitz was not talking about divisions and corps." I have before me the Howard/Paret translation. Napoleon never committed less than a division or a corps. So when Clausewitz writes about a "relatively" small portion he means a corps or division, or even a wing, not a brigade. Mike, My final word. The K/D rules and Code Napoleon are not played because they are not playable. Good gaming. Bob Coggins |
donlowry | 23 Jan 2009 9:47 p.m. PST |
>"after a while of his non appearance his superior commander would start to send messengers."< I was speaking (writing) of the "superior commander" in the first place. And, how long "a while of his non-appearance" constitutes a CoS? NedZed: an interesting capsule history! (Although primarily of only the miniatures aspect of the hobby.) And, yes, D&D did grow out of the fantasy appendix in Chainmail. (Unfortunately, I was not smart enough to seize the chance to publish D&D when Gary offered it to me -- or I might be a lot closer to being rich than I am today.) |
donlowry | 23 Jan 2009 9:49 p.m. PST |
Is that an upper level course? |
Martin Rapier | 24 Jan 2009 3:36 a.m. PST |
Yay, we've made it to five pages. |
Connard Sage | 24 Jan 2009 3:41 a.m. PST |
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|