"Variable length bound & George Jeffrey" Topic

Steven wrote:
"Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

Steven, I'm shocked – shocked – to find your posting is going on in here!

And some would say my story is not Very Long & Brokenhearted, but rather Very Long and Boring ;^)

Best regards,

Ned

James is correct about cyclical interest in VLB. I think it has something to do with the Vulcan mating season, or locusts, or something similar.

"If however commander sees a large enemy formation threatening his command, but his superior doesn't see it, can he give a COS to his superior by sending a request for assistance?"

Yes. Sending a request for assistance is a valid response to such a threat. Although it doesn't become a COS for the superior until he actually receives it.

For a COS where an:
"Enemy forces create a new threat to a force under your command."

A commander can make one of the following responses:
"- At Brigade, take defensive action, e.g. halt, change formation, open fire etc. NOTE: Brigade commanders are not permitted to withdraw without orders from division. They may only act in self-defence in their present position.
- At Division or above, write new orders.
- Send a message to your immediate superior.
- Move your commander figure."
(D&K rules, p6 – see, I got them round the right way this time!)

So, brigade commanders can never withdraw without orders? That seems to be too rigid as it was not unknown for junior commanders to do exactly that when they judged it appropriate.

I suspect that one of the problems here is that some of the proponents of VBL rules seem to want to defend every aspect of a particular set of rules, rather than looking at the merits of VBL as a concept and how they could be aligned with smoother, better thought out mechanisms.

"So, brigade commanders can never withdraw without orders? That seems to be too rigid as it was not unknown for junior commanders to do exactly that when they judged it appropriate."

In the D&K rules, that is correct. Maybe it is too rigid (remember these rules were written over 20 years ago) and as several people have said, things have moved on in game design since then. If you have a different view then this is easily fixed with a house rule. (Just deleting the NOTE would probably be sufficient, since withdrawing seems like it should be a valid action in self defence.)

Remember that D&K is only one IMPLEMENTATION of the VLB CONCEPT. Changing details like this does not invalidate the concept.

This thread may run more pages than the actual rules.

"This thread may run more pages than the actual rules."

Which rules?

What rules?

Who rules?

Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules!

>"Brigade commanders are not permitted to withdraw without orders from division."<

What if the brigade commander and the division commander are the same player?

Don, Schizophrenia is required.

If events should be resolved at the highest possible level, why not just compare the two armies, the terrain and the plan, declare a victor, calculate the casualties and go down the pub. No more wasting tome pushing figures around a table!

Don wrote:
"What if the brigade commander and the division commander are the same player?"

Hi Don,

That is OK – it just means that time will have to elapse while a message is sent to the Division cmdr and then for the order to get back to Brigadier. So the point of stopping the player from immediately withdrawing when he wants to and forcing him to incur some delay is still valid. If an enemy is moving at him at say 80 yards a minute, they can be 600 yards away and be able to reach the 100 yard tac engagement range in 5 minutes to fight the brigade (cavalry could arrive even faster). So that might be soon enough to prevent that Brigadier from getting away if the Division orders can't get back to him fast enough.

Best regards,

Ned

Colinjallen wrote:
"If events should be resolved at the highest possible level, why not just compare the two armies",
and

"some of the proponents of VBL rules seem to want to defend every aspect of a particular set of rules, rather than looking at the merits of VBL "

Well, if you have your entire army lined up side by side and they could move forward all together at once and engage the entire enemy army at one time, you would be doing that.
Frederick the Great says All Advance!

Also, it has been my experience that it isn't the proponents who try to defend every detail. They are usually the ones who defend the system but say one can change data or details. Usually it is the opponents who call into question different details as being unhistorical, or too rigid, etc etc.
That is why, for example, in an earlier post I tried to delineate between the system, GWJ's choice of definitions for parts of the system, and his interpretation of the Napoleonic battle which someone else might not share. If someone thinks the COS definition list needs to be expanded they can do so without altering the VLB/COS system. If someone thinks the possible reactions to a COS should be expanded or contracted, they can do so. If someone thinks the Combat Results Calculations should be made simpler or more complex, they can do so.

Best regards,

Ned

donlowry 26 Jan 2009 1:00 p.m. PST
Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules!

>"Brigade commanders are not permitted to withdraw without orders from division."<

What if the brigade commander and the division commander are the same player?

Neither of me has a problem with that.

Ned,

Regarding my somewhat daft comment about just comparing the armies etc, my substantive point is that your response could be made at any level of simulation. If we resolve CoS at brigade level, then we are ignoring the details of battalion level or even company level combat. If we resolve at divisional level, we are ignoring another layer of nuances.

As to my "defending" comment, the word "some" was key; I was not including you in that. My substantive point is that, if VLB is going to be made to work (and I am not sure that it can in a hobby sense rather than a professional military simulation sense), then the core concept has to be addressed in isolation and not with the baggage of either the GWJ or the D&K rules, laden down as they are with outdated concepts and false precepts.

Having spent several years trying to get VLB to work in a hobby sense, and having been involved in professional military exercises using VLB type systems, one of the problems that I see with "hobby VLB" is that there is not a common, shared understanding of standard operating procedures and how the organisation works. Wargamers have differing understandings of Napoleonic warfare and command systems, whereas officers trained by a military training system have that common, shared understanding of their environment.

Colin

Colin wrote:,

"My substantive point is… . the core concept has to be addressed in isolation and not with the baggage of either the GWJ or the D&K rule… there is not a common, shared understanding of standard operating procedures and how the organisation works. Wargamers have differing understandings of Napoleonic warfare and command systems, whereas officers trained by a military training system have that common, shared understanding of their environment."

Hi Colin,
I think you are quite right. GWJ had been career military, ending, I think, as a Sgt Major. In some of our discussions he assumed some basic "military" SOP understandings that I and others didn't necessarily have.
Historical knowledge and historical interpretation are two more areas that can differ, as can game design choices.
On top of that simulation and training have their own theory, definitions, and jargon – which can lead to another chasm of understanding.
Whether it is VLB or anything else, one must also have a clearly understood purpose for the design and also know who the intended audience is to be, so one can adjust it to that audience in a way as to be most effective. It is possible that the intended audience for a design is so small that it makes no sense to try to make a commercial or large-scale product.
Sometimes one needs to know what the target audience will "like" or "want" if one INTENDS to design a game specifically to fill that desire.. (It is not wise to tell a hobby audience what they 'need" or "should have", though that is quite acceptable in a training game.) Some "systems" may work for some purposes or audiences and not others.
That it is why it is incumbent upon the designer to clearly explain his purpose and reasons behind his design choices, IF he wants his worked to be judged fairly. If he sets out his goal clearly, others can see if he achieved them or not.
I think this is a reasonable expectation if someone is trying to sell a game – a sort of truth in advertising so the buyer can make an informed purchasing choice.
If the designer doesn't care, or is vague or generic in describing his game, his design is fair game for criticism. ( I didn't say HE is fair game, I said his design is fair game). Of course, if he didn't care enough to explain the game clearly, he may not care about any criticism that comes his way, either! :^)
Best regards,
Ned

Can we make it to 7 pages? Quick,someone post something!

Don,
You just need to wait for the UK people to join in. They are on a different shift than we are.
-Ned

Malc began this entire thread with:

"George Jeffrey and his variable length bound concept was discussed at our club last night. I'd previously never heard of him and was wondering if anyone can direct me to an online resource for his rules, or a bit of info about his idea…"

I imagine the thread has satisfied his curiosity and given him information to share at his club, (more than he probably wanted). If so, people who have VLB questions might be better off avoiding the drama here and just post their questions at the VLB site at: link
That way this thread may be able to end before it hits seven pages.:^)

Ned:
I admire your tenacity! VLB was and is like the X-1. An impressive prototype that broke the sound barrier, but was never made into a military or commercial jet. But it did inspire a whole load of innovations. In our hobby, VLB spawned a number of new game mechanics simply by existing. Folks still might find ways to make it viable as a commercial game.

The Scotsman,

You are dead right, everything starts with an idea or concept, it takes time, effort and a little tenacity to grow that idea or concept into a functioning working model. From that point modifications are made, adjustments tweaked into it and even wholesale modifications but the point is, the idea is there and from it will spawn other ideas which other intelligent minds will run with.

Regards,
Shane

Scotsman,

Quite agree, its not every idea that makes it to commercial success (or even publication)in any field but many have influence on what follows.

Kriegspiel (with which VLB shares a number of concepts) has never sold in bucket loads in the modern era but without it the hobby would not be what it is, or maybe even exist.

(Wait for the H.G.Wells Booster Club to appear)

Oh no! This thread is dying!

clear !…

Zap !!

Hi all ! I'm desperately looking for this rules set:
"Rules for a Large Scale Wargame using Small Scale Figures" by Knight and Dennis (hard cover design ed.) If U are interested to sella copy at any (reasonable) price, PLS contact me at:
avvfranchini@libero.it
Regards,
Francesco
fm Italy