"Wargames Research Group 1685-1845 Rules Question" Topic

Hi

When taking a reaction test for a unit that has both its own brigade general directly controlling it (but not attached) and a more senior general, also in the chain of command, indirectly controlling it, is it up to the player to decide which of the two generals character's (i.e. cautious, bold or rash) to apply for the reaction test (if applicable)? Or does the more senior general automatically override the more junior general?

If it is the later, then what is to stop the player simply moving the more senior general out of control range?

The rules mention that senior generals can override subordinate generals but doesn't clearly state that they must do so when taking a reaction test.

I appreciate that these are very old rules but if anyone can help it would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers Paul

I think it is the brigade commander which is used

Paul,
Page 17, paragraphs Command and Control.
As I read this, the senior commander would have influence over the subordinate, if within the distance given.
During the Seven Years War, general officers were allocated their commands before battle.

To simulate this, characteristics were cast, then depending on the battle plan, that officer would be given command of a wing, centre or reserve.

During the 80's, club members knew the rules well enough that only the Quick Reference Sheet was needed, yet, certain battles needed a weekend to resolve.
Those were the days.

Hi

Many thanks.

If the 'senior' commander's character is the one to use the problem that I have is say the senior general is 'cautious' and the brigade commander 'bold' and for examples sake the unit wants to declare a charge then that would be more difficult for the unit to pass the appropriate reaction test. However, I cannot see anything in the rules to stop the player simply moving the senior 'cautious' commander to a position out of the way where he would not be allowed to influence the reaction test anyway. Is that correct? Simply moving a senior general out of the way beacause his character isn't so good, seems odd and a bit 'gamey' to me.

I'm particularly thinking of Sackville at Minden here…

Cheers Paul

This is really sending me back to my youth, but here is my interpretation. I used to use this often as a standard tactic, but did require me to ensure my generals were carefully placed. It was more viable for counter-charges, as when routing it was difficult to ensure two generals could influence the unit.

Units are said to be under the command of a general whether he commands them directly, as would be the case if they belong to his brigade, or indirectly, as would be the case if he commanded a division or corps of several brigades of which their own was one, or was the commander-in-chief.
A general directly commanding a unit is also in control of it if it is visible to him and within 300 paces.
A general commanding a unit indirectly is in control of it if it is visible to him and he is within 600 paces of a general who would otherwise control it, or if he himself has joined it and is accompanying it.

1. Command and control are implied to be identical, thus a unit can be "controlled" by either a direct general, or an indirect general. Note the special conditions associated with control when controlled indirectly, must also be with 600 paces of the direct commanding general as well as able to see the unit. Its assumed his influence is flowing through the line of command to the unit.

2. It is possible for a unit to be controlled by two generals and the player chooses whichever general is exerting control in the case of reaction tests.
The reaction impacts are as follows;

TESTING TO RALLY FROM PURSUIT:
1 If currently under control of a rash general or of none.
-1 If currently under the control of a cautious general.

TESTING TO CHARGE OR COUNTER-CHARGE ENEMY NOT CHARGING THE TESTERS
1 If currently under the control of a cautious general or of none

TESTING FOR FIRST MEETING WITH OPPOSITION
-1 If currently under the control of a bold general.

In these cases the owning player can choose whichever general they wish, thus maximising a favourable reaction test.

IN these cases there is a 2nd qualifier which negates the ability of the indirectly commanding general to influence the unit.
1 If accompanied in rout by a cautious general.
-1 If currently under the control of a rash general who is also accompanying the unit.

Hi

Many thanks for the detailed reply above. Makes sense but pitty the rules themselves couldn't have been a bit clearer in the first place.

Cheers Paul

As pfmodel said, this is giving me flashbacks to the 7o's & 8o's when my group played a lot of WRG games & spent much time interpreting (& disputing) the rules.

flashbacks to the 7o's & 8o's

I agree. In the end I had to scan the rules and created an examples version using a case system and with extensive cross referencing and interpretations in red. In some cases I had to create an examples document which graphically showed how things worked. This did speed up play a great deal and the biggest issue with the old WRG rules was how long some game turns took, especially when players were unsure of the rules.

Its not only WRG that had this issue, my biggest effort was for the old Corps Commander rules. In that case it was dealing with a very complex game system and a complex situation. Napoleonic's is a lot simpler than modern combat.

I did do a video on the Napoleonic's rules, but it never got into the weeds concerning the rules.
youtu.be/OGZy-S9PcW8

If you create a good scenario and both players know the rules you can get some good games from these rules, as long as you use a large playing area and keep the force mixes historical. Too much artillery and the game falls apart. The 1st stage of Marengo is a good battle to try and reproduce.
youtu.be/itfMiR6govU

There is a groups.io discussion group for these rules. Limited activity since migrating from Yahoo, but does include copies of quick reference sheets, original rule set and army lists.

groups.io/g/WRG1685to1845

We had a lot of fun playing the Wargames Research Group 1685-1845 rules. However, we still missed odd bits after years and had to retrace our steps in the period sequence. It became frustrating and tedious so we sought other rules.

King of the Battlefield was written to enable our large collections of Eighteenth Century armies to return to the table in ever increasing numbers.

KotB is fun. I'm not the only TMPer to recommend them ;-)

@Cavcmdr
You are right about the WRG move sequence: it is the key to the game system.
The actual move sequence is as follows:
1 React for first opposition.
2 React to being charged.
3 React to start a charge or countercharge unit not charging the tester.
4 Move own countercharging and evading units and make emergency formation changes.
5 Move own units initial routs due to shooting hits, or losing melee, in last move (opponents) and those units who routed against charges this move (see section 20).
6 Move opponents pursuing units.
7 Test to rally from continued rout.
8 Opponent tests to feint charge.
9 Move opposing units still charging into contact or limit of their move forward.
10 Attempt to rally own pursuers.
11 Move own pursuers to maintain contact. Position those who have just rallied.
12 Shoot at targets presented at any time during opponents last move.
13 Test own units under friendly fire and opponent tests for shooting hits.
14 Opponent reacts to charge home.
15 Position repulsed units.
16 Resolve hand to hand combats and test losers reaction.
17 Position repulsed cavalry and cavalry who have elected to pass through opponents. Elements caught in flank or rear who have reacted to continue melee, turn to face attackers unless already engaged to their front.
18 Make own initial charge and rally moves justified by earlier reaction tests.
19 Make own initial rout moves for units breaking after hand to hand combat or from friendly fire this move.
20 Make own continued rout moves for units breaking after shooting hits last move, or after losing hand to hand combat last move. Initial rout may have been earlier in this move but not (19) above.
21 Mark the path taken by friendly routers as only other friendly routers may pass through it. Others must halt or go around.
22 Make own moves forced by earlier reactions to First Opposition or as a result of shooting hits, e.g. "Retire".
23 Make all normal moves – evading detachments who did not reach their parent body must do so now. If two players on the same side dispute who gets to a point first, priority goes to the faster moving unit.
24 Dice for own General ridden over after failing to halt routing cavalry.

Hi Cavcmdr

Can you let me know how I can get hold of a copy of 'King of the Battlefield rules?

Many thanks

Cheers Paul

If you are interested in other rules this video provided a brief overview of rules which are of the same scale as WRG. However it does not cover King of the Battlefield.

There are some free sets of rules, while I have never tried them Vom Kriege looks interesting and this can be downloaded from the internet.

youtu.be/DXJDR6p7E_A

@ Allan F

Those were the days – fast-play sheets with 24 turn events. I'm surprised anyone ever finished a battle.

@4th
Typical 1970's rules.
Having said that, I've never come across a ruleset that could handle 30+ units a side in less than one hour per turn.

Two minutes per unit's turn would indeed be speedy.

If you found a proxy for rule complexity, and plotted it as a time series based on the average complexity of new rules released each year, I think you'd get a sine wave.

Well, in Napoleonics, anyway. IIRC Operation Warboard and Tractics came out within a few years of each and could not have been a lot more different.

Hi

Having just re-read the WRG 1685-1845 rules I did feel a lot of nostalgia and there did seem a lot of logic to how the rules work, particularly the reaction tests. I do feel that we have lost something in the quest to play games in a shorter (and shorter) amount of time.

Cheers Paul

@4th

If you found a proxy for rule complexity, and plotted it as a time series based on the average complexity of new rules released each year, I think you'd get a sine wave.

I would vote that as 'Profound gaming statement of the year 2022' if the Editor had set up a poll.

@TangoOneThreeAlpha
The sequence is particularly impressive when you read it in conjunction with the unit move rates, specifically the initial and final charge distances.

There are some gaming ratios which seem to apply to most rules, ranging from modern to ancient. If each player has, on average, 48 combat units (these can be single elements or units made up of elements, but each unit is the basic manoeuvre and combat unit of the game) 8 game-turns takes 3 hours to play, not including packup and setup time. There is a lot of variability but when both players know the rules very well, such as in a competition situation, it generally falls into this range. The issue with many rules is it takes a long time to learn the rules.

When I use to play WRG comp's we could spin through a game turn rapidly because both players knew what was worth moving and what was not worth moving. The biggest time drain was the reaction tests, but I must admit I memorised most of them after many games and even these were not an issue. I suspect that is how DBMM players manage to complete a game rapidly, as I am not an expect it always takes me long time to have one game-turn.

I did enjoy WRG Napoleonic's, once I realised you needed historical force mixes and a reasonable scenario, but I must admit I have moved on to full battles these days so while I get tempted to bring out the old rules, the scale always causes me to not bother.