Old Trousers: Rules for Warfare in the Horse & Musket Era | home
The Author
A FEW REMARKS REGARDING WARGAME DESIGN, posted to the VLB discussion group in 8/2001
The real word has kept me from more important pursuits such as contributing to the VLB discussion group. I have, however, been able to occasionally enjoy the debate between the designer of Picquet, Mr. Jones, & other members of this forum. It would appear to be a debate between the Bottom Upper's & the Top Downer's.
The Bottom Upper's strive to know all of the details that occurred on the battlefield. This means learning about march rates, casualty rates, the details of formation changes, weapons performance, & a legion of other things. These details are then used to construct a rule system that limits troops to accomplishing what they could accomplish historically. They can only march so fast, shoot so far, & messengers can only gallop so fast with their vital orders. Players will then hopefully be placed in the same position as the commanders that they are trying to model. The decisions that they make will be limited by the restrictions as to what their troops can accomplish. The studies of Paddy Griffth, Brent Nosworthy, & George Nafziger are the holy relics of this school, a school to which most contributors to this forum would appear to belong.
The Top Downer's find the Bottom Upper's to be an amusing but harmless bunch. Harmless because they are locked away with obscure texts performing obtuse calculations with protractors, rulers, stop watches, & other impediments. Their findings are of no importance to the Top Downers. To them the limiting thing for commanders on the battlefield was not how fast the troops could march or how far they could shoot, but rather it was the confusion & unpredictability of the battlefield. It is unimportant how fast you can march if you don't know where to go & when to leave! So the Top Downer's just come up with movement rates that work well on the table top & game mechanics that are easy & get the job done. Who cares about a statistical analysis just so long as it does not distract from the matter of importance. As to the matter of importance, what they care about is recreating the confusion & randomness that existed on the battlefield. The rest just needs to be something that works in a gaming sense as no other sense is achievable or matters anyway. This is because the thing that limited the commanders ability to control the situation was not the physical limitations of the troops & tactical doctrine, but rather it was the entropy of the battlefield.
If this were art the Bottom Upper's would be drawing perfect little cherubs in the most realistic sky & clouds that Leonardo Da Vinci could've ever produced. The Top Downer's would be polishing off a bottle of Bourbon & dribbling paint onto a canvas ala Jackson Pollack. I think that like art, the beauty of wargaming is in the eye of the beholder.
NOW A FEW WORDS REGARDING MYSELF
I have been wargaming since 1981. Old Trouser: Rules for Warfare in the Horse and Musket Era represents a distillation of many of the things which I have liked. No doubt at least some ideas in the rules are original, but I couldn't really tell you what they might be. I have read so many rule sets that it is possible that everything I have read has leaked out of my subconscious & found its way into the rules. In any event thanks to all of my fellow wargamers for any ideas which I might have used.
I started out in Napoleonics playing Empire III & I have followed the development of the Empire system as the years have gone by. I never play Empire any more as I have found it to be much too slow for my tastes. I must say that I have found the same to be true of Valmy to Waterloo. Both are fine sets of rules, they just play too slow for me. Many miniature rule sets, while historically accurate, are so replete with special cases, calculations, & pages of charts that the fun of playing is soon lost. A turn representing 30 minutes may take an hour to play & any battle larger than 1 or 2 divisions per side can take a whole weekend to play out. Front lines move like molasses with the players wearing down faster than the troops. Eventually as fatigue (& darkness) sets in both sides agree to decide on a likely outcome even though the battle may be less than half finished.
Old Trouser: Rules for Warfare in the Horse and Musket Era is a battalion level rule set. Personally I have not enjoyed playing any of the brigade level sets that are now on the market or that are available free. The idea of an entire infantry brigade forming square still gives me nightmares. Brigade level sets have either suffered from a confusion of scale (the brigades simply act like battalions) or have played too much like a simple boardgame for my tastes.
While Old Trouser: Rules for Warfare in the Horse and Musket Era has more in common with "attritional rule sets" than it does with Piquet, a rather radical new approach to gaming, it hopefully avoids some of the greatest pitfalls of slow moving attritional rules. In version 2.0 melee has been made more decisive. This represents a significant change from version 1.0 which was published in MWAN #111. Every effort has been made to make the game move along in a timely fashion.
The command system is similar to the command system in DBM, though there are differences. A chart rather than spots on dice is used to determine the number of orders available. Units need not be touching to share an order, but they must all be within the command range of their commander to share an order. A calculator is not needed as fire points are used (thank you Fire & Fury.) Melee involves competitive modified die rolls (thanks to Les Mansers unpublished rules.)
So help yourself to the rules, charts, & army lists. Army lists will never satisfy everyone if they ever even satisfy anyone. I did read extensively & studied the listings in numerous other rule sets. If anything the troop ratings might be faulted for being too conventional. Thanks to Frank Chadwick for his ideas regarding the "heaviness" of British cavalry. Any feedback is most welcome.
John P Kelly
|