The Manchurian War

Del To (Part Two)

Tenet 2:The rules place the players at their echelon of command. This is a critical part of a successful rule set; the players make decisions that are appropriate to the level of command in the battle. E.g., if the players are at the corps level, they are not deciding whether to fire canister or ball, whether to employ skirmishers, etc., these are all battalion and regimental decisions. Their use should be built into the unit model to reflect the historical standard. E.g. Artillery will automatically fire canister at close range and the firing chart is designed to reflect its use. 

Miniature rules can’t escape players making some decisions below their echelon of command. Unit formations, movement, charges, etc. all need to happen for the game to work. These decisions should be universal for the level that the units are depicted on the table. Selecting a formation for a brigade should not require positioning every individual sub-unit but should be done as a single act of the brigade. Many rules use similar formations: line, reinforced line/depth, march column, sometimes skirmish. The movement, firing, and combat charts should automatically reflect the strengths and weaknesses of each of these formations including the use of second and/or third lines, counterattacks, reserves, etc.

Tenet 3. Subordinate units should execute decisions to standard. If a unit is ordered to march forward, then it should march forward the total distance the time scale and army standards dictate. Here one can throw a little stochastic into the mix with the chance that the unit will perform less than standard. After all, s**t can happen. However that chance should be linked to an observable reason for a less than standard performance. Often proximity to the enemy is used. While the rules might not have an explicit enemy effect on the unit, one can rationalize that the smoke, noise, uncertainty, etc. in the heat of battle play a role in whether a unit executes its orders to standard. Any rules that trigger a unit’s failure to execute its orders to standard without a distinct triggering mechanism is, at its heart, random and should be avoided. Random uncertainty for the sake of random uncertainty doesn’t model anything in the real world.   

Tenet 4. Every problem should have a solution. Commanders make decisions to solve problems. The first problem commanders/players attempt to solve is developing a plan to defeat the enemy. After that, commanders make decisions anytime either: the plan itself is incapable of creating success (i.e. not weighting the decisive act enough so it could win the battle); the enemy doesn’t something unexpected that upsets the plan; friendly units don’t execute to standard. If any of these things happen, then players must decide how to adjust to counter these problems, 

If the scenario has an unfordable/impassable river, then the scenario needs to have bridges/pontoon bridges so the problem can be solved. A badly outnumbered army should have defensible terrain/fortifications or the larger army has their strength build-up over time. Both sides must have the opportunity to win. 

What about historical battles that are unbalanced and one side really can’t win? There are two solutions to this challenge. 

The first is that the victory conditions are designed so the historical loser can achieve a degree of success without ‘winning’ the battle. These often are locations to be held after a certain length of time. The problem with this approach is now the two sides are fighting to achieve something that historically didn’t mean anything. They employ their forces in ways that wouldn’t have been historically used. Often it is the preservation of the army that is sacrificed (the throw everything at the last objective to win effect). I tend to dislike this approach.

Better is the second, changing the initial conditions. Most often this is allowing the players to pick their units starting locations/deployment (IBWs, Free Deployment). This actually places the player fully into the role of the commander as the player now decides on a plan and array’s his forces to execute that plan. The player isn’t trapped by the historical commander’s poor decisions. I actually like this for all my battles.

A problem with free deployment is that players truly need to develop their plan/deployment before the game day. If they don’t, much game time is lost while both sides try to design a plan, then place their forces on the table. 

A second way to change the initial conditions is the use of optional forces. This is usually offered as a variation to historical battles in many scenarios. The optional forces need to be historically plausible, so this not always an available mechanism.

Tenet 5. Time scale that allows situations to manifest such that players can make appropriate/timely decisions. A corps-level game that can be played in two-hours is not going to reflect an actual large scale battle. To work within that time constraint, the decisions and adjudications are going to be so coarse that luck will dominate the outcome. I want rules that create the opportunity for decision as situations develop so players can act instead of react. To see a dangerous situation developing rather than dealing with its effects after it happens. 

This requires a Turn time and ground scale which allows situations to manifest realistically yet provide opportunity for decision. Hourly turns often work the best, with a suitable ground scale based on historic movement distances and available table size. 

Tenet 6. The defender/non-moving player has reaction options. Simultaneous movement/adjudication is difficult (if not impossible) to execute on the wargame table. I Go, You Go (IG/YO) is the norm. A defender just won’t stand motionless and do nothing as bad things begin to happen. Three common reaction rules are allowing a countercharge when charged, defensive fire, and evade. Less common are logical formation changes to react to flank attacks or square. These need to be based on the historical record and whether the defender’s formation/training would allow such reactions. 

(To be Continued)