I have tried various rules but never been entirely happy with the result, so I am going to have a go at writing my own. I wrote some in the 70s but resources were not as good as they are now.
My plan is to put ideas for each element of the rules on paper and would be interested to know if any member with interest in the WSS would like to review my ideas and offer opinions, criticisms and their own ideas.
The first stage will be game scale.
Chad
I would be happy to help but I should say I also have various WSS rules on the go - basically for different sizes of battles.
Which rules did you do in the 70's?
If I recall it they were called 'Warfare in the Age of Marlborough' published under the name of Drillbook Publications. Don't think many copies were sold though.
Chad
Ah I think I have/had these, although whether I still do or where they are in my mountain of written stuff is another matter. If I am right I think they were from an online site -
Drillbook Publications
1) The Age of Marlborough — European Warfare 1700-1720. Distributed by Micro-Mold c.1975.
I am afraid I don't actually remember playing them though :( I suspect because I doubt I actually had a Marlburian army at that time, just the interest in the period.
Like you I found existing rules unsatisfactory, mainly because they are based on out dated ideas of the period/the authors have no idea about the period. But as you say there is now a lot more information out there and coming out over the next few years. So I set out to do sets to reflect the new ideas beginning to emerge.
In any case I am happy to help if I can. What kind of scale of game are you going to be aiming at? I mean here roughly how many real men will a battle represent?
Interesting Chad, I have a good interest in the WSS and have a few rulesets myself, been busy building armies and not really playing games!
I am certainly interested, have both armies for Blenheim based for V&B, on a one base equals two battalions ratio. Happy to help, if I can.
Mollinary
Hwiccee
Scale
Not sure yet, but my basic idea is a set of rules that can be played to completion in 3-4 hours on a 6x4 table. I have always been lucky in having available a large table that can be left set-up, but I think the majority of gamers meet once per week at best and need to finish it in that time frame. Having said that I don't see any reason why they could not incorporate options for similar gaming conditions I have enjoyed.
My initial intentions are to calculate the frontage of some of the battlefields for which I have scaled maps and work back from there. On that point I only have scaled maps for Marlborough's battles.
I am at the moment merely making notes as ideas pop into my head. I am also looking at game mechanics from other rules that may be useful so that I do not have to entirely reinvent the wheel. As I indicated at the start I will simply present my thoughts and ideas for comment, etc. and go from there.
I am no expert and while I do have many books, they are all secondary sources in English, so not sure if this will be sufficient. I am interested in capturing something of the feel of the period rather than any claim to simulation or strict accuracy, after all enjoyment of the game is the thing.
Chad
Jambo/Mollinary
Thanks. The V&B basing is interesting.
Chad
Hi Chad,
I chose that scale when V&B were experimenting with different scales prior to releasing "The Road to Glory" rules. Much of the painting was done when I was down in Sarajevo, but the whole lot have only seen a table once in twenty years! Ramillies is a great battle to start with, if only from the colour point of view - a large part of the "French" army is Swiss, German, Bavarian, Cologne, Spanish, Italiian, Irish, so it is a real colour fest. Also the two armies are pretty closely matched.
Mollinary
Quote from: Chad on 18 August 2015, 06:44:37 PM
Hwiccee
Scale
Not sure yet, but my basic idea is a set of rules that can be played to completion in 3-4 hours on a 6x4 table. I have always been lucky in having available a large table that can be left set-up, but I think the majority of gamers meet once per week at best and need to finish it in that time frame. Having said that I don't see any reason why they could not incorporate options for similar gaming conditions I have enjoyed.
My initial intentions are to calculate the frontage of some of the battlefields for which I have scaled maps and work back from there. On that point I only have scaled maps for Marlborough's battles.
OK yes I agree most people play a 3-4 hour battle on a 6 by 4 table. I was asking what scale of battle you were expecting to play on this - i.e. a major battle like Blenheim or a small action like one or two brigades per side. I take it from the above that you are aiming to do large battles like the big 4?
Assuming you are then you will be looking at units being something like a brigade. In the rules I did for these kinds of battles it would be units representing about 2000 infantry/1000 cavalry with an on table frontage of 8 cm per unit. Obvious you can jiggle that a bit but that kind of scale will allow Blenheim, Ramillies and Oudernaarde to be done on 6 by 4 (Malplaquet might need a bit more as I haven't done that yet).
But I would also bear in mind that most of the other battles in the war are a lot smaller than the big 4 battles.
Quote from: Chad on 18 August 2015, 06:44:37 PM
I am at the moment merely making notes as ideas pop into my head. I am also looking at game mechanics from other rules that may be useful so that I do not have to entirely reinvent the wheel. As I indicated at the start I will simply present my thoughts and ideas for comment, etc. and go from there.
Sounds like a plan.
Quote from: Chad on 18 August 2015, 06:44:37 PM
I am no expert and while I do have many books, they are all secondary sources in English, so not sure if this will be sufficient. I am interested in capturing something of the feel of the period rather than any claim to simulation or strict accuracy, after all enjoyment of the game is the thing.
Chad
On the sources I have lots of material on the period/war, including lots of obscure English stuff and non English stuff. Unfortunately most of it tends to show the usual English sorces are totally wrong - so you might have to choose between reality and 'what every one knows'.
I agree on the enjoyment of the game being the thing but for me that means it has to be something like the period and unfortunately ones I have come across are not.
In any case I will help if I can.
If wargamers want to recreate any of the big battles, then I would probably agree that brigade bases is one way to go. The difficulty I sometimes have is what do these bases look like on the table. The period is essentially linear and if you lose that appearance on the table, then personally feel the game has lost something. For example, 2 square bases to represent a brigade in the SYW simply does not ring my bell!
There is also the question of whether wargamers want to re-create actual battles or simply play a game that has the feel of a battle during this war. I would like to try and achieve both.
One option for recreation would be the half size battle. I think Blenheim has a 4 mile frontage, so you would recreate it on the table on a scaled 2 mile frontage. You would have the same terrain, the same mix of units, but half the number of units. I have not done any work on this, but it would perhaps bring figure scale and basing down to a more manageable level and achieve the appearance I look for.
Another option is to game segments of the battles. Again this would give more flexibility for basing and figure scale. Hopefully either or both these options would also permit just a game for the period without it being a re-creation.
Re your final comment on sources. This is just what I was hoping would happen by putting this out there and is why I would be grateful for any help and constructive criticism of my ideas.
As a final note, my present thinking towards Command and Control is 'old school'. No command radii, but figures as ADCs having to be moved to transmit orders.
Look forward to further input.
Many thanks
Chad
Quote from: Chad on 19 August 2015, 08:25:41 AM
If wargamers want to recreate any of the big battles, then I would probably agree that brigade bases is one way to go. The difficulty I sometimes have is what do these bases look like on the table. The period is essentially linear and if you lose that appearance on the table, then personally feel the game has lost something. For example, 2 square bases to represent a brigade in the SYW simply does not ring my bell!
I agree on square bases, I think you have to be linear for this period (the WSS) although not necessarily for the SYW. The two eras are quite different in many ways including this.
Quote from: Chad on 19 August 2015, 08:25:41 AM
There is also the question of whether wargamers want to re-create actual battles or simply play a game that has the feel of a battle during this war. I would like to try and achieve both.
I would say I wouldn't see the 2 as different things as such but I am assuming that you mean a historical re-fight or a pick up game.
Clearly some people will want to do re-fights and others just 'pick up' games, while others will want both. Personally I think re-fights are easier as you don't need army lists, point system or similar, terrain generation systems and all the distortions these bring.
But I guess that how you want to go depends on what you are aiming at? What I mean is this for your personal use or for some kind of commercial or widely available set.
Quote from: Chad on 19 August 2015, 08:25:41 AM
One option for recreation would be the half size battle. I think Blenheim has a 4 mile frontage, so you would recreate it on the table on a scaled 2 mile frontage. You would have the same terrain, the same mix of units, but half the number of units. I have not done any work on this, but it would perhaps bring figure scale and basing down to a more manageable level and achieve the appearance I look for.
Scaling down can work but also brings problems - it depends a lot on how exactly you are thinking of doing it. I am not sure what you mean by "bring figure scale and basing down to a more manageable level" so it is difficult to comment further. So I think the best is to just give some info on which might help.
Blenheim is about 40 brigades of the size I mentioned per side and not counting artillery, it obviously depends a little on various factors. The big four battles get progressively larger and the Confederates have circa 80+ brigades at the last, Malplaquet. But remember that the armies always fought in at least 2 lines and for these big battles usually more. For example the front lines are around 15 brigades long at Blenheim.
In contrast most other battles, using the same kind of scale, are 20 brigades or less. For example the largest battles in Spain (Almansa and Almenar) top out at 17 brigades.
Quote from: Chad on 19 August 2015, 08:25:41 AM
Another option is to game segments of the battles. Again this would give more flexibility for basing and figure scale. Hopefully either or both these options would also permit just a game for the period without it being a re-creation.
This would certainly work but it is fundamentally the same as doing the full battle in a way, from the point of view of historical action or 'pick up'. I would guess for this you would have the battalion/a few squadrons or the regiment (2 battalions)/ 4 or so squadrons as a unit.
Quote from: Chad on 19 August 2015, 08:25:41 AM
As a final note, my present thinking towards Command and Control is 'old school'. No command radii, but figures as ADCs having to be moved to transmit orders.
Personally I don't think it matters how the C & C is done, just that it works something like it did historically.
All the best,
Nick
Nick
Thanks.
I will give it some more thought for a few days and try to get a clearer view of what I am trying to achieve.
Best
Pete
Nick
Have been thinking about your brigade base. Can I ask a few questions?
1. What ground scale does that represent?
2. Given that brigades can range from 2-6 battalions, am I correct in assuming this is a game mechanism rather than representation of actual brigades?
3. What depth is the base?
I am thinking that by using a sabot, it could be possible to achieve both a small scale pick-up game with the option to scale up to a larger re-play of an actual battle.
Will try and put my ideas on Command and Control in writing over the weekend.
Best
Pete
Hi Pete,
First I should say I was just using the brigade base idea as this is convenient for me as this is what I used in my large battle rules. I am working on these for publication later in the year and I have scenarios for this sitting here, etc. So it is easy and convenient for me to use when helping you.
In these rules I use the idea of everything being measured in base widths (BW's). Infantry/cavalry units are 2 bases. The movement distances, firing ranges, etc are all in terms of BW and the player decides what the BW will be for there game - i.e. how they have based there figures.
Quote from: Chad on 21 August 2015, 11:15:31 AM
Nick
Have been thinking about your brigade base. Can I ask a few questions?
1. What ground scale does that represent?
A base width is 300 metres so a brigade is about 600 metres.
I actually use 6cm (so a brigade is 12cm frontage) as my BW as I am not restricted to just a 6 foot table - so Blenheim needs an 8 foot table, Ramillies 9 foot. I suggested 4 cm (8 cm brigade frontage) as this should allow you to do Blenheim/Ramilles on a 6 foot table. So in that scale 4 cm = 300 metres - 1 cm = 75 m.
Quote from: Chad on 21 August 2015, 11:15:31 AM
2. Given that brigades can range from 2-6 battalions, am I correct in assuming this is a game mechanism rather than representation of actual brigades?
Oh yes this is a game mechanism. There was no standardization on numbers of battalions per brigade (you get even more than 6 sometimes) nor of the size of the battalions within a brigade. As I think I mentioned a base is usually (you can have some other sizes) 2000 infantry/ 1000 cavalry in my rules but again I only used that as it was easy for me to do & you could pick any number. In any the number of battalions/squadrons represented varies depending on the size of the battalions. So for example British battalions were usually something like 600 men in the field in Marlborough's army. But in Spain/Portugal they were lucky to have 400 men and 10 British battalions might be 3 'brigades' in Flanders but only 2 in Spain.
Quote from: Chad on 21 August 2015, 11:15:31 AM
3. What depth is the base?
Again I use the idea of base widths here but base depth is not that important so you can be flexible. So I use a base depth of half whatever you use for the base width. So if you go with the suggestion I made the depth would be 2cm, so a brigade would be 8cm by 2cm. But you could go with any depth, the frontage is the important bit.
Quote from: Chad on 21 August 2015, 11:15:31 AM
I am thinking that by using a sabot, it could be possible to achieve both a small scale pick-up game with the option to scale up to a larger re-play of an actual battle.
Yes this is a good idea. As mentioned I use 6cm base width (2 per brigade). This was so I could use the same bases as 1 base = 1 battalion for another set of rules. I have a single base with 12 infantry/6 cavalry on but I think I made a mistake here. Other members of my gaming group used the idea you mention (we didn't find sabot bases necessary). They used bases of 2cm frontage but in 'units' of 3 bases. So basically you use 6 of these for the large battles game and 3 for the other game I mention - they also used more figures per unit which is also better in my view. This works well and when I get round to it I will re-base my stuff like that.
Quote from: Chad on 21 August 2015, 11:15:31 AM
Will try and put my ideas on Command and Control in writing over the weekend.
OK I look forward to it :)
Nick
Just a thought on "big bases" where they're reflecting a brigade or at least a larger accumulation of various sub units - the actual base may be square but that doesn't mean the figures mounted have to be - if said base represents a number of battalions drawn up in line it may also represent the DEPTH of them too.
So not to imagine them as base = four battalions in line abreast, but possibly it's four battalions in two up, two back (or chequerboard, or one front in line and three behind in column or whatever the period & doctine suggests!).
One thing that's hard to do visually and in ground scale on the table is depth - even a four rank deep line is what, about six yards deep? Or in 1cm = 75 m about 1mm deep? Very hard to do... Accepting some abstraction there means either weirdly deep (in real world ground scale) lines, or possibly using the "brigade base" to model multiple lines of units in one, or assuming it's a "space for manouvre" or accepts the rear area and supply wagons etc etc.
I agree that would be possible. Assuming 300 paces between lines and a pace at 30 inches, this would give a base depth of roughly 30mm. So two ranks of single figures would look quite good. The only problem would appear to be that if you want a dual scale basing method, i don't think it would work for a small scale pick-up game where the unit as based represents a battalion. Having said that, if the small scale bases were say 15mm deep, then placing one battalion immediately behind the other on a 30mm deep sabot you could probably achieve the brigade effect.
Chad
This looks interesting. Publication date 15 September.
http://www.helion.co.uk/new-and-forthcoming-titles/early-modern-systems-of-command-queen-anne-s-generals-staff-officers-and-the-direction-of-allied-warfare-in-the-low-countries-and-germany-1702-1711.html?___SID=U
Hi
We went through a similar discussion when doing our rules for WSS. Wanted to resolve battles of 6-8ft table in 3-4 hours before returning to a campaign system. We wanted to use descriptions we found in the histories: threw in 10 battalions, committed 30 squadrons etc so we used 1 base = 1 battalion or a couple of squadrons and emphasised the importance of reserve lines and committing of them to the fray. We mulled over brigades but they were to adhoc and in battle it broke down into committing handfuls of units rather than discreet brigades
See attached link for pictures of a few games we did at SELWG few years back
http://s1213.photobucket.com/user/BernardGanley/slideshow/Malbrough%20Wargame%20Rules%20for%20the%20Spanish%20Succession/SELWG%20War%20of%20the%20Spanish%20Succession
As we did not want clutter the units defined quality: no flag on base = poor, flag on base = average, flag on base and a separate officer base = good
On the idea of using 'brigades' of 2 lines of say 2 battalions the main problem is this is not what was done at the time, or at least generally.
'Brigades' usually formed as a single line of battalions and then what you might later call a 'division', a group of brigades was a line of 'brigades. So if say you had 32 battalions in 8 'brigades' and 2 'divisions'. You would have thought it would make sense to have the end 4, 2 from each line as the 1st brigade, next 4 (2+2) as the next brigade, etc. Withe the 4 'brigade' on the left as one 'division' and the right ones as the other. But what they actually was the first 4 battalions in the front line would be the 1st brigade, next 4 in the front the next line, etc. All 16 battalions/4 'brigades' in the front line would be 1 'division', the ones in the back line would be the other 'division'. They did sometimes use a 'brigade' in 2 lines but this was very much an exception and usually because of some kind of special circumstance. For example at Blenheim one real brigade (of 5 battalions) deployed and fought in 2 lines of 3 +2 battalions, all the others were in a single line. But this group was supposed to be in a single line as was normal but when it got to its place in the line it discovered some marshy ground and so switched to double line.
This by itself doesn't rule out using a double line on the table but you then have other problems of various types. These vary depending on your view but one that perhaps illustrates a basic problem is the number/composition of lines used and the way they were used. I said previously they always used 2 lines but they were not necessarily 2 lines of the same type. Also they often used more than 2 lines and not an even number of them.
So if you look at the Confederates at Blenheim you will see that in the various sectors of the battlefield you had varying numbers and types of lines. So from left to right you have 6 lines (4 infantry and the 2 cavalry), 4 lines (1st Infantry, then 2 of cavalry and the last infantry), 3 lines (all cavalry) and finally 2 lines (all infantry). Clearly some of the sectors will be easy to do with the double line brigades idea but others are going to be difficult.
The second problem is with the way the armies fought - I am afraid here I don't agree with Bernie and the brigade, the real brigade, and the lines that were made up of these were an important component of the way the armies fought. The best way to explain this to look at the second sector at Blenheim - 4 lines of mixed infantry/cavalry. What these did was the 1st line of infantry crossed a stream and secured the other side. The 2nd and 3rd lines of cavalry then crossed, passed through the infantry, fought and got driven back repeatedly.Sometimes as individual lines, sometimes together and with the original 1st line infantry as a 'back stop' to the action. So effectively the ordering of these lines were changed often in the battle as different lines moved forward or pulled back, etc. This was 'shuffling' of the lines was common and often meant that half of the proposed double line units were nowhere near the other half after the start of the battle.
So I wouldn't say that double lines of battalions on a base is impossible for this period, especially if you don't mind a bit of a fudge, but it might cause more problems than it is worth.
Nick
Thanks for your notes. They were very useful and clearly my impression of a brigade in double lines on deployment was incorrect. On the matter of the battalions in a brigades forming a single line supported by another brigade, I have a few questions:
1. I have read of intervals between the battalions in line, but do not know how big an interval there would be and whether or not that interval would be some form of standard width.
2. My understanding of the 2nd line of brigades is that they were to support the 1st line. They would maintain a standard distance behind the first brigade (300 paces?) and in the event of the 1st line brigade being forced to retire would allow passage of the 1st brigade through the intervals and assume the position of the 1st line brigade while the latter was reformed.
3. Does the same role apply to 2nd line cavalry brigades as well?
4. What ground scale do you use for man/horse in calculating battalion/squadron frontages.
5. Given that you would expect a brigade in line of battalions to move as near as possible as a unit, was there some mechanism in place whereby each battalion moved in response to some form of signal or did they take their cue from the battalion immediately to their left or right?
I have to say that I also do not agree with Bernie's view of brigades and there importance. All OOBs I have looked at and the details of armies in camp clearly show a formal organisational heirarchy on which transmission of orders would be based and command and control would be exercised. It seems to me that at all levels within that structure there are time and distance factors that influence how orders are transmitted and implemented.
My current thinking on command and control is as follows:
1. The initial deployment at the start of the battle/game would be set out with each 'division' and brigade being fully aware of it's orders and objectives. Once an advance begins, the elements involved in that advance will continue to move to execute those orders until they either succeed or fail. That may appear a little obvious, but I have played rules where it is necessary to 'activate' elements of the army on every move. The very length of some battlefields would make such an arrangement impractical in real terms and equally I do not believe subordinate commanders would have been given any latitude to override their orders/objectives. I accept that you would have to have mechanisms in place do deal with changes in circumstances, but these would not of necessity override the original orders. For example, although it took the Prussians (3?) attempts to achieve their objective at Blenheim, there does not appear to be any change in the execution of their original orders. From the start of a game therefore movement and actions in the execution of those orders will be continuous until such original orders are changed.
2. Because at this time I believe the transmission of orders at all levels involves questions of both time and distance, I am opting for orders from the commander in chief to be carried by couriers. This would involve the physical movement of a figure from him to the appropriate sub-commander to transmit the order. Since such movement involves both time and distance, I believe it eliminates the need for command radii and some form of activation system from a distance.
3. I am uncertain at this time whether or not to use a similar method to move those orders on down to brigades. Similar time and distance factors are present, but it may slow the game down.
4. At brigade level, I am thinking of employing a mechanism I used many moons ago. Any change of orders, either from a superior commander or within a brigade in response to present circumstances, could not be implemented until the end of the move following the move on which the orders are 'received'.
Regards
Chad
Quote from: Chad on 24 August 2015, 01:57:16 PM
Nick
Thanks for your notes. They were very useful and clearly my impression of a brigade in double lines on deployment was incorrect. On the matter of the battalions in a brigades forming a single line supported by another brigade, I have a few questions:
Happy to help of I can :)
Quote from: Chad on 24 August 2015, 01:57:16 PM
1. I have read of intervals between the battalions in line, but do not know how big an interval there would be and whether or not that interval would be some form of standard width.
I think the short answer is no one really knows. There was certainly a consider gap earlier, up to the width of a battalion, and this had gone/been filled by the battalion guns by the time of the SYW. But exactly what happened at this time is more of a problem. I think the consensus is there was a gap but it would be relatively small (say around 20 metres) but this would vary a lot depending on the circumstances (and not just in the WSS but generally).
Quote from: Chad on 24 August 2015, 01:57:16 PM
2. My understanding of the 2nd line of brigades is that they were to support the 1st line. They would maintain a standard distance behind the first brigade (300 paces?) and in the event of the 1st line brigade being forced to retire would allow passage of the 1st brigade through the intervals and assume the position of the 1st line brigade while the latter was reformed.
Yes the supporting line or lines would be behind the front line with the idea that they would take over when the lines in front needed. The infantry could do this by passing through the 'official' and 'unofficial' (formed by loses) gaps to do this. But probably it was more common to just pass through each other by doubling the ranks then going through. The unit literally formed into twice as many ranks as they were fighting in but on the same frontage as the fighting line. So basically there would then be large gaps between each file.
Quote from: Chad on 24 August 2015, 01:57:16 PM
3. Does the same role apply to 2nd line cavalry brigades as well?
Yes indeed but slightly different. The cavalry squadrons did have bigger gaps between squadrons which they would use to pass each other. The gaps were maybe ½ to the same size as the frontage of the squadrons
Quote from: Chad on 24 August 2015, 01:57:16 PM
4. What ground scale do you use for man/horse in calculating battalion/squadron frontages.
Depends a little but around 1m per man, 2 per horse.
Quote from: Chad on 24 August 2015, 01:57:16 PM
5. Given that you would expect a brigade in line of battalions to move as near as possible as a unit, was there some mechanism in place whereby each battalion moved in response to some form of signal or did they take their cue from the battalion immediately to their left or right?
Quote from: Chad on 24 August 2015, 01:57:16 PM
I would guess they would do both on occasion but also it wouldn't always be that much of a problem. Remember everyone moved slowly with lots of stops for dressing ranks, etc. I think they would also have 'regulating battalions' or similar, the senior unit in the brigade, which the others would adhere to.
On the command/control it seems good to me generally. My understanding, generally not specifically in this, is that subordinates have the ability to 'go slow' or 'go fast', to stop and defend against a threat that emerges or delay while seeking clarification. This seems to be basically what you are suggesting.
Nick
Just a quick thank you. Most helpful again.
Going to spend a bit of time on game scale considerations and whether or not the combat and morale mechanics from a old set of rules could be made to work for this period.
Best
Pete
If you are looking at lifting mechanics from other Games, may I suggest Black Powder's 'Hits' system.
What I like about them is you aren't worried about casualties: To many wargames have units that fight down to the last fraction of the unit. BP has effectively a morale system at the heart of its combat
Units have x number of dice (usually 3 shooting, 6 Hand to hand)
Hit on 4+ (there are modifiers, but usually limited to +/- 1
The Target unit then gets to save (usually on 4+)
Unsaved hits go on the unit
When a unit has hits =morale level (usually 3) it is shaken.
Hits above the Morale level cause a morale test. 2d6. 7+ pass, 4 or less rout (remove from table) 5 or 6 retire. -1 per excess hit (ie hits over morale level). After the test these excess hits are discarded.
Units can be rallied - 1 hit is removed, but never the last (or first if you will!) hit. Brigadiers can only rally 1 unit per tur - it is their last action.
Thanks,but I am looking to lift combat and morale from an 80s set o Napoleonic rules. I will give more information over the weekend. I believe that their principles are in many ways period and scale neutral.
Chad
What follows is an overview of the Combat and Morale rules that I will be looking to apply for the WSS. Rather than go through the detailed mechanics, I am proposing to scan the relevant pages and designer notes for people to look at in detail. Comments, etc. will be appreciated. The rules, 'Vive L'Empereur' by Ned Zuparko, Are basically regimental scale Napoleonic rules published 35 years ago. Generally speaking they are game scale neutral, but obviously elements of the Combat and Morale mechanics will need either adjustment or deletion.
With regard to units, the rules use a Status Point system (SP) which is defined as follows:
" a numerical value representing a unit's quality, battle effectiveness, training and resistance potential; used in most combat and morale situations; it can be reduced by combat."
Basic SP values range from 80 to 150 to differentiate unit types and perceived national differences.
In addition artillery has a Firepower factor (FP) which is defined as:
" a numerical value assigned to batteries representing casualty-producing potential, which can be reduced through combat losses."
Infantry Volleys
Figures are used to calculate a Firing Sum to which are applied modifiers to give the number of hits. Using percentile dice the hits are converted to loss of Status Points, ranging from 0 to 30 SP losses per hit. There is a small table showing the range of dice results for each SP loss.
Artillery Fire
Modifiers are applied to the basic Firepower factor of a battery to produce a hit value and again the percentile dice table is used to calculate the SP loss. Counter battery fire is covered in detail and has different mechanics
Close Combat
A series of modifiers produce a number of hits and as before the percentile dice table is used to determine SP loss.
Morale
The Morale method has checks for Panic, Rally, Fire Combat and Close combat. The Morale table takes the unit's current SP value and applies modifiers to produce Morale Points. The Panic, Rally and Fire Combat tests use a percentile dice roll cross refernced to the morale points to give the result of the check. Close combat checks use the difference between the morale points of the engaged units and cross reference that to percentile dice roll to produce a result for both engaged units.
As I said this is a brief overview of the mechanics which I want to try to adapt for WSS. It may or may not be possible, but only testing will give me the answer.
Members who would like to examine the detail should contact me direct on my personal e-mail and I will send pdfs of the relevant sections.
Chad
PS Ned Zuparko gave me the OK to modify these rules to produce a set for late 19C. I did start but never finished them. I called them 'The Last Napoleon'. I might try again.
Testing the combat and morale continuing, but not entirely satisfactory. Have an alternative to try.