Y'know what winds me up? OOBs in magazines. This rant was brought on by the thread about the new Miniature Wargames.

I give you, Gentlemen of the jury exhibit 1. Miniature Wargames, issue 360 of April 2013. Pages 8 to 13 are devoted to a description of the battle of Chancellorsville 1863, during the American Civil War - or ACW as it is colloquially known. So far, so good. There is a description of a wargames scenario, and then an OOB. My I present te listing for Posey's Brigade?

      3* CO (Posey) 
      4 regiments each of 4 bases BS inf, MLR

Now, I read that a 3 Commanding Officers, and a total of 16 bases of bullshit infantry with multiple rocket launchers. This is because I don't have Esprit de Corps. I have never had Esprit de Corps and I have no intention of buying Esprit de Corps. (Other rule sets are available to be ignored.)

Exhibit 2 comes from Wargames (Soldiers and Strategy), and is another example from the ACW, which, esteemed gentlemen you will remember is the American Civil War. Pages 24-27 of the undated issue 65 concerns itself with the Battle of Winchester, 1863. Here we shall look at some of the units in Hays' Louisiana Brigade:

      Brig Gen Harry T Hays (+1,0)
      5th Louisiana (12 Figures)
      6th Louisiana (16 Figures)
      ...

The notes helpfully explain that the (+1,0) are not an orthogonal reference, but references to a leadership bonus and the number of re-rolls. However, there is no explanation as to the 5th Louisiana being an infantry or a cavalry unit. The article is based upon Rank and File, with the American Civil War supplement.   

Please indulge me gentlemen with a final example, Exhibit 3,  from Wargames Illustrated, issue 304 from February 2013. "A Walk in the Park" on pages 30 to 35 being some discourse on an aspect of Operation Market-Garden 1944. Again, gentlemen of the jury, may I make an example of US 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment

      Parachute Rifle Platoon (full strength, page 68)

This offers me no immediate satisfaction because the Page 68 referred to is for the Flames of War rule set.   


So, in summary, m'lud, gentlemen of the jury, I submit that these OOBs are confusing and divisive. People, like myself, who have not taken the option to purchase these rule sets (and I reiterate that other sets of rules are available to ignore) can glean little from most of these helpful lists. I have deliberately picked two examples from the ACW, because I am getting interested in it. However, I write my own rules, and favour the bigger battalions. I have not embraced the concept of "bases", preferring to use a figure ratio. I can recite full strength battalion and regimental strengths for most Napoleonic and WWII armies, but the ACW is a new and foreign country, and I find this rule set tyranny to be hateful. 

So, gentle of the jury, I submit that OOBs in magazines should have an approximation of "real world" strengths attached, and perhaps sufficient description (such as "Cavalry"). It would be nice if troops could be labelled (e.g. raw, average, veteran, elite) but I won't hold my breath.

I'm big enough and daft enough to go rooting though my library for the information, but I genuinely think the way OOBs and rule variations are included in articles is off putting, not just for an gnarled old sod like me, but for newer and younger gamers.

Gentlemen of the jury, m'lud. The prosecution rests.

Sadly, fsn, today's wargamer expects to be spoon-fed with everything from the name of Wellington's batman down to the number of flybuttons on a Greek kilt. This also applies to rules, hence the feeding frenzy whenever the latest uber-set is released by one of the "names". Add to this the desire by various marketeers to have their product adopted as the "official" set for any given period and many (but not all) magazine articles become thinly disguised advertisements.

I agree entirely that any OOB published should at least make clear what any abrieviations mean and the significance of any in-house mechanisms. If the list has been cut down or otherwise modified this should also be noted. The only time these basic rules can be overridden is if the engagement portrayed is entirely fictional. Even then, the list should at least bear some relationship to those of the period being gamed.

(I now descend from my hobby-horse)   

The latest issue has 3 scenarios based upon actions in Operation Market Garden. To the authors credit these have good basic OOBs that can easily be applied over a variety of rulesets.

The OP's post is strong argument for skipping wargame magazines and buying battle monographies (books) only.

Quote from: fsn on 24 April 2013, 05:10:20 PM
Y'know what winds me up? OOBs in magazines.

I only think that one 'B' is missing in this phrase. Is it Friday yet?

 

 

(.)(.) ?

But I do follow your argument. There are two optiongs:

Follow through and post a full description of wtf you (author) are talking about. Adds pages and "feel".

Leave it to the basics and do NOT connect to any ruleset.

Quote from: maciek on 25 April 2013, 01:15:04 PM
The OP's post is strong argument for skipping wargame magazines and buying battle monographies (books) only.

Entirely the reason I have avoided wargames; too many abc/def/ghi type thingy's, it must be great once you're in there but given a choice - paint or scan glossaries, no contest.

FSN you are entirely correct and this is in my opinion an unforgivable failing on the part of a scenario writer.

If you are going to present a scenario, you must include a meaningful OOB free from rules specific abbreviations or confusing references.



In fact, if someone were to produce an Orders of Battle book (or series) detailing the OOBs for every major battle that would be lovely.

I have become inappropriately excited by the thought of a compendium of OOBs.

The mind boggles FSN .

This is one of the main reasons I don't buy wargame magaines

fsn - you could join the TOE Yahoo group, and both the BGMR groups, lots of real world stuff there.

IanS

Try the Nafziger Collection, a huge assembly of OOBs nowe available for free.

http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/OBS.HTML

Am i missing something?

I can't see anything free on the Nafziger Collection.

It's now been transferred to the US Army's Combined Arms Research Library.

Try:

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/search/collection/p15040coll6/searchterm/Napoleonic/field/all/mode/all/conn/and/order/nosort/ad/asc

This appears to be just the ACW collection. They're all PDFs so you'll need Adobe Reader to see them.

Hope this helps.