With the 1757 kleiner Feldzug over, my next project is introducing a friend to Nigel Marsh's excellent computer-moderated Carnage and Glory II miniature wargaming rules. One of the other players in the KF1757 campaign suggested it, and I gladly agreed, as I'm fond of the game. In fact, from trawling through my email archive, I'd guess that I've been playing these rules on and off for about ten years. Readers who have been with this blog for a while will recall my mentioning it a few times before, in the context of playing battles of the American Revolution and, before that, of the British Civil War.
Carnage & Glory: Scope
The C&G rules cover a goodly portion of European and American military history of the gunpowder era from 1600 to 1871, with modules for pike and shot, the late seventeenth/early eighteenth century, the era of Frederick, the Napoleonic era, and the early industrial era (the American Civil War and those of mid- to late-nineteenth century Europe). In my opinion, the rules fit well into the tactical arena; a beginners' game might feature a brigade or two on each side, but with sufficient space and players, one can play corps-sized actions with them. Playing a full-scale battle of the 18th or 19th century, with multiple corps on each side, is a significant challenge, I believe, given that all the communication and resolution of action has to be routed through a single instance of the program. It might be possible to find some way for several users to tag-team on a single platform, or to break a single large battlefield into separate sections run simultaneously. But the system's command and control system is somewhat basic; a grand battle like Austerlitz or Solferino would probably be suited for playing with a system that's more specifically focused on command and control and that handles units at a slightly higher scale.
Carnage & Glory: Method
The game is played jointly on the tabletop--with miniatures (or with counters)--and on the computer. Most often, one player acts as umpire, collating input from players and feeding it to the program, then taking the "replies" from the program and passing them back to the players. An example of this sort of exchange might see a player call out, "The Foot Guards battalion, number 101, fires a full volley, 100 percent, at the Regiment Auvergne, number 503, at 50 paces," with the umpire replying, "The French are staggered, taking 20 casualties!"
The program keeps track of a variety of data about the units and leaders in combat, including order and disorder, unit formation, morale, casualties, fatigue, and ammunition. This allows the system to deal with more complex interactions than players would be able to handle without a great many markers and a good deal of rules fatigue. While players can always petition the umpire for detailed information about their units (petitions the umpire is free to grant or refuse), the most that players generally know about their troops is their facing and formation, a general indicator of their morale (good, hesitant, failing, routing), and the feedback they get when they attempt some fatiguing action (changing formation, moving through difficult terrain, firing, or charging or defending against a charge).
One aspect that is not always greeted with joy is that the program handles all the randomization as well. Many wargamers, especially miniature gamers, are used to rolling their own dice; a good deal of the story-telling that surrounds this sort of gaming concerns players' luck--good or bad--with dice, and rolling dice gives players an (illusory) sense of control over the fate of their miniature battalions.
Carnage & Glory: The Black Box
The downside of the system holding all the information and only releasing bits of it at a time is that it can be something of a black box. Not only do players not have complete information about the units under their command at any given time, they don't have complete information about how the system works.
In most wargames, players can estimate the effect of actions by using the data that they have about their units and the charts and tables the game includes to derive, if not certainties, at least estimates about likely outcomes. If units with a given strength attack an enemy of a known strength under certain conditions, they will not know the outcome for certain, but they know the range of likely outcomes and the percentages associated with them. For example, an attack of 3:1 odds will produce a complete defeat of the enemy 1/6 of the time, a repulse of the enemy 2/3 of the time, and a repulse of the attackers 1/6 of the time, with established modifiers should the enemy be holding especially defensible ground, the weather be bad (rain or snow), or leaders on one or both sides be especially likely to affect the outcome.
In Carnage & Glory, none of these sorts of computations can be made. Not only do players not know with any degree of certainty many of the factors that influence the strength of their own forces, they know even less about the enemy. And most importantly, they know nothing about the calculations that in another game would be represented by the combat results table. Instead, players must attempt to make assessments of likely outcomes based on their knowledge of the tactics of the period as understood by modern military history. And, of course, they have to rely on that knowledge and understanding being common between them and the game designer. Lacking that knowledge, they have to rely on the experience of other players familiar with the system, on insights provided by the designer in his notes on the rules, and/or on trial and error.
Carnage & Glory: Some Insights To Start Off With
Fortunately, the designer provides a good deal of helpful advice in his manuals. He provides clear descriptions of what the basic unit status (what the player sees on the table) means, results like Unsteady, Disordered, or Shaken. He explains what the compulsory movement markers that units may get mean (No Advance, Halt, Retire/Retreat, and Rout), and he explains what morale (of both units and armies) and fatigue represent, how they can be lost, and how they can (sometimes) be restored.
Without going into too much detail, one can summarize threats to morale and causes of fatigue rather simply: don't try to do too much.
Of course, army and unit morale at the start of a battle will be based on the experience and training of the units in question. They'll be reduced as troops become fatigued and as units take casualties. They can be recovered (at least to some degree) by the active intervention of officers. And not just any officers; units respond best to officers from their chain of command. Any unit will be glad of attention from the army commander (assuming he isn't a buffoon), but the infantrymen won't be very impressed by the dashing hussar officer sent over from a nearby cavalry brigade, any more than the hussars would have much faith in the plodding infantry brigadier waving his little spadroon.
Fatigue itself will accumulate as units do "work": move at faster than regular speeds--either running or running away--change unit formation, move through difficult terrain, or engage in physical labor like building bridges or clearing obstructions. Units also accumulate fatigue in combat: by firing ranged weapons and by engaging in close combat. Fatigue can be erased by standing down and moving out of the combat zone, but it is removed much more slowly than it is accumulated. Thus a unit that had marched several turns at the double-quick and changed from road column to field column and from field column to line, then marched up a steep hill or through a swampy field, might well be exhausted before it's fired a shot. Likewise, a battery that finds a prominent position and begins firing all its guns continuously at an enemy as soon at they are sighted may well be wholly fatigued with its caissons empty by the time the enemy has arrived at close range and is preparing to charge.
Carnage & Glory: How Does A Turn Go?
The sequence of play in the game is fairly straightforward. There are some details, but essentially consists of
- Movement
- Combat
- Rallying
At the start of each turn, the system gives the umpire some news as to environmental factors (has it started to snow? is there fog covering the battlefield?), the state of each army's morale, and the arrival of any troops not currently on the battlefield. Which side will have the initiative in the turn ahead is also indicated; that side may decide whether it wishes to move first or second in the coming turn. Players may then issue general orders (orders restrict units' actions somewhat but are not a very big part of the game) and have units begin any engineering work they have in mind (warning: this will be fatiguing and slow--best to do your bridge-building or fortification before the battle begins).
Then comes movement. First, players secretly note and simultaneously announce their intentions to attempt charges with units. These attempts are resolved, placing units that succeed in charging close to their targets. Then the rest of movement takes place, in the order previously determined. Simple movement at a unit's normal movement rate is accomplished without informing the game system, but anything that would involve fatigue (wheeling, changing formation, moving through difficult terrain) is relayed to the umpire so that the system can assess fatigue (and, in some cases, indicate the maximum distance to be moved).
Once movement is completed, all units wishing to fire resolve that action, with the fire of units that are being charged first being resolved first. That activity also serves as a time to test the morale of these targets of charge, to see if they will stand and fight. After those fires are resolved, those of all other units are resolved and the effects assessed (changes in morale/order marked).
After fire combat comes the melee! The results of charges are determined. In most cases, one side's troops or the other's will fall back; in a few rare instances, troops may remain locked in combat until the next turn. If a defender is badly/quickly defeated, attackers may surge past their broken foe and hit another enemy in the same combat phase.
After melee is concluded, available officers are assigned to rally faltering troops. Depending on their rank and ability, officers have a certain zone of influence and may be assigned to any units needing inspiration that are within that radius of them during the rally phase. The system determines the success or failure of officers in rallying troops and may insist that officer remain with the unit in the following turn, or indicate that one officer's influence was not enough to achieve the desired result and allow another to be assigned, if available.
Here is where the number of officers assigned to an army in its order of battle becomes critical. Officers represent a morale resource for an army, so assigning them in the order of battle is less simply a reflection of the historical rank structure and more an indication of an army's ability to withstand adversity. Both the Blue and Red armies would have regimental commanders, adjutants, brigadiers, and aides de camp (ADCs), but if Blue's command and morale resources were low, a brigade OB might include only the brigadier and its regimental commanders, while a Red formation rich in effective command might be assigned a brigadier with an ADC and all its regimental commanders and their adjutants.
After rally actions have been adjudicated, the system performs morale checks and informs the umpire what units' state is at the end of the turn and which are engaging in compulsory movement (retreating, routing, or pursuing routing enemies).
Coming Next Time!
That's it for my basic summary of the game system. The next post will introduce our test bed for next weekend's game, the Napoleoninc battle of Verbreitnet.
No comments:
Post a Comment