Where next with the Seven Years War? (2) Rules and Regulations

"It is the need to have every detail consistent that is the bete noir of the professional wargamer. It leads him to compile regulations that resemble Acts of Parliament in bulk, and which are only marginally more intelligible....
..our criteria therefore have been not: is this rule rigidly consistent with the rest? but rather: does the final result look correct, does the battlefield look like an 18th-century battlefield? Do correct tactics pay off? Are obviously faulty plans properly penalised? Must the principles of war be observed?"   *
 
A few further thoughts on future Seven Years War campaigning; having got the figures, we need some rules. Now I have thoroughly enjoyed using and adapting  Bob Cordery's 'Portable Wargame' and will continue to do so, but  I am also quite interested in comparing different possible sets of rules.  Of course we are  looking for enjoyable games, but I think I am also in this to think about 'how it happened', and whether what we are doing feels like a true reflection of how the organisations and tactics of the period really might have worked.  So it seems worthwhile giving a few different rules a look, and seeing how I feel about them. Despite not actually gaming for many a long year, it's funny how one still manages to pick up a surprising number of rulebooks! So, a little tour of the choice of possible rules I have to (quite literally) play with ..

First, the 'old school' : you've really got to start with Charles Grant and  Young and Lawford. Grant's 'The War Game' is where it all started for me, after buying it with childhood 'holiday money' in the 1970s, and being immediately captured by the sheer style, and the deep knowledge lightly worn, with a nice element  of whimsy in the use of imagi-nations.  The problem for pocket-money wargamers back then was the enormous regiments -  48 men and 6 officers!  I saved hard, and bought one regiment of Minifigs Prussian Infantry, which I painted appallingly badly and forced to slum it fighting aginst Airfix plastic Waterloo and AWI figures.  Forty-plus years later, those Prussians may finally get their chance, and a better paint job!  BUT those huge regiments, and the seven feet by five table ( even for a 'small' game ) make it sadly unlikely that my troops will march to the late Mr Grant's drum. It's still a lovely read, though, and if the house ever burns down (heaven forbid) ,  I'll be stood on the pavement, in the proverbial dressing gown, clutching this book.

Young and Lawford's 'Charge' , I  only acquired a couple of years ago, but I have thoroughly enjoyed reading, and of course it shares a lot of the same spirit as Charles Grant's book. The 'Elementary Game' rules cover just  two pages in summary and look eminently practical, and their explanatory chapter is informative, erudite and entertaining. I note that I already have enough figures to mount something on the scale of 'The Action at Blasthof Bridge'. I have only half the space available of the six feet square that they had, but I am wondering if converting to hexes and/or reducing the distances might just work. The 'Advanced Game' looks a bit heavier going, and requires much more space ( Light Cavalry move 30 inches!) so that may have to wait. 

Next up, what you might call the 'mid period' :  good old WRG (1979)  and GDW's  'Volley and Bayonet' (1994).

My copy of WRG 'Wargames Rules 1685-1845'  looks suspiciously pristine and unmarked - funny, as in my memory it had quite a lot of use. It came as a bit of a godsend because of its 40/50 men per figure scale - now you could have battalions of 14 or 16 figures, so much more affordable! The Minifgs Prussians and the Airfix plastics were based up as rather heterodox imagi-nations ( Waterloo Cuirassiers vs. 1776 British Grenadiers, anyone? ), and I think a lot of fun was had. These were a reaction to the typical 1970s book-keeping heavy rules, by introducing element-based troops and simple '4, 5, or 6 and remove one figure per hit' systems, and that was quite welcome after an interlude with Bruce Quarrie's Napoleonic rules. 

Looking at this set again, there is an awful lot of detail - nearly 50 pages of closely-spaced small type!   The trademark WRG Reaction Tests are very much present - there are EIGHT different tests for various circumstances. But this is really just a way to reduce the omnipotence of the player/commander and introduce 'friction', and may compare favourably with  some more modern and arbitrary-feeling 'you can only move 2 units on the left if there is an R in the month' command limitations.   I don't suppose it would take long to remember the tests, and run them from the playsheet. I am quite interested to give this set a go, I think it would actually be pretty playable (quite a lot of the detailed text is taken up with ideas for terrain placement etc, which could be skipped).  Mind you, how about this, fairly typical of the self-confidence of the authors : 

"this is not to say that all relevant factors have not been taken into account.. They have, and the range of casualties obtainable is, for the first time in any set we know of, broadly consistent with those caused in real life".

That is quite some set of assertions, when you think about it...

'Volley and Bayonet' is intriguing, because it's an attempt to portray large battles,  not just a clash of half-a-dozen battalions and a few squadrons.  It also covers  a wide period - about 1750 to 1870. I've owned this for many years, and sadly never actually played it. But why not? The rules are  very simple, and the basic unit is a  brigade on a 3-inch square base, hence small numbers of figures make a large army. I do suspect it would look best with 6mm figures, where a brigade could really look like a brigade,  of several battalions. Also the move distances are quite generous - 24 inches for cavalry, 16 for an infantry brigade - hmm.. I wonder if we might convert to cm?  If so, would we shrink the base size too, or would it matter?  I think it would give a fast and furious game , and the scenarios included look great - for example Lobositz, where the Austrians get 18 regiments of foot and 7 or 8 brigades of Cavalry, now that's an army!  I do quite fancy to try larger battles, and these rules might enable that - it could be fun to compare with Bob Cordery's  Division and Corps-level games, too -  about which more anon.

Just for interest,  I cut out some temporary bases at the recommended sizes, and tried them with some figures , so here is a regiment of ( Prussian ) infantry, and a brigade of cavalry,  based for 'Volley and Bayonet'.

Volley and Bayonet: Infantry Regiment, Cavalry Brigade

 Now I have been chuntering on a little too long; I  hear Mr Bennet  intoning "That will do extremely well, child. You have delighted us long enough".   And there are still three or four more 'possibles' to explore!  I think they can wait for another day.

 I hope all my readers are well, and enjoying a pleasant holiday weekend. Look after yourselves.


* the quotations at the head of this post are, of course, from  'Charge' by Young and Lawford.