Post-game thoughts on Arthur's SHAME

Having played out a game using Arthur Harman's SHAME ( 'Simple Horse And Musket Engagements') rules from Miniature Wargames issue 457,  I promised to share my thoughts on the rules. So, here we are. I wouldn't go so far as to call this a review,  it's just some musings, a few points that cropped up during and after the game, which I reported a couple of posts back.  

I also could hardly presume to question Arthur's rules-writing ability, ( 'we're not worthy! ) and he will of course always have The Last Word  - but I can at least report on how I got on with the rules.  

 

Getting stuck in : Cavalry vs Infantry line

I suspect rules-writing is much more difficult than many imagine, especially if you are writing for publication. If you put together some rules just for your own use, or for your local group of gaming friends, then the standard of  writing is less important, becuase if something is misinterpreted you can simply say 'no, I meant this..' and if something is missing, you can add it on the spot, and your authority as creator is probably not challenged.  But if writing for publication, where strangers will be trying to use the rules, and they only have your text to help them, then you'd better write very clearly and you'd better have thought of as many situations that might crop up as possible. But you must also keep it as simple as possible, for fear of producing the dreaded 'WRGese'  ( see section 32 (b) 'a unit may be  be disordered if it is Austrian ( except Hungarians ) and the day of the week dice roll ( see section 29.2.2 ) specified 'Friday' and  the time of day dice roll ( 29.2.3 )  specified a time later than the Central European 'opening time' - see Appendix L, 'miscellaneous Hostelries' )..   

It all reminds me of a reliable favorite feature of  'Systems Analysis for Beginners' type  training courses back in the day ( the late 1980s sort of day, in my case )   -  'write a set of  instructions for making a good cup of tea'... 

'OK, so this is easy, here we go  (1) put the kettle on...'

- 'Excuse me, do I need to put anything in the kettle? You haven't specified..'

and so on.  If you really want to complicate things, introduce the 'Cream Tea scenario', with its hotly-disputed jam first/cream first dilemma.. 

In Suffolk we follow the Cornish protocol: jam first!

Oops, I seem to have digressed. Just a bit of fun.

I did enjoy using the rules - I should say that straight away. Being pretty simple they produced a fairly fast-moving game, and  units could take  damage and get knocked out of action quite quite quickly once they 'got stuck in' to combat, which seemed about right and kept things going on at a good clip. Given  lucky dice rolls, a well-delivered musket volley,  round of canister or  cavalry charge  could shatter an opposing unit in a satisfying way - and if the dice did not oblige, the enemy would shrug off that ragged volley or half-hearted charge. 

The rules are definitely pitched at the  Napoleonic  period - there are skirmishers and Horse Artillery, and  infantry are expected to form square if attacked by cavalry. Wanting to play a Seven Years War period encounter,  I made some changes , the biggest being to abandon the use of square. So if cavalry attacked infantry in line and did not break them, then rather than 'flowing around' a square, I decided the horse would 'bounce back' to reform and perhaps try again - and they would suffer a penalty on their attack dice if charging frontally at all those disciplined volley-firing musketeers.    I simply did not use Horse Artillery or Skirmishers -  the latter are optional, anyway -  though I suppose I could have fielded some light infantry in open order. One query I had was that early on, it's specified that troops should be on 20mm x 20mm bases with 4 infantry per base, but in the section on skirmishers it's stated that they should deploy 'in a line of single figures, one to a square'.. hmmm.  I did like the relatively short musket range - from what I've read, effective musket range was actually frighteningly short. Arthur specifies musket range is  'one square between units' which is  a neat way of explaining it to a child or beginner.  And then artillery canister range is 3 times Musket Range, which I take to be '3 squares between units' (i.e. up to  4 squares, hope I got that right! ) . 

The main thing to master is the combat system, with dice results designated rather like 'Command and Colours' games - the attacking ( fire or close combat ) unit rolls a number of dice based on its quality, and then different dice scores inflict commander hits,  musketry/canister hits, artillery hits,  close combat hits or 'fallen flags' . The 'hits' from fire or close combat reduce the target's 'Combat Value' (CV) in effect its strength or fighting power,  but the 'Fallen Flags' have a separate impact, on the unit's  morale. This can have some interesting effects - the very first piece of firing in the game by the Austrian artillery inflicted two 'flags' on a Prussian cuirassier unit, which brought it to a halt, despite no loss of CV. That seemed entirely feasible - I assumed that  the unit's beloved commander may have stopped a cannon ball, in full view of his men!  The 'Fallen Flags' can be removed by a commander figure joing the unit and rolling a die to rally them,   whereas the CV hits are for ever, and  if the unit loses all its CV, or a number of flags equal to its troop quality, it must withdraw.   I thought this system gave quite interesting results, although it does require you to track two different factors ( CV and Fallen Flags ) for each unit, which some might find a bit fiddly. 

The charging/close combat system I also liked, in that when a unit declares a charge, it rolls its 'attack dice' , and the number of flags and/or hits decides the outcome - with a very good attacking score, the defenders may simply break and run for it!  Or they may be shaken, and roll less dice in response, or be resolute, and roll as normal. That seemed quite a  smart approach, cleverly combining morale effect and casualties, and fun too.  I can well imagine a raw defending battalion, charged by a determined-looking  elite attacking unit, who might give a feebly ragged and inaccurate volley and then turn on their heels; or a steady, experienced defender waiting  'til you see the whites of their eyes, lads!', giving a terrifying  volley that mowed down and halted less motivated attackers!  Another nice touch was the cavalry vs. cavalry mechanism, specifying that if neither unit is halted or broken, they pass through each other, turn, and may charge again next turn.  That seems just right, if my memory of  Mr. Duffy's works is correct. 

 Prussian General wasted many turns failing to rally Cuirassiers

 

Commanders/officers I didn't quite 'get'.  I think I made a mistake by choosing only one commander figure per side - as a result, both sides' commanders got stuck trying and failing to rally off 'Fallen Flags' from important units, when perhaps they should have been lending their motivation to attacks.  I think I should have had several officers per side, and indeed Arthur's presumed setup involves several players on each side, each having  their own commander figure.  The rules don't actually say a lot more about commanders and ADCs - the latter can apparently 'deliver messages/orders from one General to another, or orders from a General to a unit or formation..'  but there's nothing else I could see about orders, which raises questions.  Can units move at all without having received orders, and must they follow those orders until new orders are received?   As far as I can see in the rules,  they say nothing more  on the subject  (hmm...'Put the kettle on...?').  In effect I answered my own question by assuming telepathic control of units by players, without the need for specific orders to be delivered to them - very 'old school' on my part, perhaps?

That's probably enough for now, I should conclude by saying that I did enjoy using the rules, and they gave a suitably fast and fun game, as promised, with some interesting and thoughtful features that succeed in providing a flavour of the period. Arthur Harman certainly has nothng to be ashamed of.   A few questions came up, and I suspect I will have to think a bit more about suitable adjustments to reflect Frederician warfare - but that's all part of the fun, isn't it?   I think these will make a nice occasional alternative to Bob Cordery's 'Portable Wargame' rules that I have mainly used up to now. I know Bob and Arthur are old friends and wargaming comrades, so that seems rather appropriate.  I hope you've enjoyed reading about the rules, the game and the post-mortem, as I have enjoyed them all - maybe some of you have given them a go too, or will do so.  

This post was a bit delayed by 'real life' but also by glorious weather over the weekend here - not a time to be sat indoors typing on a computer! But I did get a little painting and relevant reading done in the sunshine, of which more later.  Meanwhile keep safe and well, everyone.