Pre-Battle Manoeuvres Without Maps by Paddy Griffith
This article is reproduced from the Wargamer's Newsletter 204 in the early 1970's with the editor's and Paddy Griffith's permissionWhen wargamers set out their battles and skirmishes on the table-top, they use one of two systems. Either they make up the whole scenario out of their heads, and just lay out the table as they wish; or they play out some form of pre-battle manoeuvre on maps, and at some point transfer the action from the map to the table-top.
The first of these approaches has a rather unfortunate tendency to become stylised. Both sides tend to want "equal terrain" and "equal troops". Although these things were never present in reality, they have become a commonplace in wargames. One can see why this should be: but it is highly unrealistic and unsatisfactory, nevertheless.
The second alternative -- to play a mini-campaign before the battle -- is a lot more satisfactory, even though it does take longer, and requires a commodity which is in very short supply = original thought. By setting up a genuinely "strategic" confrontation, the game is given a new dimension of interest. Tactics are no longer an isolated exercise on their own, but a means to a wider end.
The trouble with this "mini-campaign" approach to laying out a battle is that it relies too much upon maps. If we are talking about any battle before 1850, it is unrealistic for the two sides to have very good maps - or even any maps at all. Only since good maps - and military ballooning - became available about the second half of the nineteenth century did commanders start to think of their battlefields from a "vertical" viewpoint - i.e. looking down on them from above, rather than horizontally across them, from the side. In our pre-battle manoeuvres, therefore, we might well bring a more "horizontal" element into the planning.
How can this be done? If you have an umpire who can draw, then I would suggest the following technique:
At the start of the pre-battle manoeuvres, only the umpire has a map. He uses it to make a (very quick and rough) sketch of what the two opposing commanders can each see from their personal positions. He does NOT draw maps for them, but leaves it up to them to make their own from the sketches of the surrounding countryside that he has given them. They may then issue orders, and move up nearer the enemy (whose position they will not know accurately).
When they have moved to a point from which a new view is available, the players are given a new sketch of what they can see. If any enemy is in sight, this will also be indicated. On the basis of this sketch (and any verbal reports), the players must make new orders - and so the game goes on until two opposing forces are in contact and laid out on the table.
This system does away with an anachronistic use of maps, although it does depend upon an umpire with a basic minimum of sketching ability. I find that it takes an average of two minutes to make each sketch, which need be only very impressionistic. The general outlines of the horizon, the position of any buildings and woods, and the line of roads (diminishing with perspective as they recede into the distance) is all that need be shown. It may need a little explanation by the umpire to interpret each sketch, but that is easily given. The player has to make his own maps for himself, and think of the terrain as if he were really standing on the spot, surrounded by it, Not only will players be unable to see what the enemy has "on the other side of the hill" - they will not even know what the other side of the hill itself is like.
I have played three games on this system - one Ancient, one Mediaeval, and one 18th century siege. The siege gave very interesting results, as it was especially important for the attacking army to make an accurate map of the fortress purely on the basis of the perspective sketches given to him "as of" various points outside the fortress. He actually made quite a creditable effort at translating a "horizontal" view into a "vertical" one - but he still mistook a couple of bastions on the sketch for different works on the ground.
In the Ancient game, the British commander was shown a sketch of a hill over which a Roman column was just advancing. Trying to be like Rommel, the Briton instantly decided to send his entire mobile forces on a wide sweep to the right-hand side of the hill, to come round behind the Romans and take them from the rear. Had he been using a map this plan would never have occurred to him, since there was a broad river barring the path of the outflanking move. Having only a sketch of what he could see directly, however, the Briton was quite unaware of this obstacle until after he had committed his main force. It became stuck by the river bank, and the Romans were able to escape unharmed.
Perhaps the clearest example of the effect of "line of sight" sketches (instead of maps) came in the Mediaeval game. In this case two forces starting about five miles apart were told to seek each other out. Both commanders were given only a view of the country immediately surrounding them - each with a choice of three or four roads. They did not know where these roads led, or how the road network linked one village to another. Had they had a modern map, of course, this would have been crystal clear. In the Middle Ages, however, things were not that simple.
The commander of one side was so used to using modern maps that he chose one road at random and marched straight down it, without bothering to scout the others. At each bend in the road he was given a new sketch, showing him what could be seen ahead from that point. After some dead ends he eventually arrived at the enemy's original starting point -- but without any idea of where the enemy was likely to be.
On his side, the enemy commander had been so bemused by the "horizontal" view of the battlefield that he had not even attempted to look over the next hill. He had done no more than find a (rather weak) defensive position within view of his original starting point. He sacrificed a large number of juicy chances to ambush the enemy as he came up -- and was found sitting lamely on the spot when the enemy eventually arrived. In this way it was demonstrated that commanders will react very differently if they have a good map than if they have only evidence of their own eyes (and scouts' reports).
All in all, a very instructive little action.