It holds a starter scenario, using just 4 identical units per side on a symmetrical battlefield and some simple rules for the unsuspecting reader to dip their toe into this strange world, where plastic Airfix figures are moved from the floor, to a ‘proper’ battlefield on the tabletop!
Since the scenario is short enough to play quickly, I am going to take the opportunity to show play under the Featherstone rules and then compare that to a modern set of introductory rules to see what 5 decades has done to the way that introductory rules are presented.
Please use the ‘read more’ tab for a discussion on Don’s book and an AAR that demonstrates some game mechanics.
I am holding a copy of Don Featherstone’s ‘Battles with Model Soldiers’ (thank you Iain), with the vibrant red cover and it is transporting me back to the mid 70’s, when a chance find of this title in a bookshop in a near-by town, pressed all of the right buttons for a life time passion of wargaming to follow.
Reading the book again in 2020, one becomes aware of the gentle care being taken by the author to introduce the reader to wargaming without scaring them off! there is a lot of hand holding and it does not assume any prior knowledge, necessary of course, since this was a newly emerging hobby (note, John Curry has made this title available again as an e-book, available at Amazon, under his plan to get many of these older titles back into our hands).
His scenario, designed to teach the basic principles of wargaming, is in fact presented in three phases. The first has each player with two infantry regiments, to learn some basic wargame concepts. The second introduces cavalry and finally the third has artillery join the fray. The battlefield terrain is limited and set up in a symmetrical manner, so each side has equal forces and an equal terrain mix. The only thing that may give one side an advantage is the question of which player goes first.
For our replays, we will take that third scenario and use the dispositions that Don gave us.
 |
| Copyright of Don Featherstone / John Curry |
Above, this is the schematic sketch that appears in the book, giving a simple pleasure for those who can recall it.
It requires a simple set-up and my table today will reflect his old school look. Interestingly Don notes “Most wargamers have leanings toward sand tables” - I remember that being the case or at least spoken about, but I always wondered how this teenagers bedroom floor would support that weight ...... or even get parents blessings!
It requires a simple set-up and my table today will reflect his old school look. Interestingly Don notes “Most wargamers have leanings toward sand tables” - I remember that being the case or at least spoken about, but I always wondered how this teenagers bedroom floor would support that weight ...... or even get parents blessings!
Fighting with Don Featherstone.
By the time one reads the rules and associated discussion for this battle, it becomes striking that the fundamentals of what we do has not really changed, but rather the way we do it has, as we have hit various moments of innovation in the meandering history of the hobby.
For these rules, units are formed by figures mounted on single bases and casualties are removed as singles. It is the head count of the unit that tells us how many fire dice we get and what the melee values are in combat.
The sequence of play is structured with movement first, followed by firing and then melee, which sounds pretty straight forward, but the movement is simultaneous, with orders written for each unit and which are revealed simultaneously.
On that subject, Don says “This method is currently in use among practically all experienced wargamers, certainly in Great Britain”. This sentiment may well reflect the biggest difference between then and now.
Units can move or fire in a turn - not both. This has a very interesting impact on the post melee morale test, because the side that fails the test must retreat a full move .... but that move does not happen until the player's movement phase of the next turn, when the unit must be given a retreat order, which means of course it will not be able to fire that turn, so an attacker that follows up can do so without facing any defensive fire. So a retreat can have big implications for a unit and for the opening of the game.
Cavalry does not really properly represent the period as they are always mounted. They can charge, but can’t fire. The result is that you get napoleonic style charges going on, but not the skirmishing / dismounting and holding ground type of use.
In this introductory system (and we must keep reminding ourselves that that is what it is and not needing to expect more) Infantry move 12”, cavalry 18” and artillery has a maximum range of 36”.
By the end of playing this classic scenario, I saw that the capture of the wall is not of prime importance, rather it is unhinging of the wall position that becomes paramount, so that it becomes useless to the enemy.
The system is subject to the variables of the dice, but then many games are and I don’t mind that, as this usually opens a game up and helps tell a good story. Despite the 'simple' label attributed to the rules, it felt a bit ‘mathsy’ to me and is not helped by the absence of the main rule charts being set out on a single page or two, rather than being spread throughout conversational text.
So moving to an AAR, which is wargaming with Featherstone in 1970.
 |
| Set up lines, with artillery limbered. Note the confederate cavalry furthest from the camera in relation to the paragraph below. |
Both sides made the obvious moves. At the start of turn 2, both armies could reach the wall, but if the Union moved to the wall, Confederate cavalry, which had moved out to their right, would have their flank, so they stood still instead, which would at least allow them to fire.
Union cavalry (counting as 11 troopers) on the right, frontally charged a Confederate Infantry Regiment (22 men), who had moved, so they could not fire in the fire phase at the charging cavalry (which we might think of as defensive fire) and so this contact simply became a melee in the Melee Phase.
The 11 cavalry are worth 2 points each (for 22 points) and the 22 defending infantry are worth 1 point each (also for 22 points), so this is an evens combat. A side gets 1 dice for every 5 points of men, so here, both sides will get 4 dice, but the cavalry will increase the value of each dice by 1 for the charge. The total value of a units dice results, halved, become the casualties inflicted on the other side and that number of figures are physically removed, as this little system is all about head count.
Once the casualties are removed from both sides, the fight moves to a post melee morale test based upon the remaining head count in what appears to be a unique way, but perhaps it was common in its day. Each side takes its remaining point value in men and multiplies that figure by 1 D6, the unit with the lower score fails the test and must retreat a full move. As a unit becomes weaker, the chance of it being the one to run away increases ..... but all you need is the strong side to roll very low and the other high and all of that may change in a moment!
To example that, in our game, towards the end of play, the Confederate cavalry delivered a devastating frontal charge against a Union infantry regiment .... ‘the end’ I thought, but no, the cavalry bounced off them, after they failed the post melee morale test. The consequence was that the cavalry would spend the next turn retreating and if it wanted to later charge again, this time, the static Union unit would get a chance to fire on the charging cavalry. Suddenly neither of these units really wanted to mess with each other.
Musket fire can be powerful, but first you need to hit with your D6 per 5 men firing. Range gives a fairly big penalty to each of those dice, even close range has a penalty, but for each dice that scores a hit, the dice is re-rolled to show how many casualties are suffered.
EDIT - this is wrong, each dice rolled is adjusted for range and cover and it is the remaining value left on the dice gives the casualty number, so firing is a one stage process, it is artillery alone that uses the above method - Thank you Ross and StuRat (in the comments).
EDIT - this is wrong, each dice rolled is adjusted for range and cover and it is the remaining value left on the dice gives the casualty number, so firing is a one stage process, it is artillery alone that uses the above method - Thank you Ross and StuRat (in the comments).
 |
| The cavalry are about to break the confederate left and unhinge the wall! |
Our game ended during turn 4. The Confederate Infantry on the left had been seen off the table by charging Union cavalry that did a follow-up charge. The Confederate infantry in the centre lost a melee test to enemy infantry and was marked with a retreat order. In turn 4 that Confederate unit retreated, but the attacker followed up and worse, the now victorious and free Union cavalry unit, struck the retreating Confederate unit in the flank .... it was the end of any Confederate hopes.
 |
| A desperate situation for the retreating Confederate regiment, as cavalry strike their flank. |
By the end of play, I thought the scenario and rules had pretty much delivered all that it needed to for a learning experience, except with the absence of any sense of command and control. I use multi mounted bases with dice for casualty markers and I would imagine that removing figures as casualties, would make some units look a bit silly as they could potentially reduce down to one man (this is what effectively happened to the second Confederate unit) and in Don’s AAR, you are left with a sense of units fighting to ‘last man standing’.
Overall it was good fun. I think you could use these rules as a basic model and include some house rules that would get you to a short sharp action that might meet your own opinion on how these things should play out. But of course, in any case, it was nice to put a game on simply for the sake of a very influential man and his book.
Fighting with the Perry Brothers (Firepower) -
While the table was up, I re-ran the game using the Perry Brother’s Firepower rules from their 28mm ACW Battle in a Box, from where I also got the figures for this game. These could be described as an introductory set for 2015, making them broadly comparable with what the Don Featherstone book was doing 50 years ago, though perhaps the Perry’s have the advantage that their audience is likely already more familiar with wargaming principles.
This is a nice hand sized (A5) rule set, with just 7 pages of rules. Movement rates are based upon the rolling of D6, so are randomised and therefore even our small scenario can open up in different ways and be less ‘chess-like’.
Leaders bring some command element as they provide bonus dice for nearby units that are testing for movement or morale. Just add an extra dice when rolling and then discard the weakest dice, a simple, but nice mechanism.
The sequence of play is quite dynamic as each unit in a turn can perform (only) one action from the list of move / charge / fire/ rally, but of course this is similar to Featherstone who was not allowing a unit to move and fire in the same turn either.
It is a buckets of dice game, with units in cover able to make ‘save’ rolls. Hits are recorded and when a unit reaches 9 hits, it is simply removed from play, though cavalry and artillery are a little more brittle.
With the morale test (on both fire and close combat) being casualty based and with unit break levels being lower than say in Neil Thomas’ One Hour Wargames, units will likely only stay in front line combat for around 2 turns, sometimes 3 if lucky, before being exhausted one way or another.
Anyway .... the fight!
In this system the cavalry cannot dismount, but they can fire their carbines, so a race to the wall by cavalry seems a good opening. The Confederates win the die roll for who should go first and start their random movement with the cavalry ..... they max out with a 24” move! which gets them to the wall. By contrast, when the Union cavalry attempt to move, they get 12” on their dice rolls.
 |
| With the wall secure, the Confederate advance drifts to their left. |
The Union artillery doesn’t move, so that it can fire at the cavalry now at the wall. The range is 22”, so it is better they use shot rather than canister, also for artillery shot, the protection of the wall is ignored. We are looking for a successful ‘to hit’ roll and then a D6 is rolled for casualties, so in effect, not really much different to Mr. Featherstone’s method.
The Confederate commander is close to their artillery, so that he can give them a bonus die for movement, which does over a couple of turns, get them out onto the right wing faster.
All casualties whether by fire or close combat, generate immediate morale tests. I like this as it puts a brake on units fighting to the last man and can collapse positions or halt attacks and open the game up.
Since a unit can either fire or move in a turn (not both), there is an inclination, due to the lethality of fire, to move up within fire range and then stop to engage in firefights, rather than charging home and taking a risk that the randomised movement allowance might result in you falling short of the target and receiving another turn of gruelling musket fire on the way in.
And so, with everything in musket range, firefights now break out along the line. Smoothbore and rifled muskets are not differentiated, though the shorter range cavalry carbine is given it’s own stat line. The range of the carbine is obviously shorter than the musket and the Union cavalry find themselves out ranged by enemy muskets and they are suffering badly from being targeted. It is not long before they are removed from play.
 |
| The Union cavalry on the right hang around within musket range for too long and are targeted. |
Artillery has a good range, but causes relatively few casualties, though against cover, the target cannot get saves against hits and so the union guns start to bring their fire onto the infantry behind the wall.
The Confederate infantry on the left are getting the worst of it and have suffered 5 hits, but their position is key, because they are protecting the left side of the wall from being enveloped and the infantry unit there is getting off a lot of effective fire, while not taking many casualties.
 |
| A very useful device for measuring firing angles. I got this from Charlie Foxtrot for just £1.50 |
Suddenly the left Confederate wing collapses and the Confederate infantry behind the wall know they must pull back, but they take heavy casualties in doing so and break on a failed morale test. Hit again by long range fire musket and artillery fire as they retreat, they again fail their test and are pushed off the table.
At this point, the Confederates have lost 3 units to the Union 2 and a natural conclusion allows the game to end. It is turn 7 and this length of game is very typical for these rules with low unit density.
Conclusion.
As a comparison between a 1970 introductory set and a 2015 one, it is interesting to see that largely, both are doing the same thing, but in different ways, though the nature of artillery fire is very similar.
The randomised movement in the Perry game is not necessarily a modern or better implementation of movement and indeed is not that common in modern rules, but the application of firepower and morale tests is more easily managed, with results being very visual on the buckets of dice results, rather than having to do the mental maths of Don’s game ( such as 13 men x a ‘5’ result on a D6 to get a morale score of ....... wait a minute, err, 65 - Yikes, I really did have to write that down to make sure it was right :-) ).
Interestingly neither set gets involved in line of sight dialogue or the effect of the woods terrain on either formation or movement. This seems odd, but how could a new player notice its absence and so it is all part of keeping the rules trim and stopping rules overload.
You can see some military precision in Don’s rules, for example artillery limbered can move 18” with a penalty of 3” for limbering and /or unlimbering, so from this, we could limber up (3”), move 12” and then unlimber (3”) to consume the entire movement allowance and be ready to fire in the next turn. We can do a variable of that and limber up (3”) and then move the rest of all their allowance (15”) and end that movement still limbered up, so you ‘have to’ unlimber when you want to fire and that will take a whole turn because you can’t move and fire in the same turn.
By comparison, in the Perry rules, artillery is only in one of two states in a turn, moving (called redeploying and which has a randomised movement rate) or firing. Per turn, you just either move or fire as you see fit.
These authors are essentially doing the same thing, but the Featherstone rule seems more intuitive to actual battlefield manoeuvre, while the Perry rule cleverly absorbs the whole limber / move / unlimber thing into a single act of redeploy.
Which you prefer is really just a personal choice and for what it’s worth, my older school credentials have me preferring the intricacies and exactness of the Featherstone method.
Overall, the Perry rules are much slicker and I suppose if you wanted to encapsulate the journey of rule development in the last 50 years into a single phrase, ‘getting slicker’ probably does it.
I wanted to compare some other introductory style rules here that would fit with the theme, such as an old Terry Wise set from his ‘Introduction to Battle Gaming’ and the Neil Thomas ‘An Introduction to Wargames’ book, but the post is already at 3000 words and my brief to myself this year is to cut down a little on being wordy and to keep these posts a little more concise, though of course there is scope for some more of this in the future :-)
Resource Section.
My sister webspace COMMANDERS is a bit more snippet based than here. Link.
