Leadership on the Cardboard Battlefield

[Michael Dorosh]

Out of curiousity, did the leadership model of Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader represent a unique concept, of was it an evolution of earlier designs? Can leadership counters be found in board wargames predating 1977? The number of tactical games predating Squad Leader is low - just over 20 I think - and the number of those featuring squads as the basic unit is even smaller. But the concept could be applied even at the operational or strategic level. I know some ACW games feature "general" counters with leadership modifiers - but don't know enough about them to know if they predate SL or if they were an influence on the design.

 

[Bigkayeh]

I don't remember a pre-dating reference but out about the same time Gettysburg '77 had in its intermidiate game headquaters and in the advanced game there were commanders.

 

[graydo]

Out of curiousity, did the leadership model of Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader represent a unique concept, of was it an evolution of earlier designs? Can leadership counters be found in board wargames predating 1977? The number of tactical games predating Squad Leader is low - just over 20 I think - and the number of those featuring squads as the basic unit is even smaller. But the concept could be applied even at the operational or strategic level. I know some ACW games feature "general" counters with leadership modifiers - but don't know enough about them to know if they predate SL or if they were an influence on the design.

Well War Between the States has detailed leader counters prior to SL but that was a strategic level game (as did the earlier SPI American Civil War). I don't recall any similar leader use at that same level of simulation. Panzerblitz was the next level up and didn't have leaders. Sniper may have had leaders (I'd have to go back and look to be sure) but it was a one man-one counter game so it wouldn't be the same concept as a squad level game with single man counters only for leaders.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Sniper! is man to man and is kind of a grey area as far as "leadership"; I have the original SPI version as well as the later TSR (also Patrol). IIRC, you did designate Squad Leaders, but every man was on the board anyway, so there was no direction of fire, etc. I know Ambush! (post-SL) gave "leaders" the ability to give up an impulse to another soldier in command. Drawing a blank on Sniper! at the moment.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I think the major input SL gave to wargames' world is the stress upon morale.
Linked to that, the effect of leaders upon morale.
It was innovative to have units destroyed via successive failed morale checks.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I think the major input SL gave to wargames' world is the stress upon morale.
Linked to that, the effect of leaders upon morale.
It was innovative to have units destroyed via successive failed morale checks.

Well, removed from the board, not actually "destroyed", since that only represents being rendered hors de combat and not actually dying from grief over the loss of a cherished leader...but I take your point.

 

[wrongway149]

CAESAR:Alesia had two Roman generals in it. With the Caesar counter, your stack was allowed to pick from 3 attack rolls, and two rolls for the other guy.
IIRC

 

[Robin Reeve]

Well, removed from the board, not actually "destroyed", since that only represents being rendered hors de combat and not actually dying from grief over the loss of a cherished leader...but I take your point.

Well, not actually "hors de combat", but sthey have no signification under the game terms.

 

[A/CSM Bird]

As soon as I saw this thread I grabbed my copy of Peter Perla's 'The Art of Wargaming' alas there is no reference to 'Leadership' that I could see. I thought that SL did chart a new course in this regard, I seem to have a hazy memory of an article somewhere, ("Fire and Movement" maybe) that held the SL model up as a paragon of innovation. I have no reference unfortunately, sorry Michael.

Among SL's and ASL's virtues, besides the whole 'System', were cited the Leadership factor on morale, as has been noted here, and modifying the firepower of units and hitting ability of guns. The other notable difference to other war games was the sheer amount of information on the counters.

I'm sure you'll agree that ASL packs more info on a counter than any other game prior to 1976-87.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

As soon as I saw this thread I grabbed my copy of Peter Perla's 'The Art of Wargaming' alas there is no reference to 'Leadership' that I could see. I thought that SL did chart a new course in this regard, I seem to have a hazy memory of an article somewhere, ("Fire and Movement" maybe) that held the SL model up as a paragon of innovation. I have no reference unfortunately, sorry Michael.

Among SL's and ASL's virtues, besides the whole 'System', were cited the Leadership factor on morale, as has been noted here, and modifying the firepower of units and hitting ability of guns. The other notable difference to other war games was the sheer amount of information on the counters.

I'm sure you'll agree that ASL packs more info on a counter than any other game prior to 1976-87.

Thanks for all the responses so far.

I don't know if ASL packs more info on a counter or not; certainly the rule book appears to be the longest rulebook of any tactical - or other kind - of wargame to that point in time. I've identified about 120 20th century tactical (man-to-man, squad and platoon based) games published from the start of the hobby in 1958-ish to 1999. (Anyone who thinks the hobby is dying can be heartened to know that the number of titles since 2000 is impressive, even if most of them are modules for ATS, Panzer Grenadier and ASL). I'm on my way to owning copies of all of them. Just doing a detailed examination of PanzerBlitz, which is what started it all in 1969 (and its predecessor, Tactical Game 3).

I think there were, however, many innovative concepts as far as tactical games but I want to be sure that these weren't simply borrowed from other genres. Leadership is one of them. Ranged combat is another, ditto To Hit/To Kill process, concealment, etc.

PanzerBlitz does not seem all that innovative to be honest, looking back with 40 years of hindsight. The CRT seems very familiar - count up the odds, get a ratio, roll for 1 of a handful of possible results. That's not a criticism, but I think it highlights just how innovative Squad Leader truly was. Having said that, I don't have my copies of Grunt or Search & Destroy in hand yet, which were squad-based games which beat Squad Leader to the punch. Firefight was a good early effort, coming out a year before Squad Leader (some of you will remember it as a TSR re-release) and with a rule book about half as long.

The IFT itself seems very innovative, permitting the massing of fires, though perhaps it is six of one, half a dozen of another. It does give a player more options than someone in Firefight, say, who must fire each squad singly.

Rules for MGs, penetration, all that seems pretty groundbreaking as well.

But back on the topic of leadership - I think SL may have been the first to suggest that troops can do more than just be "suppressed" or "dispersed" but actually break down or even run away. One can argue this is factored into a "K" result in other games, but SL lets you rally them within the space of a 10 or 20 turn battle. Arguing how realistic that is might be like arguing the number of angels on the head of a pin, though.

 

[wrongway149]

Rules for MGs, penetration, all that seems pretty groundbreaking as well.

Most innovative all, IMO, is the mechanic of Defensive First fire (and bounding fire). This even today sets ASL far and away above most other systems, and brings the tension to the game, which makes it most fun.


:clap:

 

[A/CSM Bird]

Most innovative all, IMO, is the mechanic of Defensive First fire (and bounding fire). This even today sets ASL far and away above most other systems, and brings the tension to the game, which makes it most fun.


:clap:

I still remember calling my buddy, we were both reading the RB for the first time, saying "Holy Sh#t did you read Defensive Fire!!!"

Ahh those were the days

 

[rglesing@indot.]

Most innovative all, IMO, is the mechanic of Defensive First fire (and bounding fire). This even today sets ASL far and away above most other systems, and brings the tension to the game, which makes it most fun.


:clap:

Going back to Squad Leader, the defensive fire was (by the standard rule) all done after movement was completed. It was an "optional" rule to take fire attacks during movement. I took one look and said "f**k the standard rule", this puppy will be a lot more fun if the DF is done DURING movement. (Besides which, it was a hell of a lot easier than remembering every space that every unit had moved through.) My friends and I played it that way from game one. I don't know which rule others used when they played SL (because there wasn't the big "community" of players with SL that we now have with ASL) but it was the DF during movement (in ASL: DFF) that made it a great system. Before SL all the games I played were: player #1 does all his moving, then he attacks. Then Player #2 gets to do all his stuff. So basically you were really only "playing" about 1/2 of the game. But suddenly, with SL you were involved almost 100 % of the time. That was a fantastic innovation.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, well....I just got my copy of COMBAT by Gameforms, published in 1981, in the mail today. They have a rules section on FIRE LANES, though admittedly the scale is man-to-man. They also have Spray Fire rules. Interesting.

 

[ChrisBuehler]

(Besides which, it was a hell of a lot easier than remembering every space that every unit had moved through.)

The crosshair counters were to mark hexes through which squads moved.

I don't know which rule others used when they played SL (because there wasn't the big "community" of players with SL that we now have with ASL) but it was the DF during movement (in ASL: DFF) that made it a great system. Before SL all the games I played were: player #1 does all his moving, then he attacks. Then Player #2 gets to do all his stuff. So basically you were really only "playing" about 1/2 of the game. But suddenly, with SL you were involved almost 100 % of the time. That was a fantastic innovation.

Absolutely!

Chris

 

[A/CSM Bird]

It's the system. The SL/ASL package. All these various bits that really make our game the innovation leader if you'll pardon the expression. There have been small tastes of this or that feature in other games but their inclusion in one game is the real reason ASL is the greatest tactical wargame of all time. :halo:

 

[countermanCX]

Hi Michael,

re leadership, I had a vague memory of AH Tobruk, & looking over its ctrsheets at boardgamegeek I confirmed that it had both HQ and FO infantry ctrs. Now, did these guys have a 'leadership' effect on the infantry-section or crew ctrs? I just can't remember, maybe you've a copy of the game & can check its rules.

I do recall that Tobruk's take on infantry Morale (decreasing as the ctr took combat results, & scored on a printed pad of checkboxes) was a bit cumbersome.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Hi Michael,

re leadership, I had a vague memory of AH Tobruk, & looking over its ctrsheets at boardgamegeek I confirmed that it had both HQ and FO infantry ctrs. Now, did these guys have a 'leadership' effect on the infantry-section or crew ctrs? I just can't remember, maybe you've a copy of the game & can check its rules.

I do recall that Tobruk's take on infantry Morale (decreasing as the ctr took combat results, & scored on a printed pad of checkboxes) was a bit cumbersome.

Thanks very much for this - I do have a beat up copy of Tobruk on the shelf; I'll have to pull it out and give it a look. Never played it, but the pads did look cumbersome. I have a copy of one of the ATS modules (can I admit that here?) and it seemed a little more sleek.

 

[countermanCX]

I think Tobruk can be called a direct ancestor of SL. I really liked its structure - not only did its 12 scenarios recreate the Gazala campaign, but each succeeding scenario introduced add'l rules in a 'programmed instruction' sequence. Actually a rather cleverly-designed game.

ATS has little to do w/ Tobruk, except for perpetuating a silly modeling of the M3 Grant 75mm gun's field-of-fire.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I think Tobruk can be called a direct ancestor of SL.

You should read some of the 1970s debates in the old magazines between Hal Hock and Don Greenwood - the two games actually represented very different design philosophies and were more like competitors than ancestors. Interesting reading if you can find it.