Volley effect

Hi all.

I'm new to Kriegsspiel but have had an interest in Napoleonic strategy for years now. I've read the Reisswitz rules on fire effect. He covers the parameter of distance from target, target formation, type, potential cover, and dismisses any height effect.

What about target orientation/facing though? If an enemy half-battalion is looking straight at your firing piece then just looking up the tables will suffice, but what if you are firing down it's flank? The enemy would present a much smaller target and thus receive less casualties. Not to mention the fact that many bullets will end up hitting the same individuals that were unfortunate to be on the outer edge of their half-battalion.

Is there a rule set that covers this, or for simplicity's sake was this never examined? Does anyone have any suggestion as to how to deal with such cases? Thanks.

First of all I would abandon Leeson's book. It is full of many egregious mistakes.

If you're referring to flank-fire with muskets, I don't know if there was a rule in the book for this. Rule 46 gives that 1/4 more is added to effect against a unit fired upon with roundshot or shell than is shown on the die. Until I can find a passage in the original to the contrary, I would suggest a ruling where infantry-fire at a flank is only 1/4 of what is shown on the die.

Best wishes.

Thanks for the reply

p.s. pm sent

I am very interested to know more about the mistakes. Could you please tell us what they are?

Gamer2000 wrote:I am very interested to know more about the mistakes. Could you please tell us what they are?

To ennumerate all the errors which I have found would take a lot of time and space which, unfortunately, I do not have at present.

In short, his work is more of a very sloppy paraphrase than a proper translation.

Best Regards,

Yogah of Yag.

Yoga of Yag, do you have a copy of the kriegsspiel rules that are a different translation, or maybe the original German text?

Gamer2000 wrote:Yoga of Yag, do you have a copy of the kriegsspiel rules that are a different translation, or maybe the original German text?

The original German book with the original illustrations.

You suggest abandoning the Leeson text, may I ask why? It seems to be used by quite a few people very successfully.

Yogahofyag, You say 'abandon the Leeson book', and in another thread you utterly condemn the TFL version - could you suggest a readily available alternative in English?
I think it better for people to play Kriegsspiel in some manner rather than abandon the attempt becasue the perfect translation has not yet been made available. I suspect most people don't play as a means of honouring Reisswitz, so don't consider minor deviations a sin or an affront. No doubt they would prefer to play the original version if it were available but if it isn't...
Where anomalies/confusions/omissions occur I would suggest umpire knowledge fills them in. At worst assign values to outcomes and throw a die - better than not playing at all.
Guy

YogahofYag wrote:

Gamer2000 wrote:Yoga of Yag, do you have a copy of the kriegsspiel rules that are a different translation, or maybe the original German text?

The original German book with the original illustrations.

If you get in touch with Richard at 2FL I am sure he would be interested in making corrections available via the WWW or if you could provide a full and correct translation then perhaps an updated version?

I am not absolutely sure of the history of the work done by Bill but he at least had a crack at doing it and has opened the door through which you could add further insight and help to English speakers throughout the world. If I were you and had the ability to see mistakes I would attempt to help correct them in a constructive manner.

We are all human and not always perfect in what we do, but at least Bill did something for others by trying to translate the work.

I am not sure he even wanted it published but because people asked he helped out by making it available.....

Anyway just a few thoughts that might help you understand that everything is not black and white......

Efforts are currently underway to remedy the situation. Your collective patience is appreciated.

For those of you who continue to praise Leeson, whom among you have read the original Prussian document and seen the illustrations? How could one know how accurate Leeson may be without comparing his work with the original? How, then, could you competently assess the accuracy or lack thereof with regard to Leeson's book?

Addendum: Could someone please tell me the provenance of the illustration on the KS News site that depicts the stones? All I know is that it is not from von Reisswitz.

YogahofYag wrote:For those of you who continue to praise Leeson, whom among you have read the original Prussian document and seen the illustrations? How could one know how accurate Leeson may be without comparing his work with the original? How, then, could you competently assess the accuracy or lack thereof with regard to Leeson's book?

Don't know if this was addressed to me but, although I wasn't 'praising' Bill particularly I thought your comments regarding his work were unnecessarily ad hominem. I have not seen the original Reisswitz, nor do I particularly care if my playing of Kriegsspiel is an exact replication of an early nineteenth century experience, so the Leeson work is entirely satisfactory from my game playing standpoint. I don't believe there is anything sacrosanct about the original game and make no comment regarding the accuracy of Leeson's work.

I would be quite happy to try a game played to your translation if it is published, and I wish you well if that is what you are planning (I really do, I would love to see an original and/or a translation of it). It is not necessary, however, to denigrate the work of those who went before you. That the number of English speakers interested in Kriegsspiel is as large as it is, is due in no small part to Bill's efforts and you owe much of your potential market to him. I have no idea whether your translation will be more accurate or more sympathetic to Reisswitz' intentions but Bill got there over twenty five years ago and did his best. You would attract more interest and sympathy from Kriegsspielers by saying nothing about his work if you cannot find it in you to say anything positive, and let your own work stand alone to be welcomed.

Guy wrote:

YogahofYag wrote:For those of you who continue to praise Leeson, whom among you have read the original Prussian document and seen the illustrations? How could one know how accurate Leeson may be without comparing his work with the original? How, then, could you competently assess the accuracy or lack thereof with regard to Leeson's book?

Don't know if this was addressed to me but, although I wasn't 'praising' Bill particularly I thought your comments regarding his work were unnecessarily ad hominem. I have not seen the original Reisswitz, nor do I particularly care if my playing of Kriegsspiel is an exact replication of an early nineteenth century experience, so the Leeson work is entirely satisfactory from my game playing standpoint. I don't believe there is anything sacrosanct about the original game and make no comment regarding the accuracy of Leeson's work.

I would be quite happy to try a game played to your translation if it is published, and I wish you well if that is what you are planning (I really do, I would love to see an original and/or a translation of it). It is not necessary, however, to denigrate the work of those who went before you. That the number of English speakers interested in Kriegsspiel is as large as it is, is due in no small part to Bill's efforts and you owe much of your potential market to him. I have no idea whether your translation will be more accurate or more sympathetic to Reisswitz' intentions but Bill got there over twenty five years ago and did his best. You would attract more interest and sympathy from Kriegsspielers by saying nothing about his work if you cannot find it in you to say anything positive, and let your own work stand alone to be welcomed.

I knew about the von Reisswitz work by reputation before learning of Leeson's efforts, not the other way around.

I can only assume, based on your remarks, that you are Mr. Leeson himself. Otherwise, why would you take such unnecessary offence at comments directly at the author's distorted and misleading paraphrase?

My opinions are not ad hominem. My measured criticisms -- not excessive whatsoever, I assure you -- are directed fully at the man's work, such as it is.

If you feel that Leeson's (your own?) work is sufficient, I wish you many entertaining hours of wargaming.

Cordially,

YoY.

'I knew about the von Reisswitz work by reputation before learning of Leeson's efforts, not the other way around.'

Good for you.

'I can only assume, based on your remarks, that you are Mr. Leeson himself.'

Assume all you like, I'm not.

'I wish you many entertaining hours of wargaming.'

Thank you. I look forward to your 100% accurate version of the rules.

Guy (not Bill)

Guy wrote:Thank you. I look forward to your 100% accurate version of the rules.

Guy (not Bill)

That's very nice of you. Be sure to drop by one of my book-signing events in the near future, and I would be delighted to sign a copy for you. I always look forward to meeting my readers.

Best Regards,

YoY.

I have been watching this thread with a growing sense of sadness and I feel now that we have got to the stage where accusations are being made of people masquerading as Bill that I should make some comment.

Bill Leeson is now elderly and considerably infirm and due to his ill-health has withdrawn from the kriegsspiel community to be cared for by relatives. As such you will not find him positing here. As his publisher I feel that I should attempt some kind of reply on his behalf.

Bill Leeson was not a German speaker by birth nor a professional linguist, he was however inspired sufficiently by his discovery of von Reisswitz's work to undertake the task of translating several volumes on Kriegsspiel into English. In so doing Bill single-handedly reintroduced modern gamers to what I view as the true genesis of the wargaming hobby, and it is no coincidence that his translation of the rules and the numerous maps that he produced are being used and enjoyed around the world today.

Naturally there are some errors made in any translation, and I am entirely confident that a fluent German speaker could have done a more concise job, however what I truly doubt is whether such linguistic precision would materially have changed the outcome of games being played today.

It seems to me that there are two ways to view Reisswitz's work; as a holy text where every word needs to be present in the correct order, or as a set of rules to enable the modern gamer to enjoy games played in the same manner as those were nearly two hundred years ago. When preparing the TooFatLardies version I wholeheartedly took the latter view. The original Reisswitz work was laid out in a manner that did not flow naturally to the modern gamer. If one was interested, for example, in the effects of firepower it was necessary to search in several sections of the book in order to get a complete picture of the author's intentions. My editorial approach was to restructure the rules in a manner that collected the relevant data into clear discrete sections in order to make the game more playable. Of course, such an approach would be seen as a betrayal of Reisswitz by one who preferred to view his work reverentially as some holy writ, but that was always unavoidable. I chose the path that I thought made the game most accessible.

On the issue of "egregious" errors, I note that whilst having plenty to say about their presence generally and defining his cricisms as "measured", in fact YogahofYag chooses not to identify a single error that can be laid at Bill's door. Thus far all he has identified are two typographical errors where section numbers have been incorrectly transcribed. These are entirely my errors when laying out the most recent edition of the rules for publication, as he is fully aware of as we discussed the issue some time ago on the TooFatLardies Yahoo Group when, indeed, I provided him with the correct section numbers. I am beginning to wonder if YogahofYag does actually have any valid "measued criticisms" to make, or whether he is simply taking his enjoyment out of throwing rocks at the the current editions of Kriegsspiel rather than playing them.

By all means feel free to hurl brickbats at me, however I would be grateful if you gave some respect and credit to Bill Leeson for his pioneering work that was wholely responsible for the rebirth of Kriegsspiel.

Richard Clarke
TooFatLardies

Yoga - Not sure where you are likely to be signing, but let me know when you intend to publish and I may stock some.
Cheers
Guy

Richard,
Hope I haven't contributed to any upset re Bill. I have not seen him for many years but I knew of his difficulties and that was partly while I felt the injustice of the attack on him should not go by without a small enquiry as to the reason behind such comments.

I believe that only a deliberately perverse reading of my correspondence could have led anyone (not you) to conclude that I was him.

I admire your patience in explaining the facts but I suspect they are not likely to alter the opinion of the critic. Other readers have no doubt already have formed their opinion of the matter and I should imagine they already know the debt we owe Bill for his work.

Best wishes
Guy

le fusilier,
apologies for hijacking your question.
Guy

Guy

My comments were not aimed at you at all, indeed I greatly appreciate your comments regarding Bill's contribution. Had he not undertaken the ground breaking work that he did then I suspect that kriegsspiel would today be viewed as nothing more than an historical curiosity. Instead Bill presented a system that has been used, enjoyed and, probably more importantly, developed futher to create a whole raft of interesting and enjoyable games in many other eras outside the classic "horse and musket" of the Reisswitz game. I believe that we owe him a debt of gratitude.

Regards

Richard

Hi Richard,
Hear! Hear! re Bill. And I am glad you have continued to make it accessible for people.
Didn't think you were aiming at me, just wanted to make sure you knew I appreciate your position.
Best wishes
Guy

I agree with you Guy. Bill (and Richard btw) are owed a great debt for unearthing and publishing the game to a non-German-speaking audience.

Personally I'm quite happy with a free-translation, although I appreciate others may take a different view. I would certainly be very interested if we have misunderstood the Reisswitz approach in a significant way

With his knowledge of the language, and his copy of Reisswitz's original rules, I think YogahofYag is in a position to make a positive contribution. I'm sure that Richard would be happy to post corrections here and at TFL.

Just to confirm that Bill is now in now in his late seventies, and has not been able to use email or the internet for several years, just in case anyone is still wondering

Martin

I for one would be very interested in a few examples of significant mistakes made in Bill's translation/adaptation.
2 or 3 would suffice.

Maurizio

I wish to thank TFL for their response. I hope that Mr. Leeson's constitution improves.
I do not personally know Bill Leeson. However, I know him indirectly through this single work.

Now, to respond to one or more of the above posts, I will identify a number of issues I found troubling with the Leeson paraphrase:


* Why did Leeson choose to translate der Vertraute as umpire? The German term means Confidant, in other words, one who is selected because both parties place their trust in him to be a fair and objective arbiter. That crucial meaning is completely lost with such terms as "umpire", "referee", "judge", and so on (essentially Schiedsrichter, a word which does not occur at all in the original). How much easier would wargaming be today if the official of such events had been selected by the players based on mutual trust!

* Why did Leeson not include a transcription of the orignal German language work for comparison?

* Why did Leeson feel the need to completely rearrange the tables?

* What is inherently wrong with the original scale of 1:8000?

* Leeson's "translation" of the crucial use of exchange-stones (p. 13) is also flawed, as it does not reflect the German text. I will provide the correct translation and explanation in my upcoming book. (It is telling that Leeson did not himself understand this as he later confessed to us that it all seemed 'rather confusing'!) Had he translated the German passage exactly, it would seem quite elementary! For skeptics I provide the original:

Soll nun von der gelchlossenen Masse des Bataillons 1/6 mehr als das 3te
Glied der Tirailleurs aufgelöst werden, so würde sie um 1/6 geschwächt sein. Der
Spieler wechselt daher einen Auswechselungsstein der 1ster Klasse (Fig. 3) gegen
einen gewöhnlichen ein, und hat dafür das Recht, noch 2 Züge oder 2 dünne
Streifen in die Tirailleurlinie zu bringen. Will er sie noch mehr verstärken, so
nimmt er den kleinsten Auswechselungsstein (Fig. 4), deutet dadurch an, daſs
er seine Masse abermals um 1/6 vermindere, und setzt ein Tirailleurzeichen mehr
in die Linie; will er auſser dem 3ten Gliede die Hälfte des Bataillons auflösen,
so legt er abermals einen Streifen hinzu, und giebt dafür den geschlossenen Stein
des Bataillons ganz ab.
Die Auflösung des 3ten Gliedes wird also durch 4 Streifen, die jedes hal-
ben Bataillons durch 4 [mehr!], die des ganzen Betaillons durch 12 Streifen dargestellt.

Pay special attention to the emboldened text, if you would. My bracketed addition "mehr" helps to make things easy, and isn't in the original, but if it were headaches would not have developed! If you all try this out it makes more sense. I assure you.

* Why do the depictions of the stones vary--at times greatly--from the originals? E.g. why are the cav. and the posts/patrol-stones depicted as square in Leeson, when in fact they are rectangular, and thus take up a different amount of space on the map?

* Why were the stones for Dragoons and Hussars switched without comment?

* Where are the measurements for the stones in Leeson's work? How large are we to make them? Other than the depth and frontage for 1/2-bltns, the frontages for batteries and squadrons, how does the reader know how to fashion the stones?

* Why is Decimal Zoll not translated? What were the original units of measurement employed by the Prussian military at the time?

* Why is there a repetition of "60" in the text (p. 9 in Leeson) with reference to calculation of casualties? This is a likely error in the original which Leeson simply copies without comment nor emendation. Following the point schedule, how is 60 possible? To the best of my knowledge -- and forum members are welcome to explain if I am in error -- the result, following the point schedule, should be 50.

* Why did Leeson omit the original's reference to "Petteia"?

* Why were the two rulers shown in Leeson very different than the original?

* Why did Leeson omit reference to the exchange stones for Jaegers, and the skirmish-strips for Jaegers, as seen in the Prussian work?

* The system of numeration for lt. vs. hvy. arty present in the original is (as far as I can see) not included in the Leeson work. If this rule is indeed in Leeson, please point it out to me.

* Why are Leeson's depictions of the arty stones lacking details with which to distinguish the different calibres (as can be discerned in the original plates)?

* Where are rules, 3.2.8, 3.3.4 and 3.3.11 in Leeson's work?

_________________________
This is just an introductory sampling of some of my grievances with Leeson's paraphrase. For those who doubt my qualifications let me explain that I am a Linguist, a university graduate with a background in Germanic Language and Literature. I have been around German for the majority of my lifetime in some capacity, and I have studied it formally in secondary schooling and throughout college.

My own textual-critical edition of the original German language text, together with a reproduction of the original artwork, commentary and appended apparatus is complete and it will be made available in the next calendar year.

When it is finally available to the public I will make a formal announcement to various wargaming-related and military history-related websites.

In closing, I must stress that I have a great deal of dedication to bring the true and original Kriegs-Spiel to the public, that any confusion can be readily dispelled by means of a careful and respectful examination of the good Baron's remarkable creation.

Best Regards,

YoY.

Thanks for the examples and it is clear you are undertaking some serious research. I am not sure if it is a language thing but you seem to have a thing against Bill who was (I believe) an amateur just doing the translation for his hobby and perhaps not with the same academic background as you?

Your tone seems hostile when you could present it in a slightly different manner and win people over to your work. Perhaps this is just an issue with reading text and if you were talking in person you would not appear to be so hostile towards Bill?

Anyway I applaud your research and wish you well in publishing it. Thank you for giving us another perspective.

Regards

MJ