Before I start, I should explain that a multilemma is a bit like a dilemma, but with more options.
Mythically a Multilemma is a creature with horns that grow in a manner similar to a “monkey-puzzle” tree. Once every 1500 years it migrates to the coast (normally Bournemouth or Torquay) to indulge in a bit of sea-bathing, in the process of which it invariably drowns due to the weight of the horns when soaked in salt water. (yes: I made that up, just like the folks at Games Workshop used to do.)
But for our purposes a multilemma is the situation that I face. In my campaign I have a company of German PanzerGrenadiers in 1944 facing a company of British Glider Infantry, across a bridge. To the right (from the German viewpoint) of the enemy is another company of PanzerGrenadiers, but to their right is a company of British Parachute infantry. The company commander of the southern unit has (by rolling a 6) decided to attack.
My problem is how to play this engagement:
A simple die roll, taking into account the support companies.
Hex and counter boardgame. Each company is 4 counters. 1 hex = 250m. Rules: Memoir ’44.*
6mm models on hex terrain (similar to option 2 but wth 3D detail), in which case I will probably need to do some terrain building. Rules: Probably Memoir ’44, and my preferred option.
20mm. I would need to substitute American soldier models for British. As for rules, I have several possibilities. I would probably have to make some quite a lot of terrain, including a river and a rail bridge. Chain of Command rules?
Counters as Sections/Squads with Squad Leader boards and local rules.
Counters as Sections/Squads with Squad Leader boards and 1970s (not Squad Leader) rules.
Option 2 has been the normal recent method of resolving engagements, but can be somewhat boring, particularly with small engagements.
So far, from the above, I have a Sexilemma. Not something that I would wish to meet in a wood on a dark night! But it is looking to me as if the answer may be D6-based. Before I roll the die( and a D3 or a D6) any suggestions?
I have been asked several times by gamers within and without this e-mail campaign game to publish my rules. The truth is that, like so many games, the rules evolve as the game progresses.
But I think I have reached a point where the rules are fairly stable, and so I am now prepared to share them. This is a draft, un-proofread document, and I am sure that my grammar school English teacher of 50 years ago, Mr. Tilney-Bassett, would pick many holes in my presentation. However, here they are in PDF format
I reserve the right as umpire to change, alter, amend or otherwise muck about with the rules as I think fit. They are in fact merely guidelines to aid me in conducting the campaign.
Make whatever use of them that you will, remembering always that my main inspiration was SPI publications “Arnhem” game for the map and order of battle, and that they should be credited in any commercial publication.
One of my roles in re-enactment is that of a pensioner of les Invalides at the time of Napoleon I. It is a totally inaccurate representation as I still own two arms and two legs, and thus would be disqualified!
In that role I like to demonstrate, and to encourage visitors to play, a small game whereby I relive my past glories and try to rectify the errors of the past. This game has evolved over the years and is now played in a form akin to chess, on a card table ruled into 144 squares. I can set up a fictitious battle or a stylised representation of any of the battles of “my youth”.
Today I played a solo game of an actual battle – or as near as I could represent it. The original battle was fought between less than 700 troops, so it could be represented on my table almost on a 1 figure:1 soldier basis.
Here is the latest version of the rules, updated after this battle ton reduce infantry firing range. The latest version restricts infantry shooting to one square range, but differentiates between moving to attack or shooting without moving. Unlike many wargames, shooting without moving is less effective than when moving. This is because the first reperesents trading volleys while the second represents a column attack.Battle Chess 1800
And here is the report of the skirmish at Rumégies in May 1792, played to the above rules. Rumegies 17920519
An interesting exercise, taking a couple of hours from start to finish including the reporting and photography, all done on an i-Pad in my ManCave.