Thoughts on Morschauser’s Frontier Rules

“We may stumble and fall but shall rise again; it should be enough if we did not run away from the battle.”

— Mahatma Gandhi

My large chessboard set-up with “toy” style
terrain and stands of mounted Risk figures.

Earlier this month Bob Cordery posted the text of Joseph Morschauser’s “Frontier Wargame Rules” as published in Wargamer’s Newsletter #62 (May 1967). Cordery’s Wargaming Miscellany blog has long expanded my horizons with his views on gridded wargames and other such diversions. Although I’ve quite enjoyed exploring Cordery’s work in gridded wargames, I’ve never read Morschauser’s How To Play Wargames in Miniature, though The History of Wargaming Project edition has long been on my various wishlists. So I read and pondered the “frontier” game rules from the blog, printed a copy, and ran a few self-play games with a gridded board and some “toy” style figures readily at hand. I discovered a great deal that appealed to my appetite for concise games with basic core mechanics...and a few elements I would fine-tune if I wanted to pursue it for future games.

In his introduction to the rules Donald Featherstone indicated Morschauser played the game on a 12x12 grid with trays of 54mm soldiers as units; he did not specify the composition of opposing forces. The toys I had on hand determined the conditions under which I explored the rules. I had an 8x8 gridded playing field of large squares. Back during the pandemic I’d acquired some Risk figures I’d mounted on bases, along with some small stands of trees and a few wood-block-and-felt hills. Given the Napoleonic look of my soldiers I opted to forego using the very few notes adjusting the rules for use with “Native State” forces (primarily lowering the Battle Power of infantry and cavalry) to see how everything worked out as a general 19th century wargame. Each side fielded one command unit, one field artillery, two cavalry, and five infantry; I could have added an extra cavalry and artillery piece from my toy stash, but I felt it would have crowded the board. I tried several terrain arrangements, then settled on one with a central road, a set of hills on each side, and some unevenly distributed woods.

Over the course of several self-play games I gained a good sense of how the rules worked from my limited solitaire perspective. Most games took 20 minutes to set up and play, quick but satisfying. I varied my overall strategies for both red and blue forces, testing different approaches to see how well the rules managed them.

The red army's starting positions within
the first two squares on their side.

The game turn consists of an opening simultaneous artillery phase, where cannon take shots at targets with a two-step approach: determine where the shot falls (one-third chance on the intended target); then see if it hits (50% chance for direct fire, 33% chance for indirect fire). Then players roll for initiative. Each player on their turn moves as many units as they like, then attacks enemies in their forward zone of control. Units maintain a zone of control into the space directly in front, depending on their facing; so enemy units can pass through adjacent or rear spaces without having to stop. A defensive unit must face the last attacker moving into an adjacent space. The attacker then rolls two dice, one for their unit and another for the defender. Each must roll their Battle Power or less to inflict a kill; additional units facing the defender lower the defender’s Battle Power by one point. In this method it’s possible for one piece to eliminate the other, each remain in a stalemate, or both suffer elimination.

The rules contain no guidance for any kind of morale or command (beyond the command unit’s high Battle Power of 6, the best on the board). No fancy charge rules for cavalry. Suitable Battle Power of 1 for artillery. Move values of 1 for artillery, 2 for infantry, and presumably 3 for cavalry (the article lists it as “2” but this seems incongruous). Overall, on the surface, the rules read like they’d simulate some substantive yet concise engagements.

Elements I Liked

Morschauser’s rules contained many elements that appealed to me, both in my initial reading and during numerous games.

Compact: Not counting Featherstone’s introduction the text runs slightly more than 1,000 words. It limits forces to command, infantry, cavalry, Maxim guns (understandable for frontier rules), and three kinds of artillery. Each unit has only three stats: Move (in squares), Battle Power, and Range. Movement, rangefinding, and combat only occur orthogonally. The combat system seemed basic (more below) but reflected battlefield considerations. Overall it provided a satisfying battle simulation with some large but understandable abstractions.

Gridded Battlefield: As a fan of gridded wargames, whether classic chit-and-hex games, battle games like Battle Cry, or Cordery’s Portable Wargame series, Morschauser’s rules appealed to me. The gridded format keeps its footprint small, though one could scale it up for more of an epic visual impression. I’ve found I prefer grids for movement and fire measurement for a lighter game experience...or when introducing the form to newcomers more accustomed to a board game’s spaces.

Artillery: The system for artillery seems a little odd at first — determining the fall of the shot before determining whether it hits the target — but it worked out quite well. With a two-thirds chance a shot might go off to one of the orthogonally adjacent squares, I found myself aiming at units in the midst of others should a shot go astray. Determining hit location before hit success sometimes made that second determination moot: sometimes the square contained no unit, other times it was out of range or line of sight.

Zones of Control: Giving each unit a single adjacent space zone of control forward of its facing meant that enemy units could easily maneuver aside and behind to stack their power in a main attack. Since a unit entering an opponent piece’s zone of control not only had to stop but attack that unit, it limited one’s movements to more carefully considered attacks.

Outflanking Power: I really liked the nuance and simplicity of additional attacking units reducing the defender’s Battle Power by one. In head-to-head single-unit combat, both stood similar chances of prevailing (though using the Native State reduced values would make a slight difference). Positioning additional attackers on the defender’s flanks helped stack the odds in the attacker’s favor. The consideration influenced my tactics on the board in maneuvering and advancing my units.

Room to Play

Gamers are infamous for tinkering with rules. The elegant simplicity of Morschauser’s frontier rules provide plenty of room for both adjustment and expansion according to one’s gaming tastes, even without meddling too much with the core mechanics. As I played I encountered some areas that needed a bit of clarification and others that didn’t seem to quite align with my own preconceptions for wargames.

Clarity: I realize the rules represent a playable framework, the bare minimum necessary for a game tempered by the participants’ interpretations of the less well-defined bits. Some rules in practice inspired a few questions. After combat, can a surviving unit adjust its facing? Does a unit advancing after successful combat retain its original facing or turn if desired? The rules’ brevity meant they left out any examples that might have clarified some concepts that might not be terribly clear on a first reading or play-through. During play I noted situations requiring a bit more clarity, then made decisions on further games how to adjudicate questions that arose earlier.

Command: The command unit seemed a necessary element from the military standpoint, but had no “command” function I could discern. Its Battle Power value of 6 meant it always killed its opponent unit, though it, too, could suffer elimination. I didn’t notice any guidance about what happened should it fall in combat. Is that a victory condition? Are other units incapable of advancing? It seemed limited and I found no suitable modification to test in play. I considered adding some bonus to adjacent units, but the combat mechanic didn’t seem to offer much granularity in that respect, so I just left it alone. Maybe a +1 Battle Power bonus to one adjacent unit? Possibly if overall Battle Power values were reduced (see below).

Battle Power Values: Most units had high values of 5, with command units with 6 and artillery understandably with 1. But when cavalry and infantry clashed, rolling equal to or less than even adjusted Battle Power value more often resulted in units eliminating each other...even accounting for penalties due to outflanking or terrain. I’m tempted to revise these down from 5 to 4 for cavalry and infantry, keeping the command unit at 6 to maintain its importance. (Differences in Battle Powers probably emerge more clearly when European units face off against those from Native States.)

Terrain: The rules offer some basic guidance for terrain...hills, roads, rivers, and trees. Most relate to movement, some provide Battle Power penalties in combat. While they seem intuitive, I found them a little lacking relative to certain situations. Trees didn’t hinder movement but only penalized cavalry attacks into or out of woods. Towns counted simply as road spaces (which essentially halve movement costs), with no consideration for combat...perhaps that’s fine, though for me it makes a town’s presence moot. No doubt fussy wargamers like myself could devise additional rules or develop effects for other types of terrain like swamps or rough ground, though this, of course, complicates an otherwise elegantly concise game.

Blue cavalry advances for an ultimately
successful attack against red cavalry.

Will To Fight: As a wargaming framework Morschauser’s frontier rules don’t offer lengthy sections on morale or victory conditions. I’d assume seasoned wargamers would easily devise their own victory criteria based on a given scenario. I did not miss the lack of rules governing morale-related results for losing individual engagements on the battlefield, though I questioned what might happen to a side should the command unit meet its end. Ultimately I decided to end battles when one side reduced the other to only three units, one-third of the nine each side fielded. Cordery’s Portable Wargame uses an Exhaustion Point concept, where an army withdraws (i.e., cannot advance) when it reaches one-third its original strength (as measured in Strength Points)...or half the number of units if using the “sudden death” option (where, like Morschauser, a single hit destroys a unit). Using a similar method — measured simply by one-third the number of units — served me well in my self-play battles.

Frontier Flair: I found few concessions to the “frontier” nature of the rules. I appreciate accommodations for the somewhat lower Battle Power values for Native States infantry and cavalry, but I’d hoped for some guidance on other elements of frontier warfare: units in or behind cover; skirmishers; charges; fanatical fervor. I’d need more time and play experience to suggest modifications...though I’ll admit the rules hold more interest for me for other historical periods.

I regret if my concerns sound harsh in light of Morschauser’s intent in what is admittedly a very brief yet functional — and fun — outline for 19th century battles. It offers a solid framework with plenty of room for adjustments to suit one’s tastes. I’m tempted to adapt the rules to other periods, notably for ancient/medieval battles; with the elimination of field artillery, I suppose I could incorporate archers in a similar role (though with far shorter ranges) or use them to “outflank” units up to two squares away, even over friendly units. Something I might pursue for my interest in Imperial Romans versus Germanic tribes I’ve previously explored using Cordery’s Portable Wargame rules. Morschauser’s rules offer a great deal of potential for those like me who like systems that skew more toward the basic than the complex.

I suppose I should acquire Morschauser’s How To Play Wargames in Miniature at some point. I expect it would help me further understand his design rationales and tendencies in the hopes of gaining a better perspective on his intentions with his frontier rules. They might also provide an alternate set of rules to explore on the wargame table. (I regret acquiring this title will have to wait until the threats of massive economic instability in America pass...if ever.) Until then, his frontier rules as Cordery shared provide an enjoyable framework for fighting engagements in miniature, relying on the versatile grid format and its expediency on a small footprint.

“A battle lost or won is easily described, understood, and appreciated, but the moral growth of a great nation requires reflection, as well as observation, to appreciate it.”

— Frederick Douglass