Built Up Area Combat Test Game

After two games based on Ligny I wanted to make sure I was getting the fighting for the villages working well.  To this end I decided to do a careful walkthrough of the process.  The Napoleon's Battle rules I now use are unfortunately a bit of a mix of the 1st, 2nd and 4th Editions as well as some of my own adaptations.

 The are two villages that straddle le ruisseau vert,
on the right Grand Vert (GV) and the left Petit Vert (PV).
In the distance there is la colline très verte which gives these locales their names.

The Prussians, with a division sized force supported by a 12pdr battery are defending.  A unit of landwehr (20PrLW) are deployed in GV while a unit of line infantry (20PrLN) have moved into PV (but not yet deployed).  A further unit of 20PrLN is in reserve, ready to counterattack.

PV has a defensive value of +1 while GV is +2.  Both BUAs represent rough terrain, but also crossing points for the stream.  Elsewhere the stream is considered to represent a 1" width of rough terrain that can only be forded in column.  The idea to incorporate the stream in the BUA came from playing Ukraine 43 and also fitted in well with the Ligny maps I have been working with.

Two small French divisions approach.  The 12th with a brigade of light infantry (16FrLT) and one of line (20FrLN) will head towards GV while the 13th with two brigades of line infantry (16FrLN) will tackle PV. 

It is 1815 and the superior commanders, including Napoleon, are considered to be off table.

The 12th advances to within 2" of GV.

As does the 13th with PV.

At this range they are well within (long range) fire combat, but also able to change formation in order to prepare for close combat.

After the French move the Prussians can fire.  For GV the range is measured from any point on the perimeter (4th Ed).  The 16FrLT is their target and the outcome is 5 -1 (deployed in BUA) to 6 NE (no effect).  The competitive die rolls are the first number in bold.  In PV the Prussians fire with out the -1 deployed penalty.  The outcome is 4 to 6 NE.

The French then return fire.  Against the unit deployed in GV they need to double the opponents die roll (4th Ed).  The 16FrLT get 7 +1 (FrLT fire factor) -2 (target in cover) to 2 which is double and Prussians take one casualty.  The 20FrLN get 7 -2 to 1 which is another double and takes the PrLW to two casualties which disorders the PrLW (whoops - I realise later that being deployed increases the disorder number by 1 in the 4th Ed).

Against the Prussians in PV, where the French just need to score higher in the competitive die roll after subtracting 2 for target in cover, both units fail to score any casualties.

It is now the Prussian turn.  The units in GV and PV are out of command.  This does not stop the garrison of GV from recovering its order.  The unit in PV tries to self order (4th Ed [10.4]), but fails. If they had succeeded they would have a half move which would not be enough to permit a formation change, which is what they need to do to deploy into the BUA from their location.  

I have a house rule for when a unit can move, but does not have enough movement to change formation: 

• A unit that is not in DISORDER or marked as NO MOVE but does not have enough movement to complete a formation change, may make that formation change, but is then marked as disordered. 

Aside: Remember a unit that recovers from rout reforms in any desired formation and facing, so the same thing could be achieved by voluntarily routing in place (taking 1 loss) and then rallying, which to me means it can be done, but the mechanic, in this case, would be a little perverse.

After the Prussian's move (or don't as in this case), the French fire.  Against GV the FrLT get 4+1-2:1 which is a double and therefore inflicts one casualty.  Amazingly the 20FrLN get 8-2:3 which is another double raising the casualties on the PrLW to 4 and therefore removing a base and disordering them.  As already mentioned, my big mistake is forgetting to increase the PrLW's disorder number by 1 for being deployed in a BUA, which would have made it 3 and therefore the 2 casualties inflicted in one fire phase would not cause disorder.  In marked contrast the fire against the Prussian in PV, a much easier target, has no effect. The return fire inflicts one casualty on the French in front of PV. The PrLW can not fire as they are disordered.

End Turn 1

The FrLT deploy into line and close with the defenders of GV.  The FrLT can do this as they still have 2" of movement after a formation change.  The other French units just deploy into line and move 1".

None of the fire combats are effective.

The close combat is 4 +2 (FrLT in line factor) against 5+1 (PrLW in "line" factor) -3 (for being disordered).  As they are disordered they do not get the +2 defensive benefit for being deployed in GV.  Also note the FrLT had deployed to line to attack, I was not giving them their line factor for attacking at BUA, as changed by the 4th Ed, as my opinion is that attacking in column against anything represents a hasty attack compared to being in line which represents being prepared.  This is all to do with a unit's posture which I attempted to previously articulate in this post back in 2015.

The first French attack on Grand Vert.

The result of the combat, being a delta of 3, meant the PrLW routed.  The FrLT occupy the village which in the case of a BUA it means fully move into the area, but are disordered (normally it is just a 1" advance to "occupy the ground" without disorder).  They take 1 casualty as a winner's loss.

In the Prussian turn the PrLW succeed at a self rally (4th Ed [10.3]).  The unit in PV is still out of command, but is also now pinned by the French and unable to change formation,  The PrLN that was in reserve counterattacks GV.  The Prussian commander moves to put the other infantry units in command after positioning the battery to support the counterattack.

Only the French facing PV can fire and they have no effect.  The Prussian fire is more effective and a casualty is scored against the troops in GV by the attacking PrLN and against one of the units by the Prussians in PV.  The artillery, despite its better factors, did not score a hit: 1+2 (Pr12# artillery fire factor) -2 (target in cover) to 9.  Note that even though the FrLT are disordered they still get the fire combat benefits from being deployed in a BUA (they definitely count as a target in cover, but I am not sure they should count as deployed).

Aside: If a unit wins a combat against an enemy deployed in a BUA, do they count as deployed when they occupy the area?  I have been playing that they do.  The alternative is that they move into the BUA in their formation and disordered.  In the absence of enemy action the next turn they would recover their order and the following turn, assuming they are in command, be able to deploy. I am now thinking that they should occupy the BUA changing to column formation if not already and be marked as disordered.  This occupation should be "thorough", by that I mean the unit should not be able to lurk over an 1" from the BUA perimeter to avoid subsequent enemy artillery fire.  Of course if that was what was wanted, they could be pulled back in their next movement phase, if in command, rather than being left to recover their order.  The change to column and the disorder represents the outcome of the extenuated advance to clear the BUA of deployed enemy.  When they are able to change formation they can then deploy, noting that I require the unit to be wholly in the BUA to deploy rather than the "deploying forward" mechanic of 4th Ed [4.2.3].

Prussian counter attack against Grand Vert.

The close combat was 10 -1 (PrLN in column factor) to 8 +2 (FrLT in line factor) -3 (disorder).  The FrLT suffer 2 casualties and as they are disordered they must withdraw.  The outcome is 1 +6 (FrLT response number) -3 (disordered) to 4 +6 (PrLN response number).  The delta is over the FrLT's rout number and in addition to their 2 combat casualties and previous fire combat losses takes them over their dispersal number.  This is a good outcome for the PrLN as it means they don't take a winner's loss, although some argue that they should, the 4th Ed rules are specific, page 49: "No matter what happens to the unit attempting to withdraw, the opposing unit does not take a winner loss." Personally I have never cared for the Withdrawal rule.  It was optional in the 1st Ed but then became basic in the 2nd Ed and subsequent editions. I would prefer to see it as an extension of the combat procedure so that casualties are capped at the rout number.  However further consideration, and research to see if there was any commentary about it by the original authors, will have to wait.

Now things get interesting.  The FrLT doesn't of course just disappear.  I reckon it needs to make a notional rout move (there is still a decent sized body of troops fleeing the enemy as most dispersals occur around the 50% level of losses).  A deployed unit making rout or a withdrawal move out of a BUA does so in column.  The first inch of such a move must be directly back away from the attacker. It would also be from the centre of the BUA perimeter.  In this game it meant going straight back into the supporting FrLN brigade, disordering it.

The PrLN occupy GV becoming disordered.

The Prussians have recaptured Grand Vert.

End Turn 2

Now the French 13th Division attacks PV, sending in both brigades.  The fire from the Prussian defenders is ineffective.  The return fire from the French however disorders the Prussians (remember these Prussians are not deployed, so a double will inflict two casualties and that is just what the French got with their second brigades fire: 8 -2 (target in cover) to 3.)

The close combat at PV is 9 +2 (FrLN in line) to 5 -1 (PrLN in column) -3 (disordered).  The delta is capped at 4, the PrLN's rout number.  The French take a winner's loss and just advance an inch to occupy the ground, not the BUA.

In the Prussian turn the troops in GV recover their order.  The PrLW are sent to confront the French in PV.  However, even though they are in cover the French score well (9 -2 to 3) and the PrLW disperse. At GV the fire combat is ineffective.

The Prussians have lost Petit Vert.
Their general is now trying to rally the evicted troops.

End Turn 3

The FrLN in PV advance so that the unit is within the BUA's foot print.  Even though in this scenario the BUA counts as rough terrain, it doesn't have any prohibitions on units in line.  The other brigade of the 13th uses another of my house rules to change formation and orientation so that it can advance on GV.

My house rule for formation change is: 

• A unit that is to change formation picks one of its bases, turns it to which ever direction is desired and then forms the formation around that.  This can include maintaining the current formation, but changing the facing (such as turning to the flank).  

Aside: I came up with this when working on my Waterloo scenario and found it essential for the Prussians advancing in march column.  It is similar to how formation changes are done in Fire and Fury (roughly same scale and troop quality).  I do realise that the change to facing is in direct contraction to 4th Ed, page 42, but also note that changing from square or coming out of being deployed in a BUA (which is a formation change) allows a change in facing, as does recovering from rout.

The remaining brigade of the 12th Division attacked GV.  Prussian fire inflicted one casualty on it. All other firing was ineffective.  The combat was 1 +2 to 10 +2 +2.  The French loss is capped at 4 and the Prussians take a winner's loss.  The French rout to their general and hope to rally, keeping within 3" (the movement for FrLN in line) so they can attack again.

In the Prussian turn their routed unit rallies, forming line ready to counterattack PV.

The French have no targets in range or arc to fire at.  The Prussians in GV fire at the routed French unit: 2 -1 (deployed unit firing) +2 (target is routed) to 2.  The difference is just enough to cause a casualty.  Which means the unit must make a rout move and therefore lose another casualty.  The attached general stays with it.
 

End Turn 4

The routed French brigade fails to rally, but the brigades of the 13th Division deploy, one to occupy PV the other to form line in preparation to attack GV.

In the fire phase the French score 1 casualty on the defenders of GV.

Then the Prussians start to advance.  In the subsequent fire phase no casualties are caused.

End Turn 5

The French rally and start to advance on GV.

At GV the fire is ineffective, but at PV the Prussians score a hit which reduces the French defenders to three bases.

In the Prussian turn they attack PV.  Again the fire is to no effect for both sides.  The combat is 3 +2 (PrLN in line) to 5 +2 (FrLN in line) +1 (PV defence value).  The difference is 3 which disorders but does not rout the Prussians.  They must withdraw and do so successfully (10 +6 -3 to 2 +6).

End Turn 6

The French attack GV.  The Prussian artillery score one hit on the defenders of PV (I am not worrying about the rules for BUA reduction or starting fires) and the garrison of GV score a hit on the French attacking them.  The French return fire is ineffective.

The combat for GV is 7 +2 to 7 +2 +2 which is 9 to 10 (modified die rolls a capped at 10 and also can't go below 1).  The French suffer one casualty.  No one is disordered so there is a second round: 6 +2 to 6 +2 +2 which produces 2 casualties and disorders the French.  They withdraw without further casualties.

The Prussians do not move.  None of the subsequent firing causes any casualties.

End Turn 7

The French launch another attack on GV.  The firing is insubstantial, although a casualty is caused to the French garrison of PV.

The combat is short and sweet 1 +2 to 8 +2 +2.  The French brigade loses 4 and disperses.

Jeu terminé, homme

There is nothing for it but to try this little test encounter again.

Ice Floes in Skirmish Gaming

Paul has provided the following set of rules which we used in our recent Songs of Blades and Heroes game (see report on the game here).

The set of rules are contained in the PDF document that can be obtained by following this link:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3O3fJlp-yozLWcxaGxqdDQtX1E

Posture

A question recently arose in the Yahoo Napoleon's Battles Group about combat between infantry in square and artillery.  The issue was what combat factors the infantry would use: Line (LN), Column (COL), Square vs Cavalry (SQ VS CV) or Square vs Other (VS OT).  It came down to Column or Square vs Other.  Both tend to be negative with a difference of two or three factors.  While the rules weren't clear (they were effectively silent on the subject) I came down on the side of Square vs Other (the worst case).  In thinking why I reached that conclusion and further reading the comments that were being made I decided it was to do with the infantry unit's posture.

Here is my attempt to define what I mean:

Posture

Napoleon's Battles is a grand tactical set of rules however much of the terminology is tactical.  A good example of this is unit formations: March Column, Column, Limbered, Line, Unlimbered and Square.

I think of these formations as representing the "posture" of the unit and, along with the facing of the unit, determines what the higher echelon commanders want the unit to do.

March (nee March Column) - move as quickly as possible towards an objective.  May even force march.  Takes full benefit of roads both for command and crossing terrain.  Do not engage the enemy!

Manoeuvre (nee Column and Limbered) - move ready to engage the enemy in long range combat (not artillery), or even go into close range combat if necessary, but realizing it will be a hasty attack.

Deployed (nee Line and Unlimbered) - be prepared to engage enemy in long and close range combat in this location.  Movement is limited.  [Aside: I would use the new optional rule 12.6 which gives a plus one for a unit in line firing and a minus one for firing on a unit in line.  Considering the "line" representing the unit deployed and therefore maximising its fire power as well the defensive characteristics of its location is how I see this optional rule working in a grand tactical sense.]

Defend [against cavalry] (nee Square; "Defend" is the best one word descriptor I have come up with) - infantry be prepared to repulse cavalry.  Combat effectiveness and movement is significantly reduced (i.e. cavalry will just bounce off, attacking infantry will be at an advantage and it presents an attractive long range combat target.)

I have never seen the reason for the cavalry line and column formations.  Perhaps use the Line combat factor versus cavalry and Column combat factor against infantry in square and artillery.  Column movement could be the normal move distance and Line their react move distance.

I would allow an infantry unit in Manoeuvre posture to drop bases to better fit or avoid terrain and for cavalry I would allow them to freely change bases (from single to two or three ranks) as there is no cavalry Deployed posture (unless that is used to represent the cavalry being on react).

Applying this to the question of what factor for infantry to use against a square

Infantry use their column factor (-1) as they are manoeuvering and making a hasty attack.  The poor artillery is defending with a -3 and to make things worse the infantry get a +3 for mass.  One close combat casualty will eliminate the battery.  The Infantry have a 90% chance of dispersing the battery.

Infantry use their VS OT (-3) factor as their posture is defense against cavalry and not suited for attacking.  The artillery factor is -3 and the infantry 0 after accounting for mass.  A 79% chance for the infantry to disperse the battery, but at a 12% chance to themselves of becoming disordered and having to withdraw (and in what formation would that be?) and a 3% risk of rout (I guess the battery got a few guns turned round and delivered some telling fire - remember close combat ain't all hand to hand). 

Infantry use their VS OT factor (-3) as their posture is defense against cavalry, even though the threat is not apparent or may have passed.  Attacking infantry use their column factor (-1) as they are manoeuvering and making a hasty attack.

Infantry use their VS OT factor (-3) as their posture is defense against cavalry.  Attacking infantry use their LIN factor (2) as they are making a prepared attack.

Both infantry units use their VS OT factors (-3 for the British and -4 for the Nassau) as they are really focused on defending against cavalry.  Such combats with heavy negative modifiers may take a while to get a result which is what you'd expect.  The posture is not about attacking.  The units are still concerned about being attacked by cavalry, even though the immediate threat might have passed.

The infantry use SQ vs CAV (+8) which is what their posture is all about.  The cavalry use their LIN factor (+1), but big deal, they are not going to press the attack and will bounce taking no more than one casualty.

The infantry are caught unprepared to defend against cavalry and use their VS OT factor (-3) as do the cavalry (+4).  The situation gets interesting if the cavalry is not "attacking" cavalry in which case the infantry would use their COL factor (-1) and the cavalry their LIN factor (+1 in their best years), i.e. their current formation or as I like to imagine it - their posture..

This consideration of posture is also behind my thinking to not use the LIN factor for infantry in column attacking a BUA, a change to Napoleon's Battles brought in with the 4th Edition.

To answer the question about the formation of the withdrawing disordered square, the rules says that it is the current formation and the distance must be at least an inch which would be a problem for most disordered squares except they don't suffer the movement penalty for being disordered or for being in square.  I have some issues with unformed movement formation, but will keep them for another post.

Waterloo Take Two - Rule Adaptions

The rules in use for Waterloo Take Two are Napoleon's Battles 2nd Edition plus some options from Edition IV - The Marechal Edition.  The original (Avalon Hills), 2nd (Five Forks) and 3rd (Lost Battalion) editions are very close.

Basic rules only with following additions/changes:

Napoleon rule, which is already factored in to the French morale factors.

Wellington rule, which allows him to be put on react and move like cavalry (he is plus 3 defence).  Comment - never seen this ability used.

Blucher rule, which provides a separate figure for Blucher who is a +3 attack and defence.  Comment - gives the Prussians their very own Ney.

Will not use the NB IV interpenetration penalty (which counts as rough terrain movement for infantry and cavalry) although I would like to note some examples as they occur. Comment - Arenschildt's cavalry brigade action in the 12:30 turn in Part 1 of the game.  The depth and interior lines of teh Anglo-Allied forces means a lot of interpenetration is going to be required.  Also, just seeing how a lead unit being disordered holds things up, I would not want any additional imposts on movement.

NB IV 10.4 (p80) Out of command units can try and self command (very important for Allied cavalry, but also helps French and Prussians) with a -3 to their response. If success Infantry and 12# half move, cavalry and horse artillery full move, on fail infantry and 12# no move, rest half move.  Comment - this is working really well.

NB IV 10.3 (p79) Routed units can self rally with a -3 to their response number.  Not using additional rout penalty on role of a 10.  Comment - this is working really well too.

Winner's loss occurs only as a result of combat (routing a unit in contact by fire doesn't cause a winner's loss, same as if it routs on withdraw,  although you do get to advance after combat if applicable)

Wheels are done at half speed (i.e. double the distance) and measured corner to corner.  Only restriction is no wheeling within an inch of enemy combat units.  Comment - saves having to us the template which produces basically the same effect and is a very easy concept to master.

A unit in column can turn 90 degrees as a change of formation (although a unit can often do this by wheeling and then moving sideways).  Comment - I want to look at formation changes as they seem unnecessarily restrictive.

Generals attached to a victorious modifying unit must advance with it to occupy the ground.  Comment - not such an issue given the self command option.

Generals over run but not eliminated return in the their side's next movement phase (means they miss a rally and command step).  Generals missing a turn miss a whole turn and come back in the movement step (i.e. miss two rally and command steps).  Same goes for replacement generals.  This is not so bad given optional rules 10.3 and 10.4.  Comment - seems to be working okay.  Means a general being displaced is a negative event, not a potential bonus.

Free rolls - eight per side (calculated as one per 4 turns plus 2 for Excellent Commanders - Napoleon and Blucher).  Comment - Free Rolls, love em!  A great indicator of a player's morale.

An infantry unit is only pinned from forming emergency square by being within one inch of a formed enemy infantry unit (this was the big change from edition 1 to edition 2).  Comment - in NB IV cavalry can again pin infantry.  I well recall the problems this caused in NB I so I'm not going back to this.  Infantry threaten by cavalry form square..

Small units.  Previously an infantry unit had a minimum of four bases (16 figures) and cavalry three (12 figures).  In the order of battle there are a few 8 figure cavalry units and 12 figure infantry units to better reflect the brigade (and in some cases large regiment) structure.  Comment - I've been playing with this for a while and it works well with historical scenarios.  Only complication is deciding which formation a two base unit is in and this gets me thinking of why cavalry has both a line and column formation when the movement and combat factors are so close?  For infantry I see line as deployed and column as maneuver, but for cavalry maybe line should denote react or attack.  Trouble is the depth of a cavalry base causes it to take up so much room.

Units withdrawing do so as columns using unformed movement (they are disordered) however first inch retains the units footprint for disordered units behind them.  Comment - I'm just trying this out as I found lines and squares withdrawing was a problem.  It was inspired by units in NB IV withdrawing from a  BUA do so in column.

Cavalry on react are classed as attacking cavalry.  Comment - this gets over the need for a counter charge rule.

Anglo cavalry start on react (not the DBC, BW or Cumberland).  Comment - the two sides start so close and teh French are in full view so the Anglo-Allied side needs some help.

Woods
• Rough terrain movement , artillery cannot fire more than 1 inch into a wood
• With the exception of the light green orchards, all woods are Dense which means movement in line or unlimbered or changing formation causes disorder.

Streams
• Artillery may only cross streams at bridges while limbered or in march column.
• Infantry and cavalry units may ford streams only in column or march column.
• Cavalry units that are in a stream for any part of their movement are automatically disordered.
• Crossing at a bridge in march column is without penalty
• All other crossing is counted as fording and rough terrain movement

Contours create an artillery dead zone (see 7.2.3.2.2)  Given the low profile of the terrain, BUAs and
woods in dead zones do block artillery fire.

Built Up Areas

Apart from the villages these are the chateaus and farms of Huogomont, La Haye Saint (including surrounding sandpit and sunken road) and Papelotte and La Marache (Smohain) (which also include sunken roads and extensive hedges).  All BUAs have a factor of +1 except Huoguomont which is +2 - this is a major change from the last game.

If the BUA is not large enough to fit a four base unit in then it is treated as no effect (for example the castle of Frischermont).

Two hits are required to cause one casualty to a unit deployed in a BUA.

Deployed units have their disorder number increased by one.

Remember to count as deployed a unit needs to be in the BUA and then change formation, if they are just in the BUA they only count it as cover.

When a unit defeats a deployed unit it occupies the BUA (i.e. advances fully into it), adopting a column formation.  As it is disordered it will not get the benefits until it remains stationary for a turn, and then changes formation to deployed (and hence able to use its LN combat factor) .  (I've just made the rule about occupying a BUA up as otherwise it would take three turns to deploy into a BUA after successfully attacking it - this way it takes two and gives the opponent time to counterattack.)

Each time a hit is caused by artillery, roll again and a 1 will cause a fire to start from 6# or 9# and 1 or 2 will cause a fire to start from 12pdr batteries or 3 for the BrHHA.  If occupied a roll of 1 to 5 puts out the fire, otherwise it burns for rest of the game.  A BUA on fire counts as rough terrain and disorders any units in or moving through it.  Note being reduced to rough terrain will limit the ability of most troops to deploy into it.

Each time a hit is caused by 12pdr artillery roll again and on a roll of 1 the defensive factor of the BAU is reduced by 1 (never below +0).

Movement in a BUA is not affected (but possibly should be, given the inclusion/abstraction of difficult terrain such as hedges and sunken roads).  Units cannot move through a BUA that is occupied other infantry, friendly or enemy (as they have barricaded the roads etc as part of their deployment).

Artillery cannot be deployed in a BUA (they can in purpose built fortifications).

Comment - I feel BUA rules need to attune to the scenario.  NB IV fixed the problem with fire combat that previously made BUAs death traps, although I don't agree with attacking units in column using their line combat factors.  I also lessened the chance of fire and damage, but also have lower values for the BUAs that are not fortifications.  I like the idea of a unit occupying a BUA after combat occupying the whole thing, something I interpreted as being a change in NB IV.  I don't like the idea of a BUA being automatically rough terrain or a unit being able to deploy forward into a BUA - you need to be in it to deploy.

Value for money

I have had the new edition of Napoleon's Battles in my possession for a day I thought the first question I would ask would be: Is it value for money?

There are two aspects to the answer: how does it compare to other products and does it give a good game.

This post will look at the comparison with other wargame rules that I have purchased recently (last five years give or take).  As to whether it gives a good name, it is easy to just look at the number of AARs I have made referencing the rules.

So what do I have to compare it to?  DBA 2.2, Line of Battle, Blitzkrieg Commander, Galleys and Galleons, Saga, Field of Glory, Blucher and Regimental Fire and Fury are the most recent rule acquisitions.  The other important reference point is the other editions of Napoleon's Battles - I have the 1st Edition by Avalon Hill and the 2nd Edition by Five Forks.

The Avalon Hill edition is a classic.
(For the record: 116 pages, b&w, three A4 softback booklets in a box with various player aids)

The 2nd Edition (176 pages, b&w, A4 softcover) I recall took forever to arrive, was of poor quality and had two major changes: withdrawal became a standard rule, not optional (something I've only just come around to accepting); and, most importantly, fixed the flaw in the pin rule were a cavalry unit could pin an infantry unit and stop it from forming square when charged by a second cavalry unit.  The Marechal Edition is certainly better than the 2nd Edition, but clearly not a ground breaking new rule set as represented by the Avalon Hill production.

DBA 2.2 (120 pages b&w A5 softback) is a complete system, great game and very good value, although not in the same league as Napoleon's Battles.  It certainly was a ground breaking system.  I paid $52.40 for two copies of DBA 2.2 including postage.  

Line of Battle (50 pages b&w A4 softback) cost $38.40 (it still has the price tag on it, but based on the receipt I paid $36 and $7.50 pp which was within Australia).  I am yet to use them and they are more for research at the moment

Blitzkrieg Commander (140 pages colour A4 softback) cost $48.26 including postage (that was December 2011 and the Australian dollar was at parity with the US dollar) is a complete system (as in it has all the army lists and things you need).

Galleys and Galleons (82 pages b&w A4 PDF) cost $11.22 for the digital PDF as a download.  I have also purchased Songs of Drums and Shakos and Songs of Blades and Heroes which are equivalent rulesets more or less using the same system but applied to different periods.  Price and delivery was similar.  Not in the same league, but given the price and method of delivery plus flexibility of the rule system very good value.  Probably a classic as well.

Saga (76 pages colour, A4 softback) and Northern Fury (24 pages colour) set me back $90.90 retail from local gaming shop.  It is a bit pricey for what you get, particularly when you add in cost of the special dice.

Field of Glory (172 pages, colour, A4 hardback) and the eight army list books would have cost me well over $200, sourced from an number of places including conventions and mail order.  The rules book has a price tag of $65 and some of the army lists have price tags for $30, $26.40 and $35 still stuck to them,   To me this the replacement for WRG 7th Edition.

Blucher (175 pages, colour, A5 hardback) was on special bundled with the cards for 100 Days and cost $115.90 including postage.

Regimental Fire and Fury (96 pages, colour, A4 hardback) was picked up at a convention for $60.

So, where does that leave the Marechal Edition?

It is 183 pages, colour, A4 and hardback for which I paid $102.42 including postage and currency fees.  

Given the fluctuations of the Australian dollar and vagaries of postage and packing charges versus acquisition at a retail store or convention it doesn't warrant looking at the prices paid than any more as a guide, but, with the possible exception of a PDF download, the Marechal Edition seems very competitively priced.

There are other appropriate purely factual considerations - how much original material is in the rules, what about playing aids, quick reference sheets etc.  And in this day and age the availability and quality of online support is critical - from rules questions, scenarios, additional player aids and sourcing of ideas and fostering a community.

There is also an overriding issue with wargame rules - their ongoing availability.  The ability to refer people to a publisher so they can buy the rules.  For me, the Marechal Edition of Napoleon's Battles means the rules live on and that is something that I value enormously.

Having had a small insight into what it takes to produce something that ends up in a book, it is a long and drawn out process only for the brave and persistant.  Javier Gamez and Antonio J Diaz are to be congratulated for picking up Napoleon's Battles and seeing the Marechal Edition through to completion.

Some rulesets I haven't mentioned are Sails of Glory and Wings of Glory which I consider are more miniatures and therefore not really comparable.  The other missing set is Sands of the Sudan which I received in the NWS Kris Kirngle and is therefore of inestimable value :-) I just wonder if I will ever get an invite to a game one day? 

It's arrived!

I've been hanging out for this for a while...

Took just over two weeks to get here.

Now comes the fun part...

The new Marchal IV Edition of NAPOLEON'S BATTLES has been released

Great news as I have been waiting for this for a while.  The following link takes you to the supporting website: http://napoleonsbattles.org/news/news.html

The distribution is via Caliver Books and the item can be found here:  http://www.caliverbooks.com/bookview.php?1b264cf73814e2582aa51f3d9b60a37f&id=24088

I just ordered mine and with postage it came to 45.62 pounds, which I expect will be just over $100 Australian by the time bank currency fees are added.  I've recently spent that getting the Saga rules and one expansion and must have spent well over $200 on FOG and its army lists.  All I have to do is wait...

I must say that the downloadable PDF that Ganesha Games provide is very satisfying and good value. Galleys and Galleons cost around $15 and I had it immediately.

Wargame Rules Observation and a bit more on basing

This was another post that is of interest to me, for two reasons this time:

1. It looks similar to the recent Blitzkrieg Commander game I played.

2. (and more importantly) there is some good commentary about the selection of wargame rules.

It is also from Doug's Dots of Paints blog which ties into my previous post as I really like his basing style for his Napoleonics.

http://dotsofpaint.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/davemcns-big-1941-russian-front-battle.html

Of course, the wargame rules in use can have a great impact on figure basing.  I have painful memories of this in moving to WRG Ancients 7th Edition.

For the record my 15mm Napoleonics are based for Napoleon's Battles (3/4 by 1 inch for 2x2 infantry and 1 by 2 inches for 2x2 cavalry, although I would prefer at times for the cavalry to be 2x1).

My 1/72nd scale Napoleonics are becoming singles, but otherwise were based to Napoleon's Battles, but with about a 50% increase - 30mm by 40mm for infantry (2x2) or 15mm by 20mm for a single infantry and 20mm by 40mm for a single cavalry figure.

My 15mm WW2 are based for Flames of War, although I don't use those rules.

My 1/72nd scale WW2 are based on multiples of 30mm, for no particularly reason except this seemed to work and fits in with Crossfire.  For both WW2 scales I don't tend to base vehicles.

My 15mm ACW is based for Fire and Fury.

My 15mm Ancients and Medieval are based for WRG 7th which is now the ubiquitous basing style covering at least DBA, Field of Glory and Impetus.

The few fantasy 28mm figures I have are based as singles, but if I got serious I would probably go with HotT basing.

Another post I have been working on for some time now after my experiences with Sails of Glory and Napoleonic naval rules is about models/figures or the game.  Which comes first?

Napoleonics in the 1990s

What follows is an article I have recovered that I wrote in 1990 and was published in the Canberra Games Society's magazine, probably the one issued for Cancon 1991.  WORD wouldn't open the document, but WORDPAD would and all I had to do was reconstruct the tables.

I find it amusing as, anyone looking at my blog would know, I no longer do Napoleonics in 5mm.  However, when I wrote this, it was all the rage.

Napoleonics in the 1990s

A personal history and review of Napoleonic Wargaming

by Mark Haughey.

            Since the 1970s I have collected, and grown attached to, a few hundred carefully painted 20/25mm Napoleonic figures.  These are mainly AIRFIX with a few MINIFIGS and HINCHCLIFFE thrown in.  Many of the AIRFIX figures have been heavily converted and my total collection basically represents French and Anglo/Prussian forces of 1815.

            All this was initially inspired by the movie WATERLOO, a Dino De Laurentiis production, directed by Sergei Bonderchuk and shot (no pun intended) in Italy and the USSR.  It featured Rod Steiger as Napoleon, Christopher Plummer as Wellington and Orson Wells as Louis XVIII (a "small" part!).

            My first "re-enactments" were with playing cards which were soon replaced by pieces of cardboard inscribed with the exotic sounding names of "cuirassier" and "chasseur" (which I had great difficulty in spelling and pronouncing at that time).  I had some vague idea that the size of the cardboard represented the size of the unit and attempted to resolve conflicts accordingly.

            The first real rules that I tried were FIX BAYONETS by the South Australian Historical Wargaming Society (SAHWS).  While I acquired a later version of the society's Napoleonic rules called SABRE AND BALL by Mal Wright, a principal member of SAHWS, I never used them to fight any battles.

            FIX BAYONETS cost me $1.30 for 26 pages.  They used 60 figure battalions and a write order; move; combat sequence of play, with both sides moving simultaneously.

            I used cardboard bases to supplement my slowly blossoming AIRFIX Napoleonic figure collection, which, while relatively plentiful in terms of raw material, required time to paint and did not provide all the troop types required.

            I still continued with my cardboard after migrating to Bruce Quarrie's rules which appeared in the AIRFIX MAGAZINE GUIDE 4 - NAPOLEONIC WARGAMING, October 1974.  They cost me $3.90 for 64 pages and included some much needed historical information on organisation and tactics.  With 24 figure battalions they used a write order; move; combat sequence of play with both sides moving simultaneously.

            The most memorable things about the AIRFIX rules were the national characteristics and that cavalry melees could be extremely destructive (with both forces being eliminated in the 2.5 minutes of "simulated" action!).  They did allow me to effectively double the size of my army as previous battalions were now reformed to provide two.  This was an important factor for, as a "would-be-Napoleon", it allowed me to take on the role of a higher ranking general - a promotion.

            During this period I looked at TRICOLOR by Rick Crane/TSR produced in April 1974.  They cost $5US for 55 pages and used 36 figure battalions.  They provided useful organisational data and introduced to me the concept of movement trays or stands - a number of figures based together and moving as an indivisible unit, in this case basically a company.  They used a write order; move; fire; melee sequence of play with both sides moving alternately.  However, as their use would have meant a demotion in "field rank", I did not adopt them.

            With the 1980s came a switch to the WRG 1685-1845 rules of July 1979.  However I never really developed an attachment to these rules as a way of refighting actions from the Napoleonic Wars.  I did recognise the universal popularity of the rules though.  I paid $13.20 for two booklets totalling 86 pages providing both rules and army lists and including a quick reference chart.  They used 16 figure battalions and a response; fire; melee; move sequence of play with both sides moving alternately.

            With my interest in Napoleonic wargaming waning for lack of a set of rules that suited me I took to WRG Ancients, using the new figure scale of 15mm.  This became my major passion but it did not stop my searching for the ultimate Napoleonic rules and this lead to me being intrigued by EMPIRE 3.

            What drew me to EMPIRE 3 was a series of articles in BREAKOUT by David Morgan.  EMPIRE 3 cost $29.50 in late 1983 for 160 pages plus reference sheets, charts and status markers/counters.  Later I picked up the EMPIRE CAMPAIGN SYSTEM second hand for $10 (unused - as it still is).  EMPIRE 3 used 12 figure battalions and for me employed many innovative concepts including manoeuvre elements, strategic and tactical movement rates, and separate skirmish combat amongst others.  They had an extensive sequence of play comprising ten segments consisting of much player interaction (or so I thought!).  The sequence of play covered issue orders; attach leaders; declare orders; activate orders; grand tactical movement; tactical combat (each side moving alternately); bombardment; leader casualties; rally troops; and recover fatigue points.

            While I used my 25mm figures for EMPIRE 3 I also started to invest in a 5mm army as a way of trying out the innovations of EMPIRE 3.  Other members of my local wargaming community were switching to 5mm for Napoleonics in conjunction with EMPIRE 3 and this provided the necessary inspiration for me to also try this scale.  I was careful in my selection of a 5mm army to choose something quite different from what I already had and settled on a Russian corps of 1812.  This change of figure scale was difficult for me as I found that the visual charm and romance of the uniforms was significantly diminished but, apart from some fiddliness at times, it did lend a general's eye view to a battle and that was what I wanted. 

            I found EMPIRE 3 slightly complex and realised that I would have to seriously study them before I could play with ease.  Unfortunately the number of games I attempted generally resulted in my troops failing to activate and therefore I tended to sit out the games while others played (and argued) around me!  I did enjoy the promotion as I now I felt that I was high ranking general participating in a significant engagement.

            However I found myself at the end of the 1980s still wanting innovation but also at level that I could easily absorb and readily use to refight Napoleonic battles (not skirmishes).  I also wanted preservation of investment - the one result of two decades of Napoleonic wargaming being that most of my 20/25mm army is based according to WRG which is also roughly suitable for EMPIRE 3.  I also had this 5mm army that I wanted to use.

            A check of my personal wargaming library shows I also bought GUARD DU CORPS by Rudy Scott Nelson ($6.50 for 67 pages) and RULES FOR NAPOLEONIC LAND WARFARE by G W Jeffrey, published by SKYTREX ($6.50 for 27 pages).  I have a second hand copy of NAPOLEONIC ARMY LISTS by R M Evans, dated August 1986.  I paid $2 for these and they provided 41 pages of data for 1:50 and 1:20 figure ratio scale armies.  I bought the September/October 1981 issue of THE COURIER as it contained indepth reviews of BATTALIONMASSE, VIVE L'EMPEREUR, GENERALSHIP NAPOLEONICS as well as EMPIRE.  The magazine also contained yet more "official amendments" to WRG's 6th Edition Ancient rules but while this is another subject, it helped to maintain my interest in things other than Ancients.

            Then, in 1990, I came across AVALON HILL's NAPOLEON'S BATTLES, their first (to my knowledge) foray into miniature rules.  They are a complete system including terrain pieces and die cut cardboard units as well as a comprehensive introduction to wargaming the period for those new to the subject.  NAPOLEON'S BATTLES and the separate "expansion module" cost me $73.72 (club discount at the local games shop - THE GAMES CUPBOARD).  This was for 160 pages all up plus reference charts. 

            The cardboard units included with NAPOLEON'S BATTLES means that you can have a "miniatures game" straight out of the box without any investment in painting and basing figures.  Great for first timers or experienced players with existing armies established for alternative rules (more about using NAPOLEON'S BATTLES for 25mm and the compatibility with WRG 1685-1845 basing later).  These cardboard units have also allowed me to easily take the game when travelling and thereby introduce it to friends with the option of being able to immediately play.

            NAPOLEON'S BATTLES use 16 figure brigades and an extensive sequence of play comprising seven phases consisting of much player interaction.  The sequence of play covers control phase (arrival, communication, rally, command and supply); manoeuvre (all-out attack, administration, movement, reaction); fire (representing skirmishing and long range artillery fire); combat (representing close range firing and melee); construction; pursuit; and isolation.  This sequence is repeated for each side however within it both sides get to fire (alternately) and the non-phasing side can interdict (react) with its cavalry.  Some of these phases are also optional depending on what advanced or optional rules have been decided to be used (for example: all-out attack - an advanced rule; and construction - an optional rule).

            I was attracted to NAPOLEON'S BATTLES from its completeness and as a reference source but did not really consider it initially for gaming as it was centred on 15mm.  I had rejected moving to 15mm earlier due to cost and the fact that this would have made my existing 20/25mm and 5mm collections totally redundant in my eyes.

            I was lucky to have my first game with Brenton Searle who had temporally rebased his EMPIRE 3 collection of 5mm Napoleonics using blue tack and light adhesives for NAPOLEON'S BATTLES.  The 15mm bases and scales were used with 10 to 12 5mm figures replacing the 4 15mm figures.  I think it was his second or third game and I was impressed by the ease at which the game system had been mastered and that I had an actual sensation of commanding my forces - deciding when to attack and allocating reserves.

            NAPOLEON'S BATTLES I found allowed me to expand my one corps EMPIRE 3 5mm army to two corps (with the consequential "promotion" for me as their "general").  This 5mm army has since grown and now represents the five corps (two infantry and three cavalry) of the Russian right wing at Borodino, 1812.

            At first I did not consider NAPOLEON'S BATTLES as a vehicle for battles using my 20/25mm collection.  Upon researching the base sizes I discovered that with only a 50% increase in dimension the 15mm base size was effectively equivalent to WRG 20/25mm basing for single figures.  The rules had suggested doubling the 15mm base size for 20/25mm figures but I believe this to be unnecessary. 

            I do not believe NAPOLEON'S BATTLES developers had given much thought to other scales.  Their advice on page 18 of the "Introduction to Miniature Wargaming" is in my opinion not up to the same standard as the rest of the game.  It fails to address to the same level of detail the important area of conversion from other rules and scales.  Given the popularity of WRG rules for the period (all Canberra Games Conventions have used them) having a compatible basing system means that other converts or participants can be readily found.  The investment in WRG based figures is preserved - or so I thought. 

            When I finally became involved with some of the local Napoleonic wargamers, who I thought were WRG diehards, I was shocked to hear them exclaim when I pointed out the compatibility: "why would you want to ever use WRG again!".  To reinforce this sentiment they had rebased their entire 20/25mm collection for NAPOLEON'S BATTLES.  I should add that a number of previously EMPIRE 3 5mm players have done the same.

            20/25mm NAPOLEON'S BATTLES replaces the 15mm scale one inch standard unit of movement with 4cm.  In other words if the rules specify a 10 inch move, for 20/25mm this equates to 40cm.  The 20/25mm basing sizes are as follows:

Troop Type	Width	Depth
Infantry stand (4 figures - 2 x 2)	30mm	40mm
Single Infantry figure	15mm	20mm
Cavalry stand (4 figures - 2 x 2)	40mm	80mm
Single Cavalry figure	20mm	40mm
Artillery stand (1 model, 2 to 3 crew)	60mm	40mm
Divisional Staff (single figure)	40mm	40mm

            The single figure basing is equivalent with WRG.  However the WRG stands are 4 x 1 for infantry and 3 x 1 for cavalry so some flexibility is required as is also the case with artillery.

            In my opinion the hardest thing about NAPOLEON'S BATTLES is adjusting to the use of brigades as the basic unit.  Once this mental leap is made everything falls into place.  Until this occurs however, players familiar with Napoleonics may struggle with the concept of units fighting better in line than in column in what appears to be melee and being able to freely interpenetrate.  It is in reinforcing the brigade unit concept that 5mm is particularly good.  As a stand in a 5mm unit looks like a battalion, a 5mm unit being a collection of stands looks more like a brigade (ie a collection of battalions).  The negative aspect of brigade sized units is in the lack of historical unit definition but then a brigade frequently had a historical designation itself.  Anyway for the Commander in Chief regimental distinctives were normally lost with distance and the smoke and dust of the battlefield.

            In basing my 5mm figures I have used fewer figures and based them more spread out for the lower quality troops (such as the Cossacks who I only give 6 figures per stand) and for higher quality, such as grenadiers, I have based 12 figures in a 4 x 3 formation at the back of the stand's base.  Such simple practises make the different troop types (the Russians have 16 at Borodino - 5 cavalry, 7 infantry and 4 artillery) readily apparent without straining the eyes.

            The "Introduction to Miniature Wargaming" booklet provided with NAPOLEON'S BATTLES in the chapter on background to miniature wargaming mentions that rules, along with figures, have progressed over the years.  This certainly has been my experience and in the following table I have included some simple data on the rules mentioned above.

Rules	Figure Ratio	Ground Scale	Time Scale
FIX BAYONETS	Inf 1:20 Cav 1:20 Artillery model = battery	1mm = 1yd	1 turn = 5 mins
AIRFIX	Inf 1:33 Cav 1:33 Artillery model = battery	1mm = 1yd	1 turn = 2.5 mins
TSR	Inf 1:20 Cav 1:20 Artillery model = battery	1” = 1.25yds	1 turn = 1 min
WRG	Inf 1:50 Cav 1:40 Artillery model = 2 guns	1mm = 2.5’	1 turn = 80 seconds
EMPIRE 3	Inf 1:60 Cav 1:60 Artillery model = 2 guns	1” = 32yds	1 turn = 60 mins
NAPOLEON'S BATTLES	Inf 1:120 Cav 1:80 Artillery model = battery	1’ = 100yds	1 turn = 30 mins

            The critical observation is that the scales have increased with one figure now representing more and as a consequence the units in play representing higher formations.  By substituting more 5mm figures in place of 15mm or 20/25mm figures a wargames unit still gives a visible representation of a sizeable body of men. 

            The playing area now covers more ground allowing the significant engagements of the period to be reenacted on the table top and indeed NAPOLEON'S BATTLES includes a list of the major battles and provides them as scenarios for use with the game.  With one turn representing more time battles can be refought in a manageable number of turns.  The overall result being that players are now "Napoleons" refighting Napoleon's battles!

1 December, 1991