Comparison: Republic To Empire vs General de Brigade

 Republic To Empire vs General de Brigade

Today’s comparison is a tough one. I’m a fan of both systems, for different reasons. They both share a common figure ratio (20:1) and both originated in the UK. Republic To Empire was originally written for a 28mm scale, but can be easily modified for smaller figure scales. 

1. Table appearance (do the unit sizes and organization look like a battle?  Both systems utilize a 20:1 scale with detached Skirmisher bases. Guns are scaled as 2 tubes per model base. Both look great on the table with nice, beefy units. A total Draw here. 

2. Command and Control (Is C/C challenging and realistic?) General de Brigade utilizes an easy and straight-forward method of changing orders. It is very effective and a streamlined portion of the rules. Republic To Empire actually sports one of the most interesting command /control mechanisms I’ve ever seen. Command points are rolled for based on commander rating. Individual brigade orders are tied to the brigade commander quality and have varying command point costs every turn. To maintain an order, these points must be used first, then orders may be changed with left-over points. Finally, if a unit executes an action apart or different from the rest of the brigade, it must be paid for. In addition, charges must be paid for at the end of the turn. It sounds a bit complicated, but works very well. A tremendous amount of thought must go into the command phase. Although General de Brigade’s system is smooth and effective, I have to give the edge to Republic To Empire. It is refreshingly different !

3. Flow of the turn (Is it clunky or smoothly elegant?) Both rules are similar in that they are tactically gritty with multiple morale checks for units throughout the turn. Charges are similar mechanically. I do think General de Brigade has a bit smoother flow to it, so GdB has a slight edge.

4. Mechanics (Are the mechanics easy to pick up? Do the mechanics have enough detail? Do the mechanics slow the battle down?)

Both systems are tactical games with a lot of detail. Both rules can bog down in detail amid frequent rules look-ups. It’s a Draw here. Those who are drawn to grit and detail will love both systems. 

5. Historic results (Do the results seem realistic? Are there wild swings of outcomes?) Both rules pride themselves on realism. General de Brigade typically uses a 2d6 system for firing and melee, while Republic To Empire uses more of a bucket approach which is modified by the tactical situation. It is much more effective than, say, Black Powder’s bucket approach. Both systems work well with how they approach results. Another Draw…..huh oh, I’m seeing a pattern here. 

6. Historic tactics (Do historic tactics work? Does the system reward the use of historic tactics?) Since both systems feature very detailed tactics, abstraction of anything is hard to find anywhere. Even massed columns possibly colliding are covered in General de Brigade. I have to say that both systems excel in this area. Yet another Draw. 

7. Morale (Does morale feel right on the unit or brigade/divisional level?) Both systems feature multiple morale checks on a unit level. General de Brigade does go a bit further with Brigade morale checks. Players who hate multiple dice rolls for one result will be frustrated by both systems, as no “morale” stone is left unturned. General de Brigade is a bit smoother and less clunky in this area, so gets a slight nod.

8. Playability (Do the rules provide for a fun game, or is it mired in too much detail, etc) If you like tactical games, you will love both systems. General de Brigade is a bit more straight-forward, and Republic To Empire takes a little longer to master, but frankly both rules are exceptionally playable. Another Draw.

9. Ease of setup (what does pre-scenario work look like? Is figure basing too specific? Do the rules require very specific basing?) As for pre-game preparation, both rules are similar. General de Brigade though, is much less flexible in the area of basing. Skirmish companies must be accounted for in the unit by figure. To be honest, it’s a bit frustrating with any collection that may be based for other rules. Republic To Empire is definitely more flexible in this area and gets the win.

10. End of battle (Do the rules give results that can be useful if conducting a campaign? Are Victory objectives taken account? Is Victory defined by the rules?) Victory objectives are scenario specific and must be planned for. Both rules are not meant for tournament play, although General de Brigade does have a detailed points system and terrain placement system for pick up games. Neither system has a post-battle system for use in campaigns, so house rules are required. I would give this area a close Draw for both. 

In summary, each system wins in two areas, and result in Draws for every other area. I know, not fair ! I honestly can’t commit either way. Republic To Empire’s command and control system is incredibly cool, but General de Brigade is smooth, elegant, tried and true. Both are very similar when it comes to scale, mechanics, and playability. I guess my advice is…….play both !

Search For The Holy Grail--The Best Napoleonic Rules, Part 1

Which Napoleonic rules system is the best ?

Being a total rules geek, I played out 5 popular and well-weathered Napoleonic rules sets in order to rate and compare them to each other. This entry, Part 1, covers the first of the games played, with the rules From Valmy To Waterloo.

Besides FVTW, subsequent blog posts will cover Carnage and Glory 2, Le Feu Sacre, Black Powder, and General de Brigade (Deluxe Edition).

A warning:  all of the opinions and ratings are purely my own and not to be construed as an all-out attempt to insult any other gamer's favorite rules set. (Besides, I had fun with each and every one of them !)

When we discuss Napoleonic wargaming with miniatures, players around the world have extremely strong opinions on how they view warfare of the period. The search for the "holy grail" of Napoleonic rules is never-ending. I am no different than any other historical miniatures enthusiast. I began my search over 20 years ago with the ever-popular Empire and continued to dabble in many other rules systems over the years. It's safe to say, after experimenting with grand-tactical scales (Napoleon's Battles, Age of Eagles, etc), that I personally prefer battalion scaled games versus brigade or larger games. That's just my preference; I refuse to judge anyone else who prefers a larger or smaller scale. I realize that's the spirit of wargaming.....besides the artful side of painting and terrain, and the competitiveness of the game, we all yearn to experience a wargame that mirrors as close as possible how we each envision a Napoleonic battle to be like. Unfortunately, the disconnect happens because those days are dead and gone; we only have paintings and historical accounts to go by.

So......I have attempted to play out a simple scenario with various rules sets and to complete an analysis of each. I graded each rules system objectively based on 1. Playability and 2. Realism/ Historical Accuracy.  I limited the rules sets according to a couple parameters; first, they all were required to have a battalion as the basic unit, and none of the systems could have simultaneous movement. This entire experiment is still flawed due to my own inherent and individual bias and my limited knowledge of what it was really like to be alive on a battlefield in the years 1792-1815.  But....hey.....it was a lot of fun. I also experienced a few surprises along the way.

I decided to simulate the battle of Maida in southern Italy in 1806. The opposing forces were division-sized and within 1,000 soldiers of each other. The terrain was relatively flat and clear. Historically, the British held their ground and punished unimaginative and headlong charges of the French with disciplined musketry and artillery fire. After the French were repulsed, the British pursued and scattered the French forces under Reynier. The battle was only slightly larger than a skirmish but the victory was huge for the allies. For the first time since Napoleon became Emperor, a French force was soundly beaten in the field. Napoleon shrugged off Reynier's loss as " merely having  a bad plan." In reality, the battle not only demonstrated the discipline of British infantry, the victory also had an incredible effect on national morale.

As for the wargame, the French have a numerical advantage, but the quality ranges from conscripts to veterans. The French also had an advantage in light infantry, skirmishing capability, and a unit of light cavalry. The British troop quality was slightly higher overall and the British had a 10-6 advantage in artillery pieces. Leadership was roughly equal on both sides, with French General de Division Reynier slightly downgraded with respect to historical results. In summary, Maida is an excellent scenario to experiment with; the forces are roughly equal in capability.

The scenario is detailed in an earlier blog post (search under the label "Napoleonic Wars"). For each of the rules discussed, I won't go into a full-blown AAR of each of the games, but attempt to focus on the mechanics of each rules set.

From Valmy To Waterloo

FVTW has a reputation for historical realism and a corresponding focus on complexity. After studying the rules extensively, the playbook does simplify play....a bit. It takes a long time to master (and fully digest) these rules. I have always been impressed with the sheer amount of detail that William Keyser put into these rules. Ah....but are they playable?  The answer is yes, but there are some drawbacks. FVTW was a 1990s evolution of Empire and is admirable in many ways. But due to the complexity of the rules, it is difficult to find an opponent these days.  Let's see how it compares to other rules systems.

In FVTW, there is a tremendous focus on command/control, extensive tactical detail, and brigade/division morale. Each turn consists of various phases and corresponds to 15 minute time periods. Command definition is very restrictive and command distance at the divisional level is very rigid, with units finding themselves outside of this distance severely hampered with respect to maneuverability. The underlying philosophy behind the rules is to force players to constantly think about command and control. To ignore command distance is to see your plan unravel completely. The final results of our game definitely upheld this underlying philosophy. On a unit level, there are many modifiers and characteristics that make each unit unique as far as maneuverability, firing value, and melee value. I personally like this approach, but it necessitates a complex chart to illustrate each order of battle. As for the turn itself, there are many phases: initiative, order activation, measure command spans, charge moves, regular moves, fire, charge reaction (further broken down into clear terrain, woods fighting, and built up areas), melee, morale (unit, brigade, and division checks) and leader replacement. It is all very thorough (which I appreciate) but very ponderous (which I don't like). Almost nothing is abstracted, except for skirmishing, which is covered by a Fire Discipline test. As for scale, FVTW has a 60:1 figure scale and a 1" = 33 meter ground scale ( there is another option for this, but I used the primary single rank basing scale).

FVTW was successful in that the game played like a historical account. But it was clunky and slow in parts. The 7 turns played took 3 hours and 30 minutes and I found myself referring constantly to the rule book for clarification. Batteries seemed especially fragile in this game. Charging infantry had both advantages of mass and formed-vs-open order and melees were initiated in both instances (the French overran another battery on the British left late in the game). It's pretty universal that infantry will beat artillery if they close to melee. The problem is that, even with cannister losses in both charges, the infantry still easily closed into melee. Something seemed out of whack here. It seems that if the infantry would lose either the mass or the formed vs open order modifier, that would make it more realistic. Maybe that's what the author intended, but I was unable to find it in the rules. At a different point in the game, a multiple-unit melee also seemed awkward and unnecessarily complex. The final result made sense, but the process took a full 10 minutes to figure out. At yet another point in the game, the British commander was killed by a stray bullet (in fairness, an extremely low chance.....but I rolled it anyway). The effect of Sir John Stuart's death was devastating to the British; a domino effect sheared out of control, and in this case, I thought the game shined. I could imagine the British force wavering as word spread of the leader's death spread through the ranks. The only issue was that, because of the nature of the 1806 British, it took forever for a replacement leader to show up......the result, although entertaining and dramatic, paralyzed the British over the remainder of the game. It seemed a bit harsh. A bright spot was the Disorganisation system that modeled unit fatigue and disorder; one woud expect this from an ultra-detailed set of rules like FVTW. Unfortunately, most rules systems do not model this critical characteristic of combat well. Although it is considered the strong point of the rules, a weakness lies in the complexity of FVTW....due to the massive amount of details, there are many grey areas which are not fully explained in the rules (or difficult to find). This slowed the game down and possibly led to inaccurate results that the author did not intend.

I rated FVTW a 5 out of 10 in playability. It was a slow moving game due to the great number of die rolls and chart checks, and it had its share of hiccups. And I am reasonably fluent with the rules. Still, it played like a movie and the dramatic drop in British morale due to Stuart's death was very interesting.

I rated FVTW an 8 out of 10 for historical accuracy/realism. Most of the mechanisms and results made sense and seemed valid. I did subtract a couple of points for the overly fragile nature of artillery versus infantry and the absence of any initiative at all below the division commander level in an out of command situation. I can understand negative modifiers, but I cannot comprehend that a brigade commander, regimental commanders, and battalion commanders could not make any other decision but to run away when the division commander was killed.

Total score for From Valmy To Waterloo was 6.5 out of 10.

Note:  I highly admire the work and research that has gone into this rules set. It was my primary set of rules for many years. As for an educational read on the historical simulation of the Napoleonic Wars, I rate it very, very high.

Gebora, 1811 using General de Brigade

Last week, we abandoned the attic (too damned hot here in Virginia) to set up a 12' x 5' table in the garage to refight one of the small actions of the Peninsular War, the Battle of the Gebora. The action at the Gebora river (alternatively spelled as "Gevora") was an attempt by Marshal Soult to knock out a Spanish army that threatened the ongoing French siege of Badajoz.

The game also gave me a chance to use my recent redoubt purchases from Battlefield Terrain Concepts.

Historical Background

Wellington's British and Portuguese forces had recently barricaded themselves behind the Lines of Torres Vedras in front of Massena's French army. A stalemate occurred, which Massena's forces could not tolerate for long due to supply concerns. In order to relieve the pressure on Massena, Marshal Soult led a large force, primarily made up of units of the Army of the South, to lay siege on the fortified town of Badajoz. Badajoz was located in the Spanish region of Extremadura, reasonably close to Wellington's position. A Spanish army under La Romana was dispatched to raise the siege. While enroute, La Romana died and command passed to General Mendizabal. The Spanish force camped to the left of Badajoz upon the heights of San Cristobal. Unfortunately for the Spanish, no attempt was made to entrench and fortify this strong position.

On the morning of February 19th, 1811, Soult tasked Marshal Mortier with a surprise attack across the Gebora river and against the Spanish position on the heights. Using heavy fog as an advantage, French infantry under General de Division Girard and 2 brigades of cavalry under General de Division Latour-Mauborg crossed the river and surprised the sparse Spanish pickets.

Mendizabal's Spanish were unprepared for a defense and found themselves aggressively attacked by 9 battalions of French infantry of the ligne. Latour-Mauborg attacked the Spanish/Portuguese cavalry located on the Spanish left flank and sent French hussars and chasseurs to envelop the infantry on the heights. The Spanish and Portuguese cavalry literally melted away and the Spanish infantry found themselves flanked by light cavalry and threatened frontally by the French infantry. Forming brigade squares in order to protect themselves from the cavalry, the Spanish infantry were ripe targets for the French infantry and 2 horse batteries. It was a disaster for the Spanish.

7,000 French literally destroyed the Spanish force of approximately 12,000. The Spanish suffered approximately 1,000 battle casualties but 4,000 men were also taken prisoner. The French incurred about 400 total casualties.

The relief of Badajoz failed and Soult continued to besiege the town. The Battle of the Gebora River was a typical example of French superiority over the Spanish in a pitched battle.

The table-top battle

Using the rules General de Brigade at a 20:1 figure scale was a minor challenge, not because of the number of required figures, but due to the ground scale. The Spanish historically occupied a position 2 miles in length. A large table of 12' x5' was required. House rules needed to be implemented to account for the effects of the heavy fog as well.

The San Cristobal heights are located on the right side in this picture

View from the Spanish position towards the Gebora river

Another angle of the table from the southeast corner of the table

House rules

The entry points onto the table-top were randomized for the French. (A die was rolled  for each French infantry brigade). Coordination in the heavy fog was considered to be difficult. Visibility in Turn 1 was considered to be 250 yards, 350 yards in Turn 2, and 450 yards in Turn 3. Beginning on Turn 4, the effects of the fog were considered to be minimal.

Spanish command and control was also assumed to be a challenge historically. Due to the deployment over a 2 mile front and heavy fog shielding the exact direction of the French advance, the Spanish were restricted to changing brigade orders only when Mendizabal (or each independent brigade commander) was able to actually see the French force. In addition, each Spanish infantry and cavalry brigade were limited to Hold orders on Turn 1.

Wellington recommended strongly that the Spanish, upon occupying the San Cristobal heights, entrench and fortify the position. Mendizabal promptly ignored this wise advice. For our scenario, it is assumed that the Spanish artillery are placed in redoubts with a -2 cover modifier.

The Game

After rolling for French randomized entry, Mortier's strategy was to utilize Tactical Marches in order to advance upon the Spanish quickly. If given time, the Spanish might be able to bring their superior numbers to bear. The French plan was to mirror the historical tactics and launch a lightning strike onto the San Cristobal heights.

With fog still shielding the French advance, the Spanish were literally fixed in position without the ability to change any brigade orders. Cavalry was able  to counter-charge though, and Spanish infantry and artillery could maneuver to defend the deployment area.

Spanish infantry and artillery on the San Cristobal heights

Another view of the Spanish position

The Spanish right flank, away from the French advance

Spanish cavalry await the French attack

Phillopon's brigade enters the table-top

French cavalry under Latour-Mauborg advance against Spanish horsemen

By Turn 2, the French cavalry was visible to the Spanish cavalry brigades, but order changes by each brigade commander were unsuccessful. The French continued to advance. By Turn 3, the cavalry were engaged and the Portuguese rolled well and activated an Assault order.

French and Spanish/Portuguese cavalry begin to engage each other

The cavalry lines clashed and the Portuguese Dragoons proved stubborn, winning the first 2 charges. The Spanish horse underperformed though and the French cavalry smelled victory. Latour-Mauborg, by this time, felt that des Eclat's Dragoon brigade was more than capable of defeating the allied cavalry, redirecting Briche's light horsemen against the extreme left flank of the Spanish infantry on the heights. Meanwhile, Girard's infantry steadily advanced against the heights and utilized the horse batteries to punish the Spaniards on top of the heights. As predicted, the Spanish had major command and control issues and continued to be fixed in place.

French infantry advance !

As if responding to a bugle call, all of the allied cavalry began to lose every engagement and melt away ( mirroring the historical result). After an optimistic start, the Spanish and Portuguese horsemen proved to be totally outclassed by the professional French cavalry. The Spanish, and then the Portuguese, eventually failed Brigade Morale rolls and then there were none. The French hussars and chasseurs, by this time, were threatening the Spanish infantry, forcing at least one battalion into square formation.

The Spanish left flank begins to crumble

At the end of Turn 9, as the allied cavalry fled the field, the French infantry charged headlong into the Spanish infantry. Surprisingly, the Spanish proved to be stubborn and threw the French infantry back with strong vollies of musketry. 

The climax of the infantry battle, as the Spanish proved amazingly stubborn

Admirable as the Spanish infantry stand was, with the collapse of the cavalry, the allied force had reached its Falter point of 25% and had to roll for Army Morale at the end of Turn 9. Mendizabal, in miserable fashion, failed his roll and the Spanish retreated off of the field.

Admittedly a tough scenario for the Spanish, the allied infantry superiority could never be brought to bear against the smaller French forces. This allowed Mortier to target the location of the attack....with great effect. Part of the secret for French success was the aggressive decision to attack quickly. If given time, the Spanish could get some brigade orders changed and actually advance downhill to engulf the French (this actually happened in the second playing of the scenario). The French player must be very aggressive and never hesitate.

Fun scenario. The game also boasted accurate results when compared to the historical outcome. As usual, General de Brigade proved to be an excellent rules system for a scenario of this size. Final approximate casualties were 1,000 Spanish/Portuguese and about 250 French losses.

If a more balanced scenario is sought, increasing the Spanish command and control capability should give the intended result. The effect of the fog also hamstrung the Spanish capability to change orders effectively.

Orders of Battle

(French)

Marshal Mortier     CIC     Excellent

General de Division Girard         Average

General de Brigade Phillopon     Average
   1/34th Ligne      24 figs       Line
   2/34th Ligne      24 figs       Line
   3/34th Ligne      24 figs       Line
   1/88th Ligne      24 figs       Line
   2/88th Ligne      24 figs       Line
   3/88th Ligne      24 figs       Line
12 Skirmishers    First Class  / Line

General de Brigade Gaud          Average
   1/100th Ligne    24 figs       Line
   2/100th Ligne    24 figs       Line
   3/100th Ligne    20 figs       2nd Line
6 Skirmishers      First Class / Line

Colonel A'levant                        Average
    6 lb Artillerie a Cheval    3 gun stands     Veteran
    6 lb Artillerie a Cheval    3 gun stands     Veteran


General de Division Latour-Mauborg          Excellent

General de Brigade Briche        Average
    10th Hussars      16 figs     Veteran
    21st Chasseurs a Cheval     16 figs    Line
    27th Chasseurs a Cheval     16 figs    Line
     4th  Juramentados               16 figs    Conscript

General de Brigade des Eclats    Average
    4th Dragoons     14 figs       Line
   14th Dragoons    14 figs       Line
   26th Dragoons    16 figs       Line
    2nd Hussars       16 figs       Veteran


(Spanish)

General Mendizabal       CIC    Poor

Brigade General Espana      Average
    Union bn           30 figs             Line
    Principe bn        30 figs             2nd Line
    del General bn    30 figs            2nd Line
    1/Tiradores de Castillo bn      24 figs      Conscript
    2/Tiradores de Castillo bn      24 figs      Conscript
    Cataluna bn        30 figs            2nd Line
    6 lb Artilleria Pie     3 gun stands       Line     (2nd Class)
12 Skirmishers       2nd Class / 2nd Line

Brigade General Garcia        Poor
    Rey bn               30 figs             Line
    Leon bn             24 figs             2nd Line
    Barcelona bn     24 figs             2nd Line
    Sevilla bn          30 figs             2nd Line
    6 lb Artilleria Pie     3 gun stands     Line      (2nd Class)
9 Skirmishers        2nd Class / 2nd Line

Brigade General Virues        Average
    Princesa bn        30 figs              Line
    Hibernia bn        24 figs             2nd Line
    Zamora bn         24 figs             2nd Line
    Toledo bn          30 figs             Conscript  
    Voluntarios de Navarro      30 figs      Conscript   (Levies)
9 Skirmishers        2nd Class / 2nd Line

Cavalry Brigade General Boutron       Poor
    Carabineros      (Dragoons)     20 figs      Conscript
    Reina Dragoons (Dragoons)    18 figs      Conscript
    Algarve Dragoons (Dragoons)   18 figs    Conscript
    Hussars Extremadura  (Light)    16 figs    2nd Line

Cavalry Brigade General Madden      Average
    3rd Portuguese Dragoons (Dragoons)     18 figs    Conscript
    5th Portuguese Dragoons (Dragoons)      18 figs   Conscript

A Review and Summary of General de Brigade

Over my 30-odd years of wargaming, I have tinkered with several historical periods that have interested me. I play games in the Ancient and Medieval periods, the American Civil War, and World War Two. I will play just about any historical period that presents itself; I don't consider myself a "gaming snob." Through all of these years and various meanderings, I have considered myself first and foremost a Napoleonic wargamer. Ever since I was a child, I have been fascinated with this period of history. I don't know if it is the colorful uniforms, the masses of troops, the "rock paper and scissors" tactics, or the grand strategy of the times (or a combination of all of it), but most of my wargaming focus has been on the Napoleonic period. And like other Napoleonic gamers, I have been in search of the "holy grail" of rules. I really don't think they exist, but that doesn't halt the quest.

At 20:1 figure scale, a game of General de Brigade looks great on the table

For group games, I have (and continue) to be very satisfied with the Carnage and Glory 2 computer-moderated system. You can view the write-ups of several games with this system on my earlier blog reports. I play a lot of solo battles though. As an introvert with a ton of pressure at work, there is really something satisfying about the weekly retreat to the attic where I can bash miniature armies against each other. For me, solo wargaming doesn't feel right with computer-moderated systems; I spend most of my time running back and forth to the computer instead of enjoying the spectacle on the table. So over the many years, I have experimented with Empire, From Valmy to Waterloo, Battles for Empire, Black Powder, and countless other rules in my search for the "grail." For various reasons, I have always left the table feeling empty. Don't misunderstand me, none of these rules are bad rules. On the contrary, I learn something from every rules system that I have played. I truly appreciate the time, effort, and research that rules authors pour into their creations. I even attempted to write my own rules for the period, until I realized that my "perfect" rules were virtually unplayable. What a humbling and completely depressing experience!

Although I have played with grand-tactical rules like Age of Eagles and Grande Armee, I still get the most satisfaction out of a wargame with the battalion as the tactical unit. To each his own I guess. I just enjoy the look of a division made up of 8-10 units instead of just 2. Again, these systems are very good rules sets with passionate followers, but grand-tactical Napoleonic gaming just isn't my cup of tea.

The rule book !

I stumbled onto the deluxe edition of General de Brigade a few years ago. Very popular in the UK and Australia, I've always wondered why this rules system is not commonly played here in the States. Being a British-produced set and boasting a figure scale that is not typically played State-side, I assumed that this lack of popularity insinuated another mediocre rules set.  After my first game, I was pleasantly surprised. The rules flowed very smoothly and just made sense.  Many people have compared GdB to In the Grand Manner by the late Peter Gilder. The scale is the same but GdB is much more detailed and realistic than that classic rules system. Although not perfect and not the "holy grail" of all that is good in life, these rules really provided me an excellent wargaming experience. They have since become my "go-to" system for solo (or one-on-one) games.

So here are my observations and opinions of General de Brigade. First, I'll attempt to summarize the rules themselves and then end up with my positive and negative opinions on how the rules generally work.

Summary of the rules

The figure scale of General de Brigade is 20:1 with a ground scale of 1" equaling 25 yards. The time scale is not explicitly stated, but my estimate is that each game-turn equals approximately 10 minutes. The figure scale can be daunting. A typical Austrian line battalion in 1809 is made up of 36-48 figures while a comparable French battalion clocks in at 24-36 figures. Expensive......but beautiful on the table.

The scope of GdB is intended as a division-sized battle. Corps-sized battles can be played easily if you have the time or space. For multi-corps battles, it is possible (I've seen accounts of Wagram and Borodino on the GdB forum) but the rules are not directly intended for such and you would need real veterans of the system to pull these projects off......and a tremendous amount of space. I am always amused when critics of the rules comment that the rules are cumbersome when playing Leipzig..........well, duh......they were never marketed for or intended for such huge battles, although again it is possible in theory (and does happen, judging from the impressive photos on the forum).

The turn sequence

The turn sequence is relatively simple. First, initiative is rolled to determine which side moves first. Then compulsory movement from the previous turn occurs (retreats, routs, etc). The issuing of new orders is the next step. After that, charge declarations, normal movement, and melee combats take place. The turn ends with unit morale checks, followed by brigade morale checks. If one army has not broken, the game continues until the specified victory conditions are met.

Command and Control

At the heart of General de Brigade is a command and control system that is both detailed, yet smooth in execution. Grand-tactically, each division commander and brigade commander has specific orders which must be followed. Examples of brigade orders are Assault, Engage, Hold, etc. Charges may or not be conducted under certain orders. For example, infantry on a Hold order may not charge an enemy, yet infantry on an Assault must charge when able. A division commander may order charges when necessary, no matter what the brigade order is. Therefore, to conduct a limited attack may necessitate the division commander being close by. Tactically, a unit must be within command range in order to charge the enemy. This limits the "nippy little battalion" syndrome considerably; it really forces brigades to deploy in a tight formation.

Changing orders for brigades and divisions require a die roll; a player may conduct one order change per turn.

In summary, the command and control system, although not overly restrictive, forces a player to think ahead on what brigade orders are required and where his leader figures are on the table.

A nice battle on the Peninsula using General de Brigade

Movement and Charges

Movement is straight-forward and is formation-specific. All battalion formations are portrayed on the tabletop, including single company columns. Charge movement is interesting. A unit that conducts a charge moves halfway to its target, receives any defensive fire at that range, and then tests to determine if the charge closes or not. If the charge does close, the defending unit must then take a morale check to see if it stands. It all works quite well, even if it is a bit abstract.

Emergency squares, evade moves, and opportunity charges are all covered. One interesting tidbit is the subject of massed columns charging a single target. If 2 or more columns are within an 8 cm distance between each other in a charge, the defensive fire gains a bonus and resulting morale checks could have the columns literally "bumping" into each other and causing disorder. This forces the player to attack in multiple "waves" or to take his chances and try and get multiple units on target.

French Cuirassiers advance at Alt Eglofsheim

Skirmishers

Skirmishers are handled in an interesting manner. If the player desires, the light infantry companies of each battalion (if so equipped--dependent on nationality) combine together in a single skirmish screen for each brigade. This skirmish screen literally becomes a separate unit in the brigade. Proper use of this skirmish screen can be incredibly annoying against a player with a weaker (or non-existent screen). Skirmishers can even charge and drive off opposing skirmish screens. Casualties inflicted are relatively light in nature, but irritating nonetheless. I consider the skirmishing rules one of the hallmarks of the system.


Firing and Melee

Firing is conducted per number of figures (or guns). A large unit in line, although unwieldy in maneuver, can be devastating when the maximum number of muskets are firing. Cannister fire can be deadly as well, just what you'd expect from artillery. Skirmish fire, as described above, is relatively light in nature, but adds up over time and forces an opposing player to deal with it.

When charging, the defensive fire of a unit is critical. Among several modifiers to the Closing test is the number of casualties inflicted in the defensive fire. Artillery, which is weak if closed upon in melee, can punish a charging unit with canister and keep the unit from closing, if not disordering it or causing it to falter in the charge. To me, these tests to close a charge or stand versus a charge are well done and add to the flavor of the system.

If a charging unit closes, and the defender stands, then melee happens. Rolling 2d6 per side and adding/subtracting modifiers to determine the winner is very straight-forward. The difference in the modified die rolls determine the extent of the victory and the casualties.  The melee rules are very logical and easy to understand. Although the modifiers all make sense (flanked, mass, training, etc) the melee rolls are the one area in which the "luck of the die" does dominate.

Morale

After the action is over, morale checks are conducted for units which meet the specific conditions. These unit morale checks and earlier melee results can also force a brigade morale check roll. Brigade morale checks can also affect adjacent brigades as well, thus beginning a possible "domino effect."

I feel that the morale rules are solid and I fully appreciate the inclusion of brigade morale checks. One can see an army withering away under the right conditions. It feels right.

Lots of cavalry !

Summary

Either as a solo game, or with a small group of friends, General de Brigade excels as a ruleset. The overall feel and flow of the game is logical and smooth. I think the overused descriptive term is that the rules are "elegant." The specific details I most like about the system include:

- The 20:1 scale looks beautiful on the table. The units are large and contribute to the grand feel of the game.
- The skirmish rules make sense from a gamer's standpoint. They are not abstract and fill the purpose of skirmishers perfectly....those little guys are incredibly rude and annoying.
- The command system is very simple, yet effective. As a player, one really has to think ahead with command and control in mind.
- Firing is done by numbers of figures or guns, not bases or an abstract number of fire dice. As a unit wears down, it's fire effectiveness decreases.
- Smoke is factored in for musketry, so a veteran player learns to hold his fire until absolutely necessary.
- I love the morale rules. The modifiers seem very accurate for morale tests. I also appreciate that a charging unit must test to close a charge, while a defender also has to test in order to stand in front of a successful charge. I always like a Napoleonic rules system that incorporates brigade morale in addition to individual unit morale.
- The Napoleonic flavor of "rock, paper, and scissors" tactics are fully present.
- The National Characteristics are few and far between, but make total sense in the context of the rules. For example, British infantry in line receive a plus modifier in firing due to inherent fire discipline, historical performance, and the two-rank line. I'm a Francophile and I have no problem with it at all.

There are several details that I have an issue with, but have incorporated several "house rules" to deal with these:

- There are no fatigue rules in the system, especially for artillery. Disorder and Faltering could be considered examples of incorporating fatigue, but in an abstract way.
- Although the 20:1 figure scale looks pretty on the table, it sure is expensive. Ok, I'll stop whining.
-  The melee calculation is a bit too "luck-based." I'm sure that this was in order to inject some randomness and "fun" into the game, but I think the melee modifiers are a bit underweight in the calculation.
- Amunition, especially for artillery, is barely touched upon. A house rule that limits the number of canister/ball rounds until resupply fixed that.
- Due to the time scale, firefights (in contrast to melees) take an incredible amount of time to sort themselves out. A couple of infantry lines volleying it out may take a full hour or longer before one side retires or retreats.
- There is no "point-blank" range for infantry fire. There are only normal and long ranges; the bands for each seem a bit wide.
- For very large multi-corps games (even if I could arrange the space), the system can slow down due to the amount of detail included in the rules. But to be fair, as I've mentioned, the game was never intended for this type of game.

So, as you can tell, I'm a fan of the General de Brigade rules (and trust me, I've played just about everything).  The system rides that very fine line between a simulation and an entertaining game. The rules are very, very popular throughout the civilized world of wargaming (just haven't caught on here in the USA for some reason), so there is a large fanbase. The GdB forum is also well populated. David Brown frequently screens questions and all of the veterans of the system fully support the game.

For group games, I'll stick with Carnage and Glory 2 (primarily because I love that system and no one else knows the GdB rules except for me), but for my solo wars or games with my son, I wholeheartedly recommend General de Brigade.