Search For The Holy Grail - The Best Napoleonic Rules, Part 6

Search For The Holy Grail - The Best Napoleonic Rules, Part 6

Shako 2

I am probably jumping into the lion's den with this one. Shako 2 (as well as the original version) is one of the most popular Napoleonic rules sets in the world. I have dabbled in the past with these rules, but never grew interested enough in them to pursue them on a deeper level. I have had several requests for a review of Shako 2, so I decided to finally spend a couple of weeks learning the rules and playtesting them thoroughly. Although I am not an expert with these rules, I did dive pretty deep and feel confident that I now have at least a basic understanding.

I found that there are many admirable, if not brilliant, concepts contained in the rulebook. I also found that there were also some characteristics of the rules that were a bit too abstract for me and detracted from my own gameplay experience. Now I know that Shako 2 has hundreds, if not thousands, of devoted players who claim that it truly provides the finest Napoleonic gaming experience available.  It is definitely a solid set of rules and it works for many, many gamers.  I also found that it works best as a grand-tactical Napoleonic game rather than a smaller, tactical game. 

I'd like to first describe the rules and its mechanisms. At the end of the review, I will summarize the specific things I liked and did not like about Shako 2.

Shako 2 can be used for large or small games on the tabletop

Scales

According to the rulebook, there is no specific figure scale. Each battalion of infantry, regiment of cavalry, or battery consists of an approximate "average-sized" Napoleonic unit. For example, a battalion of infantry on the tabletop is considered to have a numerical strength of between 400-800 troops. Larger units, such as Austrian line infantry units containing 1,000 or more soldiers, are covered (they can absorb an extra "hit"). Interestingly, smaller units are not included; the inference is to combine smaller units into an average-sized battalion. The time scale is considered to be 20-30 minutes per turn. As for ground scale, although I scoured the rules, I could not find any reference to number of yards per inch.

Base sizes are not critically important, although several methods of basing units are portrayed.

One of the first things that I look for in a set of rules is the section on game scales. I found it a bit frustrating (and interesting at the same time) to see such abstraction in this area. Of course, this could be my own obsessive-compulsive fondness for details and shouldn't be taken too awful seriously.

Units are then organized into "divisions," which can be 4-12 units strong. It's interesting that these "divisions" can range from brigades, actual divisions, or even small corps. Again, for a detail-minded fanatic like myself, I prefer a logical regiment-brigade-division-corps command structure. The "divisions" in Shako 2 allow gamers to generically create commands for convenience of play. The "army commander" can be either a division commander, corps commander, or true army commander, depending on the scope of the game.

Unit Ratings

Unit ratings are grouped into morale classes with each class containing an MR/DisMR rating. The MR (morale rating) is used when conducting melee, rallies from "stagger" or "fall-back" situations, and when conducting special maneuvers such as hasty formation changes. The DisMR (disordered morale rating) is used when conducting melee at a disadvantage (such as being attacked on the flank). The infantry morale classes range from "guard" to "unreliable." Cavalry morale classes are based on heavy, line, or light cavalry types, but also include "second rate" and "unreliable." Artillery is classified as heavy, foot, or horse guns.

The MR ratings also reflect the number of casualties that a unit may absorb before being dispersed and picked up from the table. For example, a regular line infantry battalion with a 4 MR can take 4 hits either due to fire or melee before disappearing off of the table. Large units may take an extra "hit," although its morale rating remains the same for other calculations. All artillery batteries can only absorb 3 hits total and are then removed from the table.

When rallying or conducting special maneuvers (ex. hasty square), a six-sided die is rolled. If the die roll is equal to or less than the unit's MR, than the rally maneuver attempt is deemed successful. Charge distance modifiers are added to this roll.

It is important to note that a unit's initial MR does not change even when taking "hits."  For example, a light cavalry unit with an initial MR of 4/1 that has taken 2 "hits" still has a morale rating of 4 for purposes of rallying, melee, or special maneuvers.

Specific game concepts

Tactically, action with the enemy revolves around a unit's frontal zone, which is a 6" zone that extends from the unit's flank lines outward. If two opposing units are in one of the other's frontal zone, than the units are considered to be "in contact." This is important not only for "divisional" orders, but also formation changes as well.  This concept is similar to the pinning zone in DBA and other similar games.

The concept of "stagger" is also important. This is intended to demonstrate a temporary state of disruption and can be caused by skirmish fire, or musketry/artillery fire.  Typically, a unit that is "staggered" gains a negative modifier to almost anything that it does. During the rally phase, if a unit is outside of an enemy's frontal zone, than a "stagger" can be rallied off.

Turn Sequence

This is pretty straight-forward.

1. Artillery Fire or Evade

2. Initiative / Movement phase

    a. Conduct support charges for allowed units

3. Musketry phase

    a. Skirmish fire first

    b. Volley fire

4. Melee

    a. After melee resolution, conduct breakthroughs, recalls, and countercharges

5. Command phase

     a. Change orders and send ADC's

     b. Rally and reform units

     c. Rally divisions

     d. Check division morale

     e. Check scenario victory conditions

Walking through the turn sequence, I didn't have any issues with it. It was a simple and logical process to conduct a game turn.

Artillery Fire or Evade

Artillery fire is conducted via 3 range bands: Cannister, Effective, and Long. It does allow a gamer, by using the pullback method, to fire ball shot even at close ranges in order to maximize bouncethrough fire onto tightly packed divisions. Counter batter is also represented on the artillery fire table.

I found it interesting that artillery batteries could also "evade" from the front line instead of firing. When I began conducting melees I quickly found out why: artillery batteries are pretty fragile when charged by formed infantry or cavalry (a last ditch canister volley is included though, to be fair).  Therefore, knowing when to evade with artillery batteries is definitely an important part of tactical decision-making in Shako 2.

Initiative / Movement

Instead of a card-driven method of moving "divisions" or a strict "UGO-IGO" process, Shako 2 uses a six-sided die roll for each division to identify what formations move first. All divisions that rolled a "6" move simultaneously, after that divisions that rolled a "5" move,  and so on.  So, opposing players may be moving divisions on opposite sides of the table at the same time. If directly opposing divisions roll the same initiative number, the division on attack orders moves first.

Movement is very straight-forward, with each type of unit moving a maximum distance per turn. No surprises here. There is no charge movement bonus. Charging units are simply moved into contact with an enemy unit. There are terrain effects upon movment and wheeling a unit costs double (skirmishers excepted--they move much more freely).

At the end of regular movement, units that moved 1/2 or less of its movement allowance are able to conduct "support charges," which basically allow a player to exploit situations or to counter enemy maneuvers during the regular movement phase.

Musketry

Skirmishers are fired first. I found that skirmish stands in Shako 2 seem to perform in a historically accurate way. They are not overly powerful, but they are irritating to the enemy and have to be dealt with. Besides the ingrained skirmishers that form a chain for each "division," entire infantry battalions may break down into 2 skirmish stands instead of remaining formed.

Musketry occurs next and affects all enemy units in its frontal zone (only if there are gaps; a formed unit does block pass-through fire if a unit is directly behind it). There is no oblique fire.....just straight ahead. Musketry tends to be very bloody and decisive in Shako 2. A typical infantry battalion that can only absorb 4 "hits" will only last for so long when trading volleys with an enemy unit.

Melee

Melee is also very straight forward.  Basically, one compares the MR's (or disordered MR if it applies) of opposing units, add or subtract any tactical modifiers, and then throw one six-sided die. The difference in points determines the number of "hits" and the winner/loser. The loser then falls back "staggered" a particular distance. Typically, if an infantry unit out of square loses to cavalry, it is considered dispersed. Ditto for an artillery unit that loses any melee.

Cavalry breakthrough charges, recalls for cavalry, and countercharges are all covered within the rules. It's nice that, although cavalry has the potential for powerful results, its endurance is covered within the mechanisms of Shako 2.

Command Phase

The command phase is the section of the turn that brings it all together. Order changes, unit rallies, and divisional morale checks are conducted.

Order changes are conducted through the movement of ADC's from the Army commander. To replicate command and staff efficiency, army commanders of each nationality may differ on the number of ADC's available each turn. A die roll to see if the ADC was killed or only moved halfway is conducted during this turn. Certain nationalities with only one ADC (1805 Russians and Austrians are but 2 examples) can find the activation of reserves or changing of other orders frustrating. Conversely, the French typically have up to 4 ADC's per turn available and can afford to send multiple ADC's to a division to ensure delivery of orders. This system is one of the most effective, yet incredibly simple, command and control gaming mechanisms that I have seen. Ingenious.

As far as unit rallies go, this process can prove devastatingly decisive. If a unit previously lost a melee and fell back, it must be rallied. If it fails just one rally attempt, it is considered dispersed and picked up from the table. This phase is incredibly important and can make or break the game. I'm used to units in more tactical games continue falling back until actually off the table before dispersing. In Shako 2, the author does not play around; a unit either reforms or it is gone.

Divisional morale checks based on dispersed units also occur, which is a strong point of the rules. Too many rules do not contain higher formation morale checks. I was very happy to see that it is contained in Shako 2.

Personal Likes and Dislikes

As with any rules system, I found many areas of Shako 2 that I felt were very solid. And with most rules systems, there are a few things that I had a hard time wrapping my head around. Here are my personal observations:

I particularly admired the following:

1. The divisional orders/changing orders system is simple, yet highly effective. Divisions on Defend basically hold in a designated area tied to a geographic feature. Divisions on Attack must advance until at least one formed unit comes into "contact" with the enemy (within a unit's frontal zone). Divisions on Reserve are held motionless until activated. As for changing a division's orders, the use of ADC's as a measure of staff efficiency or national tactical philosophy (Linear vs Napoleonic in some systems) is excellent.

2. The modifiers for melee and firing make sense. I never found myself shaking my head trying to figure out what the author was thinking.

3. I feel that the support modifiers replicate the tactical differences between Linear and Napoleonic philosophies nicely. In order to receive positive modifiers for flank or rear support during melee, it literally forces a player to fight with his army as it historically fought.

4. I liked the fact that an attack path has to be planned in advance and drawn onto a map of the table. This allows for an oblique approach or a feint in a specific direction, yet has to be pre-planned by the division commander.

5. Using the artillery "pull-back" method accurately creates a historically accurate "beaten zone."

6. The rules for "hasty squares" and "hasty lines" within an enemy unit's frontal zone seem absolutely "right" to me.

7. The critical concept of Divisional morale is included.

I struggled with the following concepts:

1. There does not seem to be any emphasis on a particular ground scale. Musketry and artillery ranges seemed accurate at first sight, but did not seem to match up with unit movement. I felt that units moved too little during what was supposed to be a 20-30 minute turn. Add in the factor of "no particular figure scale," and it all felt a bit too vague and abstract for my taste.

2. Initiative seemed gamey. Although I liked the fact of rolling a six sided die for random movement for divisions, there was no concept of "momentum" on the gaming table that systems like Carnage and Glory 2 excel in. Also, divisions that rolled "6's" were not always at an advantage by moving first.

3. Artillery seemed too fragile when charged, especially when compared to musketry. Units charging a battery did not receive defensive fire; the battery used their MR in melee to replicate a last-ditch canister fire. When a unit charged infantry, they not only had to endure a defensive volley, but were halted before contact if this defensive volley caused a "stagger." 

4. There were no "passage-of-line" rules for interpenetration.

5. Melee seemed too luck-based for my personal taste. Although the melee modifiers made sense, the addition of just one six-sided die could cause extreme results. But, in fairness, this "luck factor" is what pulls many gamers into the fold.

In summary, I found Shako 2 to be a well-researched rules system that works well on the tabletop, especially for grand-tactical scenarios. Although there is an admirable  amount of detail within certain aspects of the game, the ambiguity of figure scale, ground scale, and unit size seemed much too generic and fuzzy to me.

I rated Shako 2 in the area of playability a 6.5 out of 10. For historical accuracy, I also rated Shako 2 a 6.5 out of 10. My total rating is therefore 6.5 out of 10, a very solid set of rules that continues to be very popular worldwide.

Search For The Holy Grail - The Best Napoleonic Rules, Part 5

A new rules system was recently released and, after reading some preliminary reviews, I quickly purchased a copy from Caliver Books. The beautifully-produced Over The Hills by Adrian McWalter and Quinton Dalton arrived shortly at my doorstep and I was immediately impressed.

I was itching to get the rules onto the table-top.

Over The Hills

First off, my initial impression was that the book is very professionally-produced and very nicely illustrated and photographed. After reading through the rules several times, I came away with the feeling that the authors wrote a solid set of rules that have been "inspired" by concepts contained in the many Napoleonic rules that preceded them. Now, that is not a bad thing in my opinion. Being a self-proclaimed rules junkie, I have slaved over my own house rules for about 20 years and have not been successful incorporating my own ideas with excellent gaming concepts from other rules systems. I think that the authors have succeeded in producing a very effective set of rules that play very smoothly.

Organization

The book begins with a multi-page background to the Napoleonic Wars (geared to the novice gamer in the period) and quickly moves to a discussion of the primary concepts of the rules. Troop types, unit ratings, basing, scale, command and control, and unit formations are all discussed in great detail. The turn sequence and basic rules are discussed, giving the gamer an excellent introduction into the flow and basic mechanisms of the system. At this point, one has all of the information to play out a game. The basic rules, in my opinion, would fit very nicely in a convention setting.....easy to learn, flows smoothly, plays quickly with a nice amount of period flavor. But, for the jaded gamer like myself who yearns for more grit and detail, the book adds the optional rules section after the basic rules.  This is where the basic concepts are fleshed out and adds an admirable amount of historical realism. The book concludes with several appendices, including a discussion of scale, the War of 1812, and historical deployments. The QRF, located at the very rear of the book, consists of 2 pages.

Basic Concepts

The question of scale is probably the first thing that I look at in a rules system. In Over The Hills, the number of figures per base is not important. The dimensions of a base are most important when it comes to ground scale and there are detailed recommendations contained within. The rules are intended for 25-28mm figures, but any size figures may be used and recommendations are included about ground scale when using smaller figures. An interesting concept of the rules is that any figure scale can be used, including 1:20, 1:30, 1:60, etc. The size of the base is most important; the number of figures on each base are really up to the individual gamer. For example, my 15mm figures are based at 1:30, therefore using the movement and fire distances contained in the rules, the ground scale ends up at approximately 35 yards to the inch. The time scale is not immediately evident, but in the author's appendix concerning scale, it is intended to be about 10 minutes per turn.

Tabletop units are portrayed as infantry battalions, cavalry regiments, and artillery batteries. Unit ratings are based on Elan (inspiration) and Grade (training). These ratings are combined with the actual number of combatants to yield a Fatigue score. The Fatigue score is the basic rating for each unit throughout the game. Although, I'm not personally a fan of unit ratings boiled down to 1 overall number, it does work and the game definitely revolves around the concept of the Fatigue score. It reminds me of the unit strength points rating in Sam Mustafa's rules or even that of March Attack (although MA also has a training rating that is used for discipline/morale tests). This Fatigue score is intended to be an all-encompassing rating that takes into account actual fatigue, casualties, and psychological wear and tear. The unit Fatigue score is affected by musketry/artillery casualties, melee, and movement through rough/broken terrain. Once a unit's Fatigue score reaches zero, the unit is removed from the table (although there are optional rules for units with low Fatigue scores -- routing and wavering units). What is interesting is that commanders can attempt to rally each turn to "add back" Fatigue points, which is useful in pushing a unit through woods or moving further than the basic movement allowance.

Command and Control

In the basic game, the command span for a brigade-sized formation is all-important. If a unit is outside this command span, movement or charges are unauthorized and Fatigue points may not be rallied. Commanders, depending on their rating, can attempt to rally Fatigue points for a certain number of units. In the optional rules, there is a section that discusses brigade and division orders and actions. The concept is actually very simple and effective.

The Turn Sequence

Side A and B are decided upon at the outset of a game. This is a concept that I'm not too keen on, as momentum may shift throughout the game; I am a proponent of an initiative roll at the start of each turn based on the current situation. A house rule can easily remedy this for those inclined. Once the order of movement is decided upon, the turn sequence is as follows:

1. Side A moves

2. Side A attempts to rally fatigue points

3. Side B conducts defensive fire

4. Side A conducts melee

5. Side B fires all remaining units

Steps 6-10   reverse sides and repeat steps 1-5

As one can see, the turn sequence allows for the non-phasing side to watch for defensive fire opportunities so it is not a strict UGO-IGO turn sequence.

Movement

Movement, for 25-28mm figures, is based on increments of 6 inches (for the 15mm figures that I own, simply modify down to centimeters). Depending on the type of formation or troop type (cavalry moves faster, for example), the number of increments that a unit may move varies. One concept that I truly like is the ability to move/push a unit an increment further, but accepting a Fatigue point penalty. Keeping in mind that commanders may attempt to rally Fatigue points (depending on unit's proximity to the enemy), this adds a nice tactical option.

Formation changes, depending again on the specific change, cost an amount of movement increments to perform.

Fire and Combat

Fire is based on Short range or Long range and utilizes the unit's current Fatigue rating and then rolled on the appropriate table. Using the basic rules, depending on the roll, a range of 0-3 Fatigue point casualties are inflicted. There is an optional rule that allows British infantry in 2-rank line to inflict up to 4 casualties.

Another concept that I really like is how skirmishers are handled. Each unit has a skirmisher score and when trading fire, the scores are compared. The difference between skirmish scores determine positive or negative modifiers on the fire chart. Typically, a unit with a higher skirmish score will have positive modifiers when firing at long range, while a unit with a lower score will suffer negatively at short range. Simple, yet effective....it's also a very subtle way of simulating skirmish effects without getting too low "into the weeds."  Some gamers prefer a separate skirmish phase, but I really like this concept that is ingrained into the overall fire phase. Fans of Lasalle or Napoleon At War will recognize this system.

Artillery fire is similar with canister and bouncethrough (optional rule) fully integrated in the mechanics.

Melee is conducted similarly and may last up to 3 rounds. Casualties are rolled on the Fire chart (with separate close combat modifiers) and then compared between opposing units. If a unit does not retreat or break before 3 rounds of combat, it is considered a draw and both units are retreated after the 3rd round.  Again, simple yet effective.

Cavalry combat, emergency squares, unit reactions when charged, evading, and more concepts are all contained and explained within the basic rules.

Optional Rules

Although the basic rules do give a good game, the details and flavor of Napoleonic tactics are fully explored in the optional rules. Incorporating some, all, or none of the optional rules is totally up to each player.

Without going into excruciating detail on all of the optional rules present, some examples include brigade and division orders, ammunition, the use of howitzers, more detailed skirmish rules, national characteristics and special rules, and even weather effects.

I found the optional rules very interesting and enjoyable to read through.

Summary

I put together a couple of tabletop games and put the rules through its paces. I found Over The Hills to be effective, very smooth-flowing, and easy to understand. I did utilize most of the optional rules (because I'm a detail-addict) in my games and they added a nice bit of flavor to the proceedings. I'm still not a fan of the all-encompassing Fatigue score concept of each unit's effectiveness, but I understand the concept and what the authors were attempting to accomplish. With that said, the games worked well and were enjoyable.

I think that these rules are especially useful for the introduction of new Napoleonic gamers to the period. These rules are very straight-forward, fun, and will not scare away any "newbies." With that said, the optional rules do add a very nice amount of grit, even for those grognards out there like me.

Thoroughly enjoyable and well-produced, my rating for Over The Hills is an 8 for playability and a 7 for historical realism, for a very solid overall score of 7.5.

Ironically, this is the same overall score as Black Powder (I had to look back at my previous review after I wrote this). I think the 2 rules systems give a similar playing experience, although both systems approach Napoleonic gaming in a different way.

Search For The Holy Grail-The Best Napoleonic Rules, Part 4

Continuing with Part 4 of this series, the rules Black Powder by Rick Priestley are today's subject. Admittably a big fan of Hail Caesar, the Ancients/Medieval rules with the same philosophy as Black Powder, I was looking forward to testing Black Powder out on a Napoleonic tabletop.

Black Powder

Disclaimer: After reading many opinions of these rules, it seems like gamers either love Black Powder or they hate it. I tried to approach the rules with an open mind.....and was pleasantly surprised.

Black Powder is, what I consider, a modern set of Napoleonic rules. Many aspects of horse and musket warfare are streamlined and abstracted in favor of playability. I think that it is safe to say, after reading the authors' comments throughout the book, that these rules are primarily intended to be a gentlemen's game rather than a strict simulation. The rules are also not intended primarily for tournament play (although there are point lists for those inclined) but for historical scenarios. Black Powder also covers a wide range of time, from the early 18th century to the dawn of the 20th century. Therefore there are many generic aspects to the rules.  The "special rules" are intended to add the necessary flavor for a particular period. For many gamers, the rules are too generic.....but I think that can be a strength of  Black Powder. Both the Seven Years War and the Franco-Prussian War can be played with Black Powder, and both periods do have some similarities, but there are many other differences that these "special rules" address. The rules give a gamer a foundational set of rules, but the authors allow the gamer to research period tactics and apply many "special rules" in order to flesh out a particular battle. For me particularly, I love this approach; the research and building of a scenario is a large part of the gaming experience.  I approached Black Powder with the question of whether the rules did contain enough period flavor to give a truly Napoleonic feel to a game.

The system itself is very smooth and straight-forward (and not a lot of charts to constantly look up), especially when compared to "old school" rules like Empire or From Valmy to Waterloo. The turn sequence is simple enough:  Blue team issues commands and moves, Blue team fires, Blue team
conducts melee. Then it's up to the other side (Red team) to repeat the process. Easy.

As for commands and movement, I admire the ease of the system yet appreciate the gaming challenges when things do not go as planned.  In Black Powder, the gamer first announces what he wants to do with a unit, group of units, or entire brigade. At this point, the brigade commander rolls a 2d6 and compares it to his individual command rating. A roll equal to or one lower than the rating allows one move, a roll 2 less than the rating allows two moves, and a roll 3 or more less than the rating allows up to 3 moves. Sometimes, the unit(s) does what the commander intends and sometimes it doesn't. There are modifiers to this roll as well, such as command distance, etc. The closer a unit comes to an enemy unit, there is the option to allow for battalion commander "initiative" and make one move for which a brigade commander roll is not required. I like that. Rolled boxcars force a "blunder" roll in which the unit (s) behave in a wildly unintended manner. I'm not convinced of the historical accuracy of the procedure, but it really gives a rollicking good game. By the way, if a player forgets to announce the intended action for the unit, a "blunder" roll is required..........did I mention that it's a "gentleman's game?" 

In Black Powder, units are classified as Tiny, Small, Standard, or Large. Specific numbers of figures per unit are not critical, although rough numbers for each size classification are given. Unit frontages are more important and these recommendations are also covered. As for unit statistics, each one has musketry, melee, morale ratings, stamina, and special rules. For musketry and melee, these ratings equal the number of dice thrown. (Yes, these rules do have a "bucket load of dice" mentality.) The morale rating is not the number of dice thrown, but the rolls required on the dice used for saving throws. The stamina rating details the number of "hits" that dictate a Shaken status (which contains negative modifiers).

For example, a typical French line battalion would be described in the following way:

1/42nd Ligne    Melee (6)    Fire (3)   Morale (4)    Stamina (3)     Reliable (in column or mixed order)

Reliable is a special rule which means that this particular unit has a bonus applied to its command roll for movement when it is in an Attack Column with or without skirmishers deployed. Makes sense from a historical concept (French Napoleonic infantry).

So how does combat work for this unit?

In a nutshell, the above unit would roll 6d6 in melee and hit on rolls of 4-6. If firing, the unit would roll 3d6 and hit on rolls of 4-6. When hit itself, if this unit was hit 2 times either in melee or by fire, the unit would then roll 2 saving dice and require a 4-6 score (morale rating) to eliminate the hits. If the unit suffers 3 or more hits (that were not saved) than the unit becomes Shaken as per the Stamina rating. Attached leaders may attempt to rally if attached (requires a successful command roll and, essentially, removes a "hit").

Dice rolls for hits can also be modified against the standard roll of 4-6 needed for a hit. For example, a charging unit receives a +1 bonus for charging and would hit on a 3-6. Morale rolls can be modified as well.

The rules lay all of this out very clearly with many examples of melee, musketry, artillery, and skirmish fire. Whether you agree or disagree with the mechanisms contained in the rules, everything is discussed in detail. The book itself is very well written and beautifully illustrated / photographed.

After playing out the Maida scenario with Black Powder, I had mixed feelings toward the rules. Overall, it was a very enjoyable game. Playing the French, I was frustrated with the inability to conduct a flanking maneuver around the British right flank. I just couldn't seem to roll well once the units were outside nominal command range. This in itself, limits the "nipply little battalion" syndrome that many rules allow. To succeed with Black Powder, you truly have to be very organized with command rolls and maneuvers.  I ended up focusing my main assault on the center of the British line but, due to special rules, the British infantry included bonuses for first volleys and ripped my attacking columns up. Uh.....this sounds like the historical result for Maida....I thought that this was merely a game with added chrome. The bottom line is that, despite the ease of play and simple mechanics, Black Powder can give a reasonably historical game that is loads of fun. After looking back on our game, it was truly enjoyable and very quick (total time for this small battle was a little over an hour).

Now, I will say that the basic rules do not contain many of the period details that I normally enjoy. For example, the procedure for units forming square versus cavalry are a bit too streamlined and do take away from the normal "rock, paper, and scissors" aspect of Napoleonic gaming. Another aspect of the game concerns casualties; I really needed to view "hits" as reduction in morale steps for a unit rather than actual figures hit.....I'm sure that was the author intended, but I needed to change my way of thinking. Skirmishers seem a bit too powerful (although detached skirmish companies actually do what they were intended for). Combat results also seemed to depend a bit too much on the "luck" factor; let's face it, Black Powder does base many results on the multitude of die rolls that a gamer will be faced with. I do think that the "luck" factor is a bit too powerful in these rules, but I can see why many gamers love this approach......although this philosophy takes away some certainty in combat results, it does add fun.

Here is the dirty little secret that Black Powder contains.......it is considered a "toolkit" for gamers. I have seen many gamers publishing their own "house rules" to layer more detail onto the basic rules. Taking this account, anyone can add a myriad of details to Black Powder to create whatever type of game he wants. Are the vanilla rules fine for an enjoyable evening of gaming? Absolutely. Can more "special rules" and "house rules" be added for a more detailed Napoleonic experience.....Absolutely.

So, in summary, I rated Black Powder in terms of playability a 9 out of 10. I found the rules refreshingly simple to play and very entertaining.  I am typically a "simulation" guy who likes a lot of detail in my games........after adding the "special rules" that I felt were appropriate, I simply had a great time gaming Maida.

I rated the rules in terms of historical accuracy/realism a 6 out of 10. This was a little tougher for me than the Playability rating. A gamer can literally add as much or as little chrome as preferred. A deep knowledge of the period is not critical, but does allow one to create a scenario that comes close to mirroring history.  For me, the emphasis on the die rolls (the "luck factor") is a bit too heavy to qualify as a historical simulation.......but, if you have the patience, unit statistics and the use of "special rules" will bring a scenario closer. Black Powder, in the eyes of many, really is more of a game with flavor rather than a simulation. And that's ok with me.

The Total rating for Black Powder is 7.5 out of 10. Rick Priestley's Black Powder offer a helluva good time.....

Search for the Holy Grail- The Best Napoleonic Rules, Part 3

Here is Part 3 of my continuing search for the best Napoleonic rules. All of the rules that I have analyzed so far are battalion-level rules with no simultaneous movement. I replayed the common scenario of the battle of Maida in 1806, which is a small divisional-sized game. Instead of focusing on several different AAR's covering the battle, I wanted to focus on the mechanics of each individual rules set and compare them to each other in areas of Playability and Realism/Historical Accuracy.

Carnage and Glory 2

Carnage and Glory 2 is a computer-moderated set of rules that one can use to simulate any Napoleonic battle, large or small. Besides the Napoleonic period, there are separate programs for the following periods: Seven Years War (and American Revolution), the American Civil War, Franco- Prussian War, the Age of Marlborough, and the English Civil War (and Thirty Years War). Carnage and Glory 2 can be used with virtually any scale of figures, any ground scale, and any basing style (although there are recommendations for basing presented in the rules). As for the written rules themselves, they can be easily printed out as part of the software and are easy to navigate and understand. The basic concept of Carnage and Glory 2 is that each unit and commander has a unit identification number and its unit data (ie number of men, training, experience, melee factor, fire factor, skirmishers, etc) is stored in the software. A chain of command is also input, so that orders of battle are easily stored and ready for table-top play. Files of specific army lists and battle scenarios can be stored for use over and over again. When the game is played, unit actions such as formation changes, charges, and firing are input as the computer keeps track of everything, including fatigue and ammunition. The ability to focus on tactical decisions and allow the computer to keep track of minute details is not only impressive, it is refreshing.

Each unit has an identification label that corresponds to specific data stored in the computer for that unit

In my games, I use 15mm figures with a ground scale of 50 paces (approximately 37 yards) per inch. Each turn corresponds to 15 minutes of historical time. There is also the capability of using an order transmission section for more detailed command and control.  Although the time scale for a turn remains constant, the ground scale will change proportionally with figure scale. This and everything else a player needs to know about the game is all covered extensively in the rules.

Our games typically consist of 4 or 5 players controlling a couple of divisions (and even a corps or more) each, with a couple of us taking turns running the computer for the other side. Although the detail and the flow of the games are outstanding, the information flow to one GM controlling data input can slow the game down unless the GM keeps the game rolling. In our gaming group, we have a ton of experience running the computer and turns flow very efficiently and, dare I say it, very fast.

Coming back to our divisional-sized game of Maida, it was a perfect pick-up scenario for CG2. We completed 8 turns in an hour and a half, less than half of the time that From Valmy To Waterloo took. Movement distances were practically memorized, so there were no charts that had to be checked and rechecked. Being a two-player game, we each ran the computer while the other made his moves and conducted firing and melee. In fairness, our game of Le Feu Sacre also took an hour and a half, mostly due to that system's streamlined and efficient mechanics. 

Even more impressive than the efficiency and realism of the game itself was the post-battle analysis, in which the computer computes the effects of casualties, pursuit, and the return of walking wounded. This is ideal for a campaign and allows a player to link several games together with the computer keeping track of casualties and changes in morale/experience (Spoiler alert: the system's author, Nigel Marsh, is readying the release of a highly anticipated campaign system).

Our test game was an impressive demonstration of CG2's capability. Players were free to move units and make decisions while the software did all of the heavy lifting. I rated CG2 a 9 out of 10 for playability. The data input shuffle can be a negative point with an inexperienced GM or group of players. This was a small scenario. For a large game, the data input becomes proportionally more cumbersome and challenging. Solitaire suitability is  also more of a challenge due to having to run back and forth to the computer for every data input (although it is convenient to leave the table set up and have the computer save all the data played thus far--really pretty cool).

I rated CG2 an 8.5 out of 10 for realism/accuracy.  Movement, musketry, morale, and melee seemed spot on. Add to that the ability to compute casualties, victory conditions, the effects of weather, and even heat exhaustion, and CG2 produces a very realistic simulation.  In contrast to FVTW though, artillery batteries are incredibly strong and, if properly supported, seem almost a bit too powerful (this might be my own bias, but I have read and heard similar conclusions from others). Also, again in contrast to FVTW, units were able to maneuver freely around the table with no regard to the distance from a leader. Although great for a competitive game, it seems a bit too free and easy. I am familiar with the "nippy little battalion" syndrome, in which opponents send an isolated unit way out on a flank attack just to cause chaos, with no regard to how far it has isolated itself from its parent brigade. This can happen in CG2, but at least the support and rally modifiers encourage proper deployment distance between units. Personally, I'd like to see a bit more command and control built into the system.

Total score for Carnage and Glory 2 is 8.75 out of 10.  Not only does CG2 provide an outstanding game (and detailed simulation), but it is dutifully supported by the author and myriad veterans on the Carnage and Glory 2 yahoo group. Carnage and Glory 2 is a great gaming experience, especially with an experienced group of like-minded players.

Search For The Holy Grail--The Best Napoleonic Rules, Part 2

As a continuation of the search for the best Napoleonic rules, here is Part 2. I replayed the scenario of the battle of Maida in 1806, which is a small divisional-sized game. Instead of focusing on several different AAR's covering the battle, I wanted to focus on the mechanics of each individual rules set and compare them to each other in areas of Playability and Realism/Historical Accuracy.

Le Feu Sacre (3rd Edition)

LFS is a popular rules system produced by the infamous Too Fat Lardies from the UK. It has a 50:1 figure scale in mind and a ground scale of 1"= 50 yards. The turn is card-based (like many TFL games) and represents approximately 15 minutes of historical time. The rules are designed for corps-sized actions but can be modified for larger battles. The intent is, for up to a corps on each side, that each 15 minute turn should equal 15 minutes of playing time. The rules are thorough but not overly complex and, with optional rules added, cover most characteristics of Napoleonic warfare.

In order to streamline and quicken the game, many aspects of combat are abstracted. For example, there is no specific musketry phase (although artillery and skirmishing fire are addressed individually). Combat is intended to be quick and decisive (and is considered to be a combination of close ranged musketry as well as melee), while using Kriegspiel-type charts. In this respect, the emphasis is on a fast game versus prolonged musketry slugfests between opposing formations. The turn sequence, once a division commander's card is drawn, concerns spotting formations on blinds, grand-tactical as well as tactical movement, artillery fire and skirmishing, and combat.

Command and control is an interesting concept within the rules. It is pip-based with each tactical action costing 1 or 2 pips. There are unit, regiment, and brigade-sized moves. Command distance is also part of the system.

LFS may not be for everyone, due to the abstraction of combat, but is a well-researched set of rules that many gamers are embracing, especially in the UK. One potential drawback that I sense from reading the rules is that there is no system for determining victory or a morale determination for formations above the unit level (brigade, division, etc).

I was a bit torn with my feelings toward Le Feu Sacre. On one hand, the rules, mechanisms, and various modifiers seemed very well-researched. I especially liked the system of blinds for spotting troops, the emphasis on command and control, and the streamlined combat mechanism. The concepts of Zones of Control and Pinning are very intriguing. The game that I played certainly moved very quickly. A final result was reached in an hour and a half. I can certainly see how a larger battle can be fought to a conclusion within 2-3 hours. On the other hand, even though the final results seemed valid, I had a hard time getting over the omission of a musketry phase. Skirmishing, when it did happen, seemed very ineffective. Lastly, the command pip system was interesting but felt a bit inflexible. I truly felt like I was playing a Napoleonic version of DBA (which is a fine system if you Iike it, but too abstract for me personally).  It seemed a bit unrealistic for 2 brigades on an attack order to be frozen in place most of the game due to an average commander's lack of command pips. That could also be due to my incompetence as a player with these rules. Of course, this also dramatically speeds up the game. As a counter argument, from a purely gaming aspect, the proper planning of how to utilize these scarce command pips presents a nice challenge and really forces each player to plan ahead. The experience was almost an extension of chess, which was enjoyable as such, but I would not label the tactical phase of the turn a "simulation."  In summary, it all worked effortlessly, but again felt rather mechanical. I feel that a larger game would bring out Le Feu Sacre's grand-tactical strengths more; it really was written for corps-sized actions.

I rated Le Feu Sacre a 7 out of 10 in Playability. The rules were certainly straight-forward and not overly complex. There is some tactical abstraction due to the scope of the game. Some players will love it, as it really demands tactical skill to master it. I personally would prefer a bit more tactical detail in a battalion-level game (a musketry phase, for example), but that's just my humble opinion.

As far as Realism/Historical Accuracy, I felt that the game portrayed a valid result. I cannot argue at all with the research into the game itself. Nothing seemed invalid or inaccurate. There are rules for passage of lines, emergency squares, firefights, etc. This is just what a person would expect from a well-researched set of rules. There are definitely some very interesting concepts in Le Feu Sacre. My concern, totally biased as it is, is more focused on the playing of the game and the overall experience, not the results that come from playing these rules. I rated Le Feu Sacre a 7.5 out of 10 in this area. It is certainly not as detailed as rules like Empire or From Valmy To Waterloo, but it can definitely give a historical result. I would like to see the command pip system tweaked, and a higher formation (brigade or division) morale system. An end of game Victory determination would also help out considerably. House rules could fix all of these details though.

The Total score for Le Feu Sacre is a 7.25 out of 10. I felt that LFS was a very solid set of rules and would be more than suitable for a larger battle. If a player doesn't mind abstraction in key areas of the game, these rules offer a compelling, historically-based, game that is both challenging and fast playing.

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.

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.