The increasing number of Napoleonic based Tactical computer rules has increased to the point where people are actually being given a choice of which set to buy, and being that they are now the same price as a good board-game (or a BIG bad board-game) many people are uncertain where to put their hard earned ackers. This article is written with this in mind.

As editor of the Computer Section in Lone Warrior Magazine (what do you mean you've never heard of it - go out and join the Solo Wargamers Association this minute) the august editor of this publication considered that I would be well placed to give a fair review of what's on offer. And so I shall. For the present their are 3 major contenders for the role of Mr Big in the Computer Simulation Stakes: Eaglebearer 2 out of the Battle Honours stable sired by unknown, grandsire Dave Watkins; Follow The Eagle 5 out of the Eagle Software stable sired by Dave Watkins; and Carnage & Glory out of the Nigel P.Marsh stable. The parentage of this last contender is uncertain but if you read on more may be revealed.

So what do you look for in a computer rules set. First off, price may be important to you. If this is the case then there is not much to choose between the basic rules sets, all of which are around the X25 mark. They are all stand-alone products, meaning that you don't have to buy anything else from the manufacturer before you can start playing.

What's next then? Probably which is available for your machine. The three computers primarily catered for and most commonly available are the Amiga, the Atari ST and the IBM PC and compatibles. Eaglebearer is available on all formats whilst the other two are primarily available on PC compatibles only, although older Follow The Eagle versions are out on Atari. So, Eaglebearer is the most diverse system as far as machine variety is concerned.

Leaving that aside, let's now assume that you have a PC - like me - and thus have access to all three games. The first thing you have to do when you get the thing tolling is to create Battle Files and/or Army Lists of your future combatants. Of the three, by far the most inferior is Carnage and Glory. The system is positively archaic to a point that it may well put you off the whole system before you start. It did for me, and only dedication to my work (no applause, thank you) and the fact that I'd never fought Austerlitz the chosen review battle - drove me on. As a clue I could create 3 units on either of the other two games for each one on Carnage and Glory. Not good. The system of saving each unit as you create it and several other niggling elements such as the fact that you can't simply duplicate the previous unit and you are required to concentrate on getting the unit's ID number correct rather than leave that up to the computer make the system very unfriendly towards the user.

I was pretty experienced at generating army lists by the time I tried this, and it is comparable to taking away a soldier's rifle and giving him a blowpipe. Of the other two Follow The Eagle is more sophisticated than Eaglebearer for the simple reason that Dave Watkins wrote them both and has naturally sophisticated his system as he has gone on. However, both are relatively similar and whilst FTE5 is better Eaglebearer is good enough to clear the first fence. Regrettably Carnage and Glory was a faller - shades of Peter O'Sullivan there.

So, you've created two armies, put them into Divisions and Corps, created Generals and saved them all on your computer disk ready for a scrap. What do you need to do prior to kick off. Well, how about some flank marches off table. Technically all three can manage it. You simply enter what troops are off table and what move you'd like them to come on. The computer then puts these forces in it's memory and will bring them on at the desired time subject to delays. All systems do this to varying degrees of quality.

FTE5 will give you the option to force march troops onto the field, possibly arriving more quickly but with all the penalties that forcing the pace can bring. You can also specify which flank they will arrive on, including the rear base line. The other two simply assume you know where they will come on. What make FTES stand out here is that two flanking forces can actually meet off table and have their own battle. All you will know about it will be reports from various officers. Poor old C&G (beginning to sound like a Building Society~ fails to give the names of officers who are arriving so they have a somewhat anonymous feel to them . When questioned Nigel Marsh stated that he didn't think there could be that many flank marches in a battle. I played La Rodiiere with my local group a couple of months ago and there were 14. Take note, Nigel.

Thus C&G is adequate, Eaglebearer more so, and FTE5 way out in front, although I am not always satisfied with the off-table results in FTE5, Dave's abstract combat system being a bit too randomly brutal for my comfort, although it does guarantee that you can never be certain if even th Old Guard will make it intact, and that may be his intent.

Right, you've got your battle set up, the flank and late arrivals are set in and the figures are on the table. What next? Opening Deployment. All the systems allow you to select the weather and the formations of the troops. You can choose whether to view casualties or play blind and whether to have the weather fixed or changeable. Not much difference there although guess which system is least user friendly. No prizes. The Battle itself consists of moves, 10 minutes long for Eaglebearer and FTE5 and 15 minutes for C&G. All three follow the same basic sequence of movement, firing, melee, morale which is fine. In movement you enter any formation changes, doubling, charges, etc. and your expensive toy attempts to bugger you about by refusing orders on your rabble's behalf.

Several of my group liked the existence in C&G of available movement for units which changed formation printed on-screen. The other two simply refer you to a standard set of movements and deductions such as you would get in any rules set. Again, user-friendliness is the name of the game and C&G comes third once more, mainly due to the fact that there are no failsafes within its system. Accidentally press the wrong key and you are out of the move section, unable to return. Both others allow the option to retrace your steps in order to correct errors and cover forgetfulness. This is something which Nigel's system lacks throughout and it is far the poorer for it.

Following movement comes firing, which is generally split into three types, Artillery, Skirmisher and Infantry. In C&G each of these is done separately and quite adequately. A striking resemblance to early Follow the Eagle editions (primarily FTE3 on the Amstrad CPC) is the firing system for artillery which works in range bands rather than specifically entering a range. I have no problem with this and casualties seemed OK. With Eaglebearer artillery is allowed to bombard a fixed area, a bit like Modem artillery fire using a template (not supplied).

This idea was originally continued in FTE5 but was discontinued when Dave came up with his terrain generator which creates various terrain areas which you relate to items of scenery, a village or wood, etc, and which can hold a designated number of units and which has variable cover. These terrain areas can be bombarded with a similar result to Eaglebearer's bombardment system. More alternatives but more initial work required. As a whole though, all the systems work well enough. Skirmisher fire is handled in different ways by all three systems. In C&G it is a long range infantry engagement zone, with short range work covered in the infantry firing section. We found this to work well and gave satisfactory results. Casualties were nicely handled with messages coming up on screen about men throwing away weapons and deserting. Nice touches like that always work well.

In FTE5 skirmishing is carried out at the end of a move as skirmishers attempt to draw the enemy's fire and deprive him of it for the following turn. This is an interesting idea, but one which doesn't always give satisfactory results. The unlikeliest results occasionally occur. Skirmishers can also fight during the ordinary firing segment by simply keying in their ID number. This works better and only a brave player in our group uses the end of move sequence. Skirmishers also fire during the move in Eaglebearer with about the same results as in FTE5.

Infantry firing in all three is pretty good, again C&G does not require you to enter ranges, the assumption being I would guess that once in engagement range the troops will do their best to fire at the best time. Firing naturally leads on to charges which are either stopped by fire or else... In all case units take a reaction test and fire as best they can. The best of these systems I still feel is Eaglebearer. I know Dave has tried a number of ideas to improve the system, but none seem to have the natural feel that his first creation has. That is not to say that Dave's system is bad, but he has done away with the list of options given when a unit is charged. Namely, in sequence it asks if you wish to countercharge and if not if you wish to retire. The unit then tells you what it will do. This has always worked well, but he may be loadie to reuse it as it is still alive in his rival. Assuming a unit goes in then all three work out melees pretty well.

You are given the option of how many sub-units to commit and it helps if general is attached to the unit. The result, along with any routs, breakthroughs and pursuits comes along in due course.

The fundamental differences come through in the Command Section, where your generals get to do their stuff. In C&G and Eaglebearer this is limited to attaching generals to units to get a report on them along with rallying and in the case of Eaglebearer re-assigning. The rallying system in Eaglebearer is simple and you find out how well your officers have fared during the unit reactions phase which follows. C&G uses a bar graph, again somewhat naughtily nicked from early FTE's, which shows how tired and unhappy the lads are by the amount of line displayed. The more the better. Most of my group liked this idea as being a guide to the state of the troops.

What they didn't like so much was the ability of even mediocre generals to raise spirits move after move almost without fail. FTES has gone down the trail of Command Control in a big way. Generals have a feast of options open including all those previously mentioned together with getting an over view of their whole formation and the ability to send orders. Both the others lack this although Eaglebearer does have a courier system which is pretty naff; basically it allows you to send messages between commanders which have no bearing on the computer. Only really good for big games or solo players who are prepared to exercise restraint in order to attain realism. C&G just doesn't bother with this whilst FTE5 goes the whole hog. You can send messengers between formations with orders to attack, manoeuvre, hold or retire.

Once this order is passed it affects formation behaviour during the reactions phase. A further house rule in Wootton Bassett is that if you have Attack orders then you must move at least half your move, whilst you may move no more than half distance on Manoeuvre orders. Be warned, though. This is a realistic system and despite being an advocate of such realism even I have found this to be a restrictive pain in the bum. It is next to useless with a novice wargamer playing but luckily you can ignore the whole orders section without affecting the result of the game.

The unit reactions phase lists which units are refusing to advance, retiring, routing, etc, and is one of the great advantages of a computer over book rules. Nobody ever gets away without reacting and no factors are ever forgotten. It is also a very exciting phase as you wait for a particular unit to be shown to see if it is going to rout or not. Sounds comy but you probably get the idea. C&G's unit reaction phase is fine, as is FTE5's, although I think Dave has tried to put in too much on one screen Not only do you have to take in individual unit instructions, but also any Brigade behaviour as well as a confirmation of who has what orders. I think it is easier on the eyes the way Eaglebearer has done it, with units reacting on one screen followed subsequently by generals. Easy to read and hard to overlook.

That's about what you get in a computer set of rules. FTE and Eaglebearer have a phase involving shock events for units and subsequent attempts to get them to surrender. FTE also has an overwhelming numbers rule which forces units to take reaction tests at your discretion as well as a rule for cavalry forcing infantry into square. This is a good idea which somehow doesn't seem to work consistently. Quite often its the quality troops who panic into square whilst your Belgian militia look on unimpressed!

All the games allow you to save the battle although at this stage of computer development this really is De Rigeur. Apart from that you probably want to know what sort of backup service you are going to get. No contest here people. For C&G there is a campaign system which is so unfriendly to use that I have not even considered using it, nor would I unless I were contemplating suicide and wanted something to push me over the edge. Sorry Nigel, but you are going to have to carry out a major overhaul before I can recommend Carnage and Glory. As for Eaglebearer 2; what dare I say.

They have been promising the ACW system for God knows how long (and I hope he's got a diary) and as this has not yet arrived one can only assume the worst. As for FTE5 - well, just look at the adverts carried within these pages. Not only is Dave Watkins releasing add- on bits and bobs and Battle Disks, etc, but he is also very interested in listening to criticism and actually implementing input from his customers. The fact that you can now amend the time span of each game move is, I think, primarily down to my continually whittering on, although it does slightly unbalance the game so that will teach me to belt up.

Last, but I suspect by no means least, coming over the horizon is Hard Pounding from English Computer Wargames, the creators of the 19th Century rules Blood & Iron. These are completely different in concept, mainly because Dave Watkins didn't have an influence on them! They are available initially on the Atari ST, probably to be followed by PC and Amiga versions. If Hard Pounding is anything like Blood & Iron then you'd better watch your back Dave, because at last you will have a serious rival.

More Reviews

Eagle Miniatures 25mm Wurttemburg Chasseur 1806
Adler Miniatures 8mm Napoleonics
Napoleonic Battlegaming with Hexes and Miniatures
Ebb and Flow Napoleonics Rules
Napoleonic Computerized Rules
1st Corps 25mm American Civil War