Vistula Legion

Dear Sir,

Having been shown copies of First Empire by a friend I promptly ordered issues 1-3 from Irregular Miniatures. They arrived this morning and I have just (2122hrs) finished reading them all, with breaks for the odd bit of work. I am very impressed so here is a cheque for a subscription to First Empire commencing with issue 4.

A few words on issue 3 if I may.

As Mr. Reavley's article mentions the 1st through 3rd Regiments of the Vistula Legion served in III Corps in Spain. I have not checked all the Peninsula engagements quoted but would take issue with calling Sagunto a siege - the major event was the defeat of Blake's relieving army on 24th October 1811. Incidentally all three regiments took part. I agree that the Legion only deployed two battalions, Suchet's memoirs (he took command of III Corps in May 1809) record the strength of the three regiments at April and August 1810, in each case noting that there are two battalions of each regiment under his command (Suchet vol i p 346 and 362). However, the order of battle in Blandford's Uniforms of 1812 notes that `the 4th regiment and the 3rd btns of the others [my italics] only joined during the Retreat.'

I don't own a computerised set of Napoleonic rules so I found the `Napoleonic Computer' review useful in preliminary planning. As a wargamer of more than Napoleonics the idea of a map generating module for the Campaigner makes my mouth water.

Persian Basket Weavers.... (!?)

Dear Sir,

As a Napoleonic gamer of 18 years standing who has taken magazines before and had to wade through too many articles on wargaming the revolt of the 13th Century Persian Basket Weavers and the like, how glad I am to see First Empire.

Although I disagree with Mr. Finkel's comments therefore, (Dispatches issue 2), I echo his desire for an article comparing the various Napoleonic Rules available, for 6, 15 and 25mm scales.

I also read with interest the advertisements for wargaming / campaigning software and never having come across it `in the flesh', I would welcome further user comment. having just completed a hypothetical Napoleonic Campaign would you be interested in a series of short articles? (Yes..Ed). I suspect that Ian Barstow has cornered the market, but my campaign is a much more localised affair around Hildesheim in Germany containing ten skirmishes / battles.

Editor. I certainly have no objection to printing another Campaign series. Ian's series is now at an end. So new input is welcome.

First Empire praise...

Dear Sir,

May I congratulate you on an excellent magazine which will have my wholehearted support as long as it concentrates solely on the Napoleonic period. The current lack of volume and colour pictures (when compared to other wargame magazines) is more than compensated for by the fact that every article is pertinent to my prime period of interest, (which is obviously Napoleonic), and consequently First Empire represents excellent value for money on a price/words read basis. Furthermore, the balance between historical background, refights and rules/wargaming issues is good and I look forward to contributing articles for your consideration in the near future.

More praise...

Dear Sir,

Could you please sign me up as a subscriber to your magazine. The first three issues were great. Thanks for all the effort you're putting in and keep up the good work.

I am particularly impressed with the comprehensive orders of battle included at the end of articles and the high standard of the detailed `Under Review' section. Ebb and Flow Rules will never seem the same again!

I am now seriously considering purchasing an IBM Compatible having seen the ads and reviews in issue three. It would be super if you could do a second computer review, this time sizing up `Follow The Eagle V' against the imminent, `Hard Pounding'.

Editor. The PC version of Hard Pounding is, as I understand it, not going to be available until February 1992, despite being advertised. So we can't do a comparative review until issue 6 at the earliest. Fear not--it will appear when Ian obtains a working copy.

Spanish Militia, Albuera, Gorodetschna and more...

Dear Sir,

Thanks for printing my letter about the Albuera scenario in #3. Having re-read it, I think that I must expand on my remark about the Spanish army ratings. At the start of the war the Provincial Militia had been on active service for several years and was on a level with the regular army as far as training was concerned. The argument has been put forward that the Provincial Militia was recruited from among a better sort of people than the regular army and should thus receive a higher rating than the balance of the regulars. I cannot say whether this opinion is justified, but I give my Provincial Militia the same rating as I do most Spanish Line Infantry. It seems to me that when most people say `Spanish Militia' they actually mean the several dozen new regiments raised during the war (which actual included new regiments of the Line, as well as the various volunteer units).

One problem in rating any and all of these units is the lack of reliable information in English and the similarity (not to mention duplication) of unit names. Even people who should know better make mistakes. For example, Oman makes the Granada Hussars charge at the Battle of Valls several months before the unit was even formed (the Granada Dragoons were the unit actually engaged). This is the kind of thing with which the owner of a Spanish army has to contend.

To turn to the subject of spelling, Albuhera (silent `h') is an archaic spelling of the name of the Spanish town of La Albuera. The preferred international name for he battle is, however, Albuera, without the definitive article (or the `h', for that matter). However the name is spelt it is pronounced something like alvwAYra.

`Gorodetschna' is an Anglicization via German of the original Belorussian name of the village, but I cannot find a modern Belorussian spelling to give you. Even if I could this would give you no real clues to pronunciation, Eastern Slavonic languages being as carefree with syllable stress as English. Maybe a scholar of the Slavonic languages could help more. Actually, this is part of a problem that has struck me more than once. When you talk about a battle, which version of its name do you use? What if it has several names? Which is more correct? Do you use a contemporary spelling or a modern one? I suppose the best thing to do is to use the modern name of the site, unless so doing would cause confusion ( La Coru¤a/Corunna or Zaragoza/Saragossa).

On the subject of basing figures on battalion stands, this is quite similar to the concept presented in Napoleon's Battles and on the surface seems quite a good idea. However, there is a fallacy inherent in the principle, viz: actual historical commanders, did not always leave their troops sufficient room to deploy properly. Think of D'Erlon's Corps at Waterloo and you'll get the idea. This leads to an absurd situation with the Borodino and Waterloo scenarios in the Napoleon's Battles Scenario Book. The historical forces will not fit into the space provided, and certainly not into their historical deployment areas. Basing by battalion also makes varying the size of the battalion tricky, though there are possible solutions to this, none very elegant.

I was quite surprised to read of Bob Black's adverse reaction to Empire, especially since I know a couple of people who have bought the set purely on the strength of that introduction, as well as others who have been persuaded to try Napoleonics after reading it (myself included). Horses for courses, I suppose. The style in which it is written is certainly American in tone and character. Maybe Bob Black finds this objectionable, but if so he's the first person I've heard object to it. It may be of course, that the people I play with are atypical in some way. A more common objection to Empire is that it is too complex and there is some justification to that view. However, I find it perfectly adequate for smaller battles, say 20-30,000 a side. There are some problems with it, notably the unachievable 1 contour per 5 metre terrain and the opaque manner in which the rules are sometimes written, but these are not insurmountable.

On Battle Articles...

Dear Dave,

I'd like to congratulate you on all three issues so far, its a revelation to have a Napoleonic magazine avaiable, (especially to the Irish feigne enthusiasts!). I really enjoyed the article on the 1798 French Invasion, it made great reading.

Please don't reduce the numbers of battles and the orders of battles that you print as I find these of immense importance in recreating battles as I'm sure a lot of other wargamers do. Especially when you can give the actual regiments and strengths present. The only factors I feel are missing are; opposing armies morale levels, terrain objective points, fatigue levels etc. these I feel would be of great value. Otherwise its a wonderful read.

Editor. The articles published in First Empire, to which you refer, are written with a view to providing you with sufficient general information about a battle, to stinulate your `wargaming juices'. The concept generally is that you should be able to dive right in and refight a battle and or feel sufficeintly motivated to drag yourself from the telly or `paint pots' and do a little research of your own. If, before the birth of First Empire, you found yourself struggling to create a scenario to wargame, and now you don't, then I claim success! But I do take on board the points you raise and will see if I can stimulate the contributors to act accordingly.

On the Wurttembergers...

Dear Dave,

I thought I'd drop you a line to say how impressed I am with First Empire, although I'm not sure that the people Empires, Eagles and Lions would agree that yours is the first Napoleonic wargaming magazine! First Empire, however, is certainly much more professionally produced than that American magazine. [Ed. Here is a simple test, take a copy of First Empire in your right hand and a copy of Empires, Eagles and Lions in your left. Study them closely, and then tell me which one is a `magazine' and which one is an A5 card cover booklet!]

The articles have been just right generally, although I'm not to enthusiastic about the series on the imaginary 1805 campaign simply because it is, so far, little more than an expression of one wargamer's imagination and however well written and presented, articles of this nature, in my view, serve little purpose other than to motivate readers who have not been involved in a campaign before. One man's meat however, as they say, is another's poison.

Personally, I would prefer to see factual stuff by which I do not necessarily mean historical articles exclusively, and I would include in this particular context how Ian actually went about his campaign, which I know from experience can actually be a very difficult thing to orchestrate. His methods, the pitfalls and lessons he learned could be very useful indeed and I hope he will elaborate on this aspect at some stage.

I think that there is certainly room for a column dedicated to the exchange of `uniforminfo' and the like. Indeed, in a specialised magazine like First Empire I would view it as an essential component part which could, potentially, enable every reader to dip into an enormous data base reflecting the source material of the entire readership.

I am pleased to see that the review column has got off the ground, although your Wurttemberg Chasseur (sic) in 25mm from Eagle Miniatures seems a bit of a hybrid to me but it is hard to say without seeing it.

The first point is that there is no such thing as a Chasseur in the Wurttemberg army. There were, however, jager and I suspect that the confusion comes about from orders of battle in the French language where jager are often described as chasseurs. This confusion also applies where the cavalry are concerned. If this miniature is dated 1806 and wears a shako he must be a fussjager, because the rest of the infantry were wearing the kasket at this period.

There are, however, a number of anomalies with the figures as described. First of all the fussjager are depicted, by all sources in my possession, wearing marching boots in 1806 and not gaiters. Secondly, your observation concerning the bayonet is quite correct, the fussjager were issued with a sword bayonet normally contained in a scabbard which hung from the left hip. A modern German source states that the fussjager were at one time issued with a sabre but contemporary illustrations, from 1800 to 1814, in my possession do not confirm this.

Stadlinger and du Four, both of whom served in the Wurttemberg army during the Napoleonic period depict only a straight sword bayonet. This is echoed in secondary material, principally Knotel. The scabbard on this model, then, should almost certainly, be empty if the bayonet is fixed to his rifle.

Incidentally, the Wurttemberg line infantry were issued with both sword and bayonet, but no scabbard for the latter, the bayonet being kept fixed to the musket, which Stadlinger depicts reversed when not in action. The pouch and waist belt you describe, with the former placed at the front, was replaced by conventional infantry equipment from 1807.

Whilst on the subject of Wurttemberg, may I make a minor correction to the order of battle for Leon Parte's article on Gross Beeren. 24th Light Cavalry Brigade consisted of Chevauleger Regt. Nr.1 (Prinz Adam) and Jager Regiment zu Pferd Nr.3 (Herzog Louis) and not as shown. This is an error that originates from Leon's source material and appears in contemporary French returns. the other Chevauleger Regiment, Leibchevauleger Regiment Nr.2, served in Graf von Nordmann's brigade in VI Corps together with Jager Regiment zu Pferd Nr.4 (Koenig). Both these regiments deserted at Leipzig and were subsequently disgraced, resulting in a renumbering within the mounted arm.

Similarly those landwehr units in the same order of battle which appear as originating in Brandenburg will be more readily recognised by readers as Kurmark units. Brandenburg as such did not raise any Landwehr. Both Neumark and Kurmark, however, were part of the province of Brandenburg, hence I suppose, the deviation in Leon's sources from the more normal identification.

Sources for all the above.

Stadlinger: Wurttembergische Uniformen von 1638 - 1854
Knotel: Grosse Uniformenkunde
Faber du Four: Various paintings and drawings
Vollmer: Die Bewaffnung der Armeen des Koenigreich Wurttemberg etc.
Kraft: Die Wurttemberger in den Napoleonischen Krieg
Bredow: Historische Rang und Stammliste des Heeres
Hahn: Wurttembergischen Heer - Handbuch des Fahnen und Standarten von 1806 bis 1918
Quistorp: Geschichte des Befreiungskrieg

Finally, may I add to the comments made by your reviewer of the computer moderated games currently available, Eaglebearer II is thoroughly unreliable, at least in my experience and I have used both the PC and Amiga versions (not lately!). The programme crashes with monotonous regularity, the PC Version seemingly the more temperamental (perhaps it's female?).

In defence of `Ebb and Flow'...

Dear Sir,

I'd like to start off by saying how much I've enjoyed the first three issues of First Empire, and wish you all possible success with future issues. It's good to see a magazine that pins its colours firmly to the mast - none of this "all things to all people nonsense. I think issue 3 showed a real development with a burgeoning letters page (always a sign of a healthy magazine) and a review section that actually reviews rather than reports.

However, I did feel I had to write in defence of Peter Heath's `Ebb and Flow' rules, reviewed by Richard Ayliffe. Before going any further, though, I have to try and plead my neutrality. I do not currently use `Ebb and Flow'; I have played them only once and will probably never do so again, for many of the reasons Richard mentioned, partly for doctrinal reasons (the lack of the chance factor) and partly due to historical differences in historical interpretation between myself and Mr.Heath.

Unlike Richard though, I did find a number of innovative and interesting concepts in `Ebb and Flow'. First among these is the roster system for recording casualties/effectiveness. Used properly, with each player being issued a neat sheet detaining his own units, this system can operate smoothly and quickly, with two added bonuses,

1) If figures are not removed clearing up time at the end of the game is considerably reduced,

2)figures can be based together as entire units, making them much easier and faster to move around the table.

While I agree that Peter Heath goes to far in eradicating chance from the battlefield, I don't think we need such a high degree of chance as is normally represented. We usually roll dice for firing, for close combat, for morale and for various command functions, and each fire/close combat die roll has a compounding effect on the ensuing morale die roll - is this all necessary. Surely the effect of a battalion fire, in terms of casualties and what we may term `fire shock' is fairly predictable, and what varies is how a given unit reacts. Particularly at the grand tactical level, at which `Ebb and Flow' are supposed to operate we can surely do away with some of the low level randomisations. Whinge over. I do not think `Ebb and Flow' are at least worth a read and even a game because they are radically different and contain ideas worth adapting.

Editor. I will state here and now that I do not have any axe to grind with Peter Heath, but I stand by what Richard said in his review. I have participated in a large game supervised by Peter, (Leipzig 1990). I feel that a lot of the `hard work' of the system is created by the need to record losses for every unit, when it is blatantly apparent whether or not you will win or lose. I personally like the concept, but feel that it would be better to have a `brigade' effectiveness, for both fire/combat and morale, thereby discarding this need to record individual units losses, and to incorporate some randomisation as to when a `brigade' breaks and runs. Using Ebb and Flow, non of the following important events can happen. a) The successful attack of 2,000 Imperial Guard Chasseurs against 10,000 Bavarians at Hannau 1813. b) The successful counter attack of 2 battalions of the Imperial Guard against a brigade of Prussians at Plancenoit (Waterloo) 1815. c) The prolonged defence of La Haye Sante by the K.G.L. against superior numbers. d) The charge of the Polish Light Horse at Somosierra 1808. I could go on, the list is endless. The point is, that `Ebb and Flow' is an attritional system. Weight of numbers always win. There is no way that those all important history changing events, where morale overcomes all, can occur. When I played I found that I could sit down and calculate (precisely) what the outcome of an attack would be.

As for the innovative ideas you mention, I wish you had put something other than roster sheets and single unit basing forward. I refer you to `In the Grand Manner' by the late Peter Gilder.

British Association of Empire Players, (Boring or Not So Boring!) Bowden and Empire rules....

Dear Sir,

Having just purchased the opening two editions of First Empire at SELWG 91, I felt that a quick word of encouragement was in order.

A fine start gentlemen, a fine start!

I was particularly pleased that you managed to cover at least three of my areas of interest in one edition (No.2) i.e. 2mm, Avalon Hill's Napoleon's Battles and playing alternative games without figures.

As to your request for readers preferences on keeping the publication Napoleonic in content, while I would like to see it that way I feel a good case could be made to include the Seven Years War and the American Civil War as associated periods of major conflict with particular connection in various aspects of Military thought. (I know the Crimea is gaining in popularity but I for one can live without this and the other European sideshows between 1815 and 1861).

Two more things. Firstly a quick plug!

I feel sure some of your readers would be interested to hear of the British Association of Empire Players. A group who started four years ago, originally from the Bradford area, but who now have a membership covering the UK, parts of Europe, the USA and Australia.

The Association is dedicated to the promotion of historical Napoleonic gaming and the use of the Empire rules by Bowden and Tarbox in particular. It produces a quarterly magazine called `Cassion' for members and this acts as a source of historical information, discussion and rule debate in the manner that Sling shot does for WRG Ancient Rules under the Society of Ancients banner.

Subscription rates are: £ 5.00 UK, £ 6.00 Europe, and £ 9.00 in USA/Australia.

For details contact: Richard Lawrence, BAEP, 43 Smithy Carr Lane, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 4BG

Secondly, I would like to offer the following for consideration for publication in response to Philip Gaffney's letter (item 5) in edition No2 as an open letter.

I was both interested and irritated by the latter part of Philip's letter. For me it showed a certain lack of understanding, firstly how and why people write books and secondly it seemed to make certain assumptions as to whether you can have good or bad sets of rules in a way that some people judge major works of art.i.e. Rembrandt is crap but Van Gogh is brilliant - wrong, they're just different!

In the first place regarding Scott Bowden's book "Napoleon's Grand Armee 1813". Yes, it may be `overpriced as indeed may be his Empire rules but like them it shares a number of features. (a) It's imported direct from the USA with the costs involved. (b) It is produced to a high standard. (c) It is the product of extensive personal research from original source material.

If Philip owned a copy of that other BBB (Boring, Bowden, Book) "Armies on the Danube 1809" he would have already known that the Zastrow Cuirassiers were indeed at Wagram (or perhaps he should have searched through the Archives du Service Historique de l'etate-major de l'armee at the Chateau de Vincennes for himself!)

The point being that Philip may find work such as Scott Bowden's BORING but the depth of their content in terms of historical fact might prove useful if he could stay awake or at least use them as reference rather than a substitute for Barbara Cartland novels.

As to the second matter. having started young and thereby played wargames of all sorts for over a quarter of a century, no doubt fully qualifying for the "overbearing, know-all/know nothing type" referred to in Philip's letter, a word or two on rules.

The first thing one has to accept is that even the best known writers create rules for themselves or close associates to satisfy what they feel a Napoleonic Battle was like. One example would be "In the Grand Manner" which came from Peter Gilder's desire to fight large battles with 25mm figures at the Wargames Holiday Centre. None the worse for that, except it is pretty unfair to expect quite the same feel if you can't match the physical requirements of the original concept.

All this rule writing is hopefully based on unformed reading and some idea of what makes a playable game. Not a lot more and sometimes less. Remember, no one alive has been there, no one has done it, although some may have undoubtedly bought the T-shirt!

It is then essentially, an attempt at an impression of someone elses memories; mixed with some dry historical data and the views of military historians handed down through the ages. At the end of the day no one can say "this is exactly how it was" all you as a gamer can do is to pick what best suits your ideas of what might have been and how far you are prepared to go toward that end.

As for me, well I use three different sets for different reasons. I am not a competition player so I don't use "To the sound of the Guns", I can't afford nor have I the space for 25mm so I don't use "In the Grand Manner". By and large I prefer the broad sweep of high command and this is I feel reflected in the sets I use.

I like the problems of command and control to be as real as possible and again this is a strong factor in my choice along with a need for a strong representation of time and space.

As a pure command test over a huge scale area, I play 2mm and use the Peter Dennis/Cliff Knight/George Jeffery rules from Raider Games of Leeds.

For a faster, 15mm figure game with fairly simple, if slightly questionable combat mechanics, I use `Napoleon's Battles' as some of the command problems appeal to me, there is economic space and not too much detail to bog things down.

My most often played rules are the aforementioned Bowden and Tarbox Empire set.

These are not perfect. They tend toward complexity of a level that could be off-putting to beginners but is, like many rules, to a degree superficial. They are priced at a level that is matched only by Software rules (no offence, Mr. Watkins, or should that be Defence given your BNGL interests). [None taken ..Ed.] Above all they are hard to play as a "game" and that is precisely why they are so good.

Before anyone decides that I must have been following the Editors American Football Activities, but without a helmet, let me explain.

Empire are a perfect example of that old saying about you only get out of something what you are prepared to put into it. They provide the best format I have ever come across, in one package, for recreating Napoleonic Battles. The snag, and perhaps without resorting to incredibly proscriptive rules to enforce historical actions it is a major one, is that if you as the player do not follow the tactics and principles of the period you can feel rather let down by them.

We all like to think that we know about Napoleonics, but I can assure you that anyone who uses Empire has the opportunity to really find out how much they understand. Like any other set, if you try something that does not work, it is all to easy to blame the rules. However, in my experience you can more often than not trace a logical path from EMPIRE back to historical fact and see that you were really trying to pull a stunt, (whoops! more American football creeping in!), after all.

This often means work and discussion outside of the game. Which starts off with you trying to gather information to prove a point and leads as often as not to a better grasp of the period. I am not about to put myself up as the next David Chandler or whoever but I can tell you now that, despite periods of wanting to throw the bloody things in the fire over the years, I know that I have been prompted to find out more about Napoleonics by playing with them than if I had stuck with other sets I have played and discarded.

It has become fashionable to rubbish the game verses simulation argument as being pretentious and perhaps it is. I am afraid I don't have a better terminology to offer on what I am describing.

I look for what I consider a command simulation without the physical elements of death and discomfort. Others may not want this and seek a game that is very playable with enough elements of Napoleonic warfare to make things believable.

Nothing wrong with that at all. My point is that in my experience the chances of the both of use getting what we want from the same set of rules or even seeing them the same way are slim. There is no win/lose situation, just difference.

As a closing counter to my own direction in Napoleonics and an illustration of this point, I cannot stand WRG Ancients rules no matter which edition we are talking about, but I love DBA, funny old game, Wargaming.

Editor. Well there you go! Letter, review, article and comment, all rolled into one. David raises a lot of points here, many of which I agree with. But the question is do you? What sort of wargame are you looking for? Write in and tell the rest of us, your responses positive or negative can help to shape our hobby.

In Praise of Block Basing .....

My first reaction to the article in the last issue of First Empire on the concept of battalion basing I must admit was - this will never work. After all how can you expect to associate with units which are little more than counters. Well, as the saying goes, don't knock it until you've tried it, so I did.

And lo! The word was made clear. If you look on these little bases as mini dioramas then suddenly it all makes sense. I eased some of my 6mm figures off their bases, stuck them down in three ranks, added some stragglers and a few voltigeurs out in front skirmishing and it looked cracking. Put a few of the bases side by side and in the blink of an eye your units really do begin to look like a brigade.

If you think about it then it makes sense. If you are refighting a 200 battalion battle who wants to move 1200 bases around the place. Brigade attacks become the order of the day and as a spectacle this style is hard to beat.

As a long standing player of Follow the Eagle, I know the computer keeps track of formations and there is no need to represent these on table, however, visually I believe it is important for the players to see instantly their formations, and personally I don't want my little masterpieces hampered by coloured mapping pins. I think I would rather produce additional bases in line to replace the columns as they change formation.

In passing let me congratulate you on having the courage of your convictions to print the review of Ebb and Flow and not let the worry of losing an advertiser influence your editorial judgment. I wholeheartedly agree with the reviewer. The absence of any form of luck makes these the most boring set of rules I have ever played. You might as well set your two armies up, look at the dispositions and army compositions and agree a winner before you waste any more time actually playing the game.