Reader's Reviews
General de Brigade
(rules)
Reviewed by David Commerford
 |
Rules by David C.R. Brown
The July edition of Military Illustrated, in its regular wargames slot, contained an article featuring Todd Fisher, of the Emperor's Press. In part of this he states his concerns for the future of the hobby based on what he considers to be the "dumbing down" of Napoleonic rules to achieve sales from people who want to game rather than understand the period. This criticism extends to cover rules that are essentially written for speed of outcome, which he considers a reflection on the attention span of younger members of the fraternity. Those who know Empire rules, of which Todd is the publisher, will not be surprised by these views, as they are the complete opposite of both these tendencies. However, those who know Todd will also be aware that he has a considerable knowledge of the period. So what? You may ask. Well, I mention this for two reasons, one to ask an open question as to whether or not you agree with these sentiments and also by way of an introduction to this short review of General de Brigade. Having heard them recommend to someone else, by a dealer, as a simple set of rules, suitable for newcomers, I thought I would subject them to the Fisher Test. I should say however, that I was also told, by the same dealer, that they had fought Waterloo with them. If they did so in an unamended form then they must have access to several thousand figures and a Drill Hall, given the recommended 1:20 figure ratio! Perhaps he meant part of Waterloo and a fairly small part at that I shouldn't wonder! Then again, us long serving gamers, should really wear a bullshit deflector round our necks on these occasions, with "I've seen more rules than you've had hot dinners matey" or some other jovial phrase inscribed upon it. In reality, jibes about the figure scale are a little unfair, as the rules are aimed a particular level. One which, until reading through them prior to purchase, had passed me by. In fact I almost did not buy them, as I was initially disappointed. I had hoped, incorrectly, judging from the cover's bye line " Wargaming the Age of Napoleon at Brigade Level" that they were going to be a set where the Brigade was the minimum, rather than the optimum, combat unit, my mistake! Once past this let down, I proceeded to delve into them as best as I could amid the merry throng of fellow "Salute'rs." Here I discovered simple rule mechanics and a large figure scale, so I thought, what the hell, and bought them any way! Now as to the sales pitch, that these rules are suitable for newcomers, well, yes and no. They are very easy to learn but I wonder just what they teach people about the period. For me they add to the interesting development of niche marketing, which seems to have developed in recent rule sets. Regular readers will know that I am a firm believer in the impossible nature of a universal set of Napoleonic rules and this seems truer now than ever. For example, Shako and Principals of War (in a more detailed manner) have adopted a synthesised approach, where them general elements of the period are extracted and then fitted to a system of stylised army lists. This package is then somehow supposed to encompass the Napoleonic battle experience. Shako attempts to add in history by restrictions on possible formations to national army type. PoW does something similar by the dividing the world into Prussian (i.e. linear) and French tactics but because they also envisage a quick game and result, both sets end up with a truncated feel about them. That is unless the quick fix is what you are looking for. Long term, the Todd Fisher argument holds up here, in that size of the actions cannot convey the full possibilities of real battle. My personal rule of thumb is, if rules can be used for competitions, they can't show the whole picture. General de Brigade takes another approach. It does not really attempt to associate itself with the whole battle. Rather, by using physically large units and restricted opportunity to manoeuvre, or change formation, it serves up a game something near that which Chef de Battalion is intended to give. Although that is of course aimed at an even lower organisational level. What you get is a good feel of the problems of lower unit tactics but without the ruinous complexity. As an aside, Todd may, or may not, be interested to know that as someone who has persisted with Empire and its much maligned complexities through three editions, to the point where I now defend its virtue everywhere. I have unreservedly thrown Chef de Battalion in the back of the darkest cupboard I own, regardless of my initially positive review in these pages. Perhaps he would care to inform Scotty Bowden that there is a world of difference between writing rules that are not meant to attract every body and those which alienate even previously devoted enthusiasts. However, I digress. The disadvantage in the lower level approach is that, it has an effect akin to teaching someone about football (that's the round ball version, guys) by showing them what do with their players at free kicks and corners but with out showing how these fit into the whole game, or in this case battle. That is to say it cannot convey how commanders use the building bricks of Brigade tactics to win battles This is enhanced by the fact that cavalry is somewhat peripheral, as when you are fielding an Infantry Division as your major unit, you are left hunting up an excuse to put some attached cavalry formation into the plot. Ergo the overall sweep of combined arms operation is not what it might be. Within the rules a simple command system uses a limited range of proscribed orders and distance from General figures to stop snappy changes of plan. These and the effect of trying to manoeuvre a full strength Austrian battalion, in line, by wheeling only, at 50+ figures makes you stop and think. Also, a deployed battery that you are not allowed to move through, except with skirmishers, takes up so much space that two of them are a positive liability, if you put them in the wrong place. Add to this the nasty things that happen to you if the unit in front retreats in to the one behind and you start to deploy with big gaps around units and the table fills up very quickly. At first this seems strange given the limited number of units involved but if you consider the nominal ground scale of 1mm to 1yd then leaving a depth of 50cm between battalions is 500yds, a quite reasonable distance. B<>Firing Fire is conducted using tables of the number of figures/guns present with simple plus and minus factors applied to 2D6. Casualties are given in whole figures but the reduction of half effect at long range, means that sometimes half and even quarter figure losses can result. Personally, I can't be doing with all that and a quick D6 odds die, evens live, rule was quickly introduced into my games. Units can elect to fire and move half their allowance or move full and not fire. Those formed infantry units that do fire having a minus 2 next turn to simulate smoke. Which doesn't sound much but it does make you think twice about simply blasting away turn after turn and allows you to hold your fire and then close "through the smoke" knowing you have a better chance of hitting than your opponent next time. It also leads to a "don't fire till you see the whites of their eyes" mentality when you are on the defensive. The game sequence relies on an initiative role, the winner choosing to go first, or not, the action then follows an alternating rather than simultaneous system which despite its restrictions works well. Moral like the other components is dealt with on a simple plus and minus chart, as are the charge and melee elements. I particularly liked the idea of melee casualties being inflicted on a differential ratio of winning and losing sides combatants, although like many aspects in the rules it is not entirely original. In the text there are a number of useful examples for this and other mechanisms included which give a clear idea of the authors intentions. A number of differences are included for national characteristics in terms of moral, command and control formation and performance, none of which I would violently disagree with. These and most other aspects of the rules form a sound if somewhat conventional package, which I feel the majority of gamers and history players could easily go along with. The main claim to fame for these rules is the manner in which simplicity is married to the concepts of a Brigade level command and the extent to which they succeed in showing the difficulties involved. In this instance if it is indeed "dumbing down" I am all for it. While clearly more accessible than Chef de Battalion they also do not try to be something more expansive than they are. Beginners might well stick with them for a while as they are easy to pick up. My note of caution to them would be that what they learn about the period, while not false, will be contextually limited. I am afraid that essentially Todd Fisher is correct, in overall terms, that not everyone is willing to take the time to play historical rules like Empire. However it would be incorrect to dismiss all simpler rules out of hand. While a lot of them are "dumber", General de Brigade has no false pretensions and provides both a good game and some historical insight. If you acknowledge the limitations in terms of the "big picture" they are a nice set of rules. More Reader Reviews
General de Brigade (rules) Austrian Grenadiers and Infantry 1788-1816 (Osprey booklet) Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #43 Back to First Empire List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1998 by First Empire. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com |