Designer: Sam Mustapha

I really like these rules. They are playable, balanced, and fun. Sam is obviously current on Napoleonic research and has managed to avoid most of the more common 'myths' incorporated into most rules. Some of the distinctive aspects of this game are:

Command & Control: the player gets a variable amount of command points each turn to spend on putting units in command, and to aid in rallying broken troops. The number of CPS is based upon a die roll, the army commander's rating, and the size of his army. Making decisions about how to spend these points allows a player to influence key parts of the battlefield, but you never have enough to do everything. Some commands, which are technically within your army command span, will remain inactive because you are too busy spending command points over at the decisive area of the battlefield.

Variable turn length: each turn consists of several rounds, during which both sides get to move and fight. How many rounds will occur each turn varies. Also, all scenarios have a variable number of turns. The end result is a commander can not predict exactly how much action will occur in each turn (number of phases), or exactly how long a battle will last.

Combat: There is skirmish fire, artillery fire, and direct combat when units touch. The system is fairly attritional. The amount of damage a unit will inflict on its opponent is directly related to its current strength. Most importantly, units have a restricted ability to maneuver once they get close to the enemy. Basically, once you get close to the enemy, you either go straight into combat, or withdraw straight back -- there is no fancy snaking allowed. The system limits the impact of 'tactical' fights, and attempts to encourage players to focus on maneuvering corps, not individual units. Units may recover lost strength over time, if removed from proximitv to the enemy.

Weather: weather effects movement, combat, and command & control. I do not think the system is as dramatic or innovative as Sam advertises, but I do agree that it is an important part of the game and makes it better. Using variable weather adds spice to any scenario. I played the battle of Dennewitz where it rained ALL DAY and it eventually turned the field to mud. I had thought I knew exactly when my forces would arrive, how long they would take to march to the flight, and how long it would take me to pound my opponent into the dust. The rain changed everything. Like the command and control system, it is a simple game mechanic that helps remove the certainty gamers enjoy from a fixed rule system, without introducing too much randomness.

Grande Armee is similar to Volley & Bayonet in terms of scale, complexity and basing. How it differs from Volley & Bayonet:

• No small units, no skirmisher units.
• No morale checks, except to rally and recover.
• Cavalry does not make breakthrough moves.
• There is no division-level command or unit cohesion.
• There is no corps or division-level exhaustion.

Grand Armee is very much different from Napoleon's Battles. I played NB exclusively for almost ten years, but recently gave up on the rules. For the most part, NB plays too slow for me. I want to be able to fight a full-sized battle (Waterloo, Eylau, Aspern-Essling, etc.) with just two people and about 8 hours of time, without feeling exhausted by the effort. Some people feel that NB combines the best of two different scales of Napoleonics -- the tactical feel of lines, columns and squares with the grand tactical scope of corps and armies. I disagree.

Combat in Grande Armee - A more detailed discussion. At the start of each pulse, both side conduct simultaneous skirmish fire, and then artillery fire. Skirmish fire has a range of 6", and is a simple d6 roll off, with a few modifiers for quality, etc. It will only cause a single SP hit, but that can add up over time. Then comes artillery (ie. 12lbs guns have a range of about 15", and lighter guns have shorter range). You normally roll 2d6 per battery. A medium range target needs 4+ to hit. Targets can get a saving throw, based on terrain.

Then one player makes his moves: all units are moved, then during the combat segment, those that are touching enemy units roll for combat. When moving into combat contact, unit must move directly towards the enemy and square-up against the contacted facing. Combat is governed by several restrictions which make it hard to gang-up on single enemy units, unless the v are truly isolated. Units that expose their flank or rear to nearby enemy units will fight at a disadvantage. Therefore, exposing one of your unit's flank to the enemy just to achieve a limited flank attach against another unit is somewhat counter-productive. Combat resolution is largely attritional. Each player rolls ld6 for each SP (strength point) each unit has. A typical infantry brigade starts the game with 6-8 SPs. Each die rolled which is 4 or greater inflicts a hit on the enemy. There are some modifiers for flanking, terrain, combined-arms attacks, etc. There are no rules for react moves, counter-moves, or squaring. There are no rules for being disordered. Combat is simultaneous. The side that inflicts the most hits wins. Losing units that did not route (reduced to 0 SP) are pushed back, and the attacker advances. The attacker can always take casualties, regardless of the odds. (A French Old Guard unit (SP10) fights an Austrian conscript unit (SP3). Assuming no modifiers, the French rolls 10d6, needing 4+ per die to score hits. The Austrian plaver rolls 3d6, also needing 4's to score hits. It is mostly likelly the weaker unit will be routed, but it still can inflict up to 3 hits vs. the Guard.)

After the first player is done, the second player makes his moves (movement, then combat). Then, a die roll determines whether there will be another pulse in the turn. On average, there are 3-4 pulses per turn. At the end of the turn, each side rolls to rally units. Units can also recover lost SPs. In both cases, you cannot do so if vow are close to the enemy. Being able to withdraw worn units, protecting your flanks vs. cavalry, and pursuing the enemy, all become important. Doing so will allow you to recover lost SP better than your opponent, and therefore you will be able to fight the battle longer.

The attritional nature of combat is a little hard to get used to. Most rules have the winner of a combat taking no casualties, and tics tend to be rare. In these rules, if you fail to act to give yourself some significant advantage, combats will grind both sides down into the dust. Given the scale of the game, I think this model is probably right, or at least better. Protracted combats also tend become disorganized and scattered. Keeping a Force in reserve becomes very important. Not only w ill it be stronger, but its units will also be organized in a tight formation.