The Fortnight Sequence was originally intended to tear pages off the calendar while helping preserve Coalition. strength. But as. Richard.G. Simon has pointed out, "Unless you get a Coalition player willing to mix it up a bit, the French have no chance since the Coalition can shut the game down any time." Because of the morale, shifts available for exiting, "there is no reason for a Coalition player to fight any battles at all. By doing so, he has nothing to gain and everything to lose." This comment is quite correct in terms of the game. Let's imagine what would have happened if the Russian army had adopted such a Fabian strategy. In reality, and perhaps, we will be guided to the correct solution. Such a strategy would have been Russia's wisest course. This was the strategy ultimately adopted in the next campaign between the two nations, though no Russian general could admit, that this was his policy. On the other hand, Prussia could hardly have been any worse off in making peace without a campaign in Poland, than she was after all the blood shed. Unavoidably, such a strategy would have been politically problematic. Marshal Kamenskoi tried to implement something like it, and at what a cost to him! He had to feign insanity to escape censure for withdrawing from Warsaw. The Tsar regarded Poland as his own sphere of influence and did not want to see the French established there. Even at Tilsit, Napoleon had to promise not to create a Polish Kingdom in order to achieve peace. It seems just possible that the Tsar's generals might have persuaded him to look beyond the immediate, and to see as certain a future contest of arms between the nations, when Russia would be better prepared, with all the advantages of fighting on native soil. Barclay gained the Tsar's trust after his "victory" at Pultusk. Let's say the Russian commander convinced the Tsar into authorizing a withdrawal after showing the world his army was unbowed. After all, the warriors of holy Russia had withdrawn to the motherland after Austerlitz. Napoleon's options would have been three: 1) to let the state of war with Russia persist as it had anyway since 1805. 2) to invade Russia five years earlier than eventually happened. 3) to make peace on whatever terms he could get. By no stretch could any of these options be considered a French Victory. But all this does not say that the Coalition should win the game by merely seeking an armistice or even by avoiding battle through the Fortnight Sequence. To quote Mr. Simon, "Assuming this is the option the Coalition should have taken, there is no justification for assuming that Alexander would have taken it." The situation calls for additional rules to direct the drama of the political situation. The first rule elaborates on the Coalition Player's ability to end the game by withdrawing from the map, (see the errata, "Seeking an Armistice,") requiring the Coalition Player to fight a successful Pitched Battle first. The Coalition Player can practically stop the action by "Declaring Fortnight Sequence." The new rule on this topic extends the Pitched Battle requirement to the Fortnight Sequence declaration, and limits the Coalition to only, me declaration per game. The other rules give the French Player the chance to prevent the terrible attvition rates suffered by Forces left concentrated during a Fortnight Sequence, and allow him to call a halt to Fortnight Sequence. The published rule showed the French arms reluctance to go back into the field. But this oversimplification gave too great an advantage to the Coalition. The French would have marched had they been ordered. Unlike the French, both Russians and Prussians were inured to the extreme weather of this region. This is why the Coalition troops are preserved from attrition while they are off-map. The off-map areas are actually within or bordering upon Russian Poland, situated in a wellsupplied region beyond the reach of the French. Victory in the Grand Scenario is now different from the Campaign Scenarios. In fact, it is more difficult to win a war than to win a short campaign. The new Grand Scenario Victory Conditions might be considered to represent a "Strategic Victory." An "Operational Victory" is good enough for a scenario but isn't adequate to end the war. Finally, a modifier now applies to the results of the Siege Duration Table, depending upon the turn on which the Coalition Forces exit toward Thom or toward Danzig. In the case of Danzig, a Coalition appearance prior to the completion of the siege would not have been material, since the garrison could still sortie effectively and create delays without external help. After the garrison was closed-in, the fall of Danzig was only a matter of time. A force of adequate size exiting toward Danzig could easily drive away the X Corps, destroy the besieging works and release the garrison. In the case of Thom, in the early periods of the campaign the French had not yet invested heavily in the infrastructure required to create a Supply Source (see Study Folder, p. 5, 2nd paragraph). In addition, important field formations were still cycling through. Later, the garrison consisted of only four Provisional Regiments. Back to Art of War Issue #21 Table of Contents Back to Art of War List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1995 by Clash of Arms Games. 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