1. Q. Is there no artillery resupply in the game?
A. Correct. Originally when Lutzen was in the development stage I had intended for the AA Ws to be returned to the battery box when they had exhausted their supply of rounds. From there every third one of like kind would have been returned to play, just like destroyed batteries are returned to play. Another possibility was having the AAWs move to within five hexes of a major road that then could trace a path of contiguous road hexes back to the appropriate depot, and then rolling for supply. In other words, doing this the same as out of supply batteries in previous games in this series. Neither of these solutions, however, seemed appropriate to this battle. Lutzen was an arriving engagement. There just wasn't the time to establish a functional link to the logistical tails of either army prior to battle being joined.
2.Q. When a battery is beyond the span of the nearest AAW that can supply it is it prohibited from firing?
A. No, it may always make opportunity fire attacks (reference rule 5.3.J).
3. Q. Are the Action Chits to be considered a standard rules change to the 4th Edition?
A. It's up to you. However, I do recommend doing this. The incorporation of the MU concept and the limited number of CPs available to each side already limits the number of units that may move in a given turn. The end of turn chits were originally intended to do this but became somewhat redundant, and limited who could move even further. Ifind them too restrictive now.
4. Q. If we keep the end of turn chits in our game is it legal to place more than one MU marker on a leader?
A. Yes. In fact, I think this is a good idea. This reflects the added emphasis an army leader may place on the movement of certain formations he deems critical to the current situation. Napoleon rarely let fate ride with a single courier, often times sending two or even three separate gallopers to deliver a single order. In fact, some of his greatest disasters can be attributed to when he did not do this.
5. Q. What is the historical basis for "kedging?"
A. "Kedging" is when formations that are not part of a MU are able to move by virtue of the chit pulls. In other words, when the leader chit is pulled, moving him away from his formation, and then when the rally chit is pulled, moving the units of that formation so that they are once again in the command span of that leader. This essentially allows out of command formations a very limited ability to inch toward or away from the enemy, and, while not specifically defined by the rules, is certainly permitted by them. Mile not historical, in the sense that this type of manoeuvre was ever ordered during a battle, it certainly reflects what happened in the absence of specific orders, or in anticipation of receiving them.
Some persons may criticize this but I find that it is not necessary to have every action on the game board determined by a roll of the dice; as if, by doing so the action would then somehow be legitimized and become historical. Using it during a game has shown it to be an unreliable tactic at best which can result in large portions of your army out of command at the worst possible moments.
6. Q. In previous editions of the rules it was possible to cause casualties on artillery with infantry fire alone. Now it seems virtually impossible, given that odds of 2 and 1/2 to 1 are required for even the slightest chance of causing two hits on the Fire Combat chart which in turn causes a single hit on the guns. Is this your intent?
A. Terry Doherty has a good house rule which I thoroughly endorse. Whenever artillery is alone in a hex, limbered or unlimbered, and it is fired on by infantry, he gives the artillery the fire defense of infantry in skirmish order, and counts every casualty that results from this. This reflects the actual knocking off of the gunners as opposed to the knocking out of the guns. The fire defense of the battery, then, would range between 14 in clear terrain to 16 in a town, cultivated hex, orchard or village.
7. Q. Now that stacking is restricted to hexes that also contain a leader, would it be too great a stretch if we permitted hexes to remain stacked if the leader were withdrawn from the hex to create a stack somewhere else, or whatever?
A. Well, this is certainly in violation of the rules. But I can see your point. Just because a leader is withdrawn from the hex doesn't mean things suddenly go topsy turvey. I can also see the viability of having a leader spend most of the game going from one hex to another creating stacks of infantry and guns preparing a "best possible" line for defense. On the other hand, I can also see the potential for many rules being written explaining what happens if.. (add your own circumstance here, there's a million of them). So I'll endorse this change in the stacking rules if you, on your own, agree to resolve all the problems that will occur because of it.
8. Q. Why did you change the rules regarding artillery fire, making it mandatory for unlimbered guns to fire so long as they have a target?
A. Guns are only required to fire if they have a target that is within its printed range (they are not forced to fire at targets that are at extreme range). I'll amend this further, in that they need not fire if they are stacked with a leader, or adjacent to one with an artillery bonus. Why'd I change the rules making thisfire mandatory? Simply because it's more realistic. If you unlimber your guns, they are deployed for battle. If they have a target, they shoot. As Napoleon or Wittgenstein, or any corps/line leader in the game, you just don't have the ability to control everything that your troops engage themselves in. A good example of this lack of control is Wellington's orders to his artillery prior to the start of the Waterloo battle wherein he absolutely forbid counter battery fire. As soon as the French opened up on the Anglo-Allied line every battery that could responded in kind. Wellington knew this would happen despite his orders to the contrary and stated later that if he hadn't created an artillery reserve prior to the battle he would have had no serviceable artillery when the battle reached its crisis.
9. Q. There seems to be a contradiction in the rules as to what a "blank" result is. What is a blank result with regard to cavalry that conduct melee?
A. Rule 15. 10 redefines what a blank result is for cavalry and, yes, it is in opposition to a blank result on the Melee chart which is simply one that has nothing printed there. Therefore, any time cavalry are involved in a melee where they or their opponent is not either Disordered or PGD, they bounce. For everything else a "blank result" is simply "no result."
10. Q. Does a unit lose an increment if it retreats from a zone of influence or doesn't it?
A. This appears to be something that was left out of the rules. Yes, it is now official, anytime a unit is forced to retreat from a zone of influence as the result of melee, or if it is cavalry that bounce from a melee, the unit must suffer the loss of an increment.
The French Chain of Command
A. Napoleon, Soult, Eugene - Create CP if on the game map.
1. This CP can be used to create a MU for any non corps leader who in turn puts in command:
a. any units he is stacked with, or,
2. This CP can be used to create a MU for any divisional leader who in turn:
a. puts in command any units of his division that are within his command span.
3. This CP can be used to create a MU for any corps leader already activated by that leader (Napoleon, Soult, Eugene) who in turn:
a. puts in command any divisional leader belonging to that corps within his command span, who in turn:
b. puts in command any units belonging to that division that are within his command span.
B. Corps leaders create a CP if on the game map. This CP may:
1. (see Al above, but not necessarily belonging to his corps), or;
2. (see A2 above, but not necessarily belonging to his corps).
The Foes of Napoleon Chain of Command
A. Wittgenstein Creates 1 CP while on the Game map (and see 19.4 D.)
1. This CP can be used to create one MU for any nonline leader who in turn puts in command:
a. any units he is stacked with, or:
2. This CP can be used to create a MU for any brigade leader who in turn:
a. puts in command any units of his brigade that are within his command span.
3. This CP can be used to create a MU for any Line leader activated by Wittgenstein (remember that Wittgenstein may not activate Tormassov, however), who in turn:
a. puts in command any wing leader belonging to that Line who then:
1. Puts in command any brigade leader within his span, belonging to his wing who then;
a. puts in command any units belong to that brigade what are within that span.
B. Inactive Line leaders create a CP if on the game map. This CP may:
1. (see Al above; but not necessarily belonging to that Line), or;
2. (see A2 above; but not necessarily belonging to his Line). Note that the Tsar may also activate Line leaders, however, his presence does not necessarily generate a second CP at Army leader level.
A Note on Generals Blucher and Yorck:
Because of the tremendous reputation enjoyed by Bldcher today there is a real temptation to ascribe his cumulative achievements to his earlier campaigns. Prior to Lutzen he was essentially known as the cavalry general who rather flamboyantly handled his troopers to no real advantage at the battle of Auerstaedt, and, as the hard-nosed patriot who successfully led a contingent of the shattered Prussian army all the way to Lubeck, just managing to evade the French pursuit. (There he awaited evacuation by English ships that did not arrive in time to effect his escape.)
The manner he conducted this retreat, and the manner he grudgingly surrendered his command, made him a hero in the army, and is probably what saved him from going the way of the rest of the septuagenarians that commanded during the disastrous campaign of 1806.
General Yorck, on the other hand, had just finished a campaign where he had competently, if not adroitly, commanded several times this number of men and brought them out of Russia virtually intact in the midst of a disaster of unprecedented proportions. Although he was briefly in disfavor with the King, his professional reputation was probably greater than Blucher's at the start of the 1813 campaign, especially with the Tsar. Thus the larger force entrusted to him. Blcher's lst Line of the Army of Silesia would probably best be considered the avant garde of that army, in keeping with the role he performed under Saxe-Weimar in 1806.
The Arrival of Marshal Ney
It has been pointed out to me that the Historical Commentary provided in Lutzen has Marshal Ney arriving before Napoleon, whereas the arrival times given in the Grand Scenario actually make the opposite the case. I had intended to randomize Ney's arrival on the battlefield, making it uncertain when the French player(s) could count on his command point. But, frankly, by the time I got to this point in the development of the game, I forgot! Oh well. To make amends for this oversight: At the start of the Command Prephase of the 1:20 pm turn the French player rolls two dice and consults the following table:
| Dice Result | Ney's Turn of Arrival |
|---|---|
| 11-14 | 1:20 |
| 15-22 | 1:40 |
| 23-33 | 2:00 |
| 34-46 | 2:20 |
| 51-66 | 2:40 |
Note: Ney's place of arrival will not change. He is accompanied by General Goure, ADC III Corps, regardless of his arrival time.
More The La Bataille Forum
-
La Bataille de Lutzen History
La Bataille de Lutzen Some Errata
La Bataille de Lutzen Artillery Ammunition Wagons
La Bataille de Lutzen Frequently Asked Questions and Answers
La Bataille de Lutzen Example of Play: Command System
Back to Art of War Issue #30 Table of Contents
Back to Art of War List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1999 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