Grand Bataille, Grande Victoire

Rules (1853-71)

Reviewed by Pat Condray

European Land Warfare from 1853-1871

European Land Warfare from 1853-1871, by J.W. Brown, Absinthe Press P.O. Box 19142, Minneapolis, MN 55419-0142. This 32 page book, size and format similar to THE COURIER with stiff covers, costs $14 plus $1.50 postage. The figure scale is nominally 1 to 60, emphasis on 15mm but variable to 5mm-25mm. Modules cover the CRIMEAN, AUSTRO-FRENCH, AUSTRO-PRUSSIAN, and FRANCO-PRUSSIAN conflicts. Overall, I think this system is playable, moderately realistic - i.e. there is an historically valid reason for most of what happens, and provides a good operationall opportunity for moving miniature soldiers representing those of the late 19th century around on a table top. With that stated, there are a few disconcerting characteristics. Notably, the command and control system involves writing orders for each brigade which are relatively unstructured, thus likely to be bent out of shape by anyone with the slightest weakness for rules lawyering. Efficiency of the command structure is accounted for by changing the frequency with which the orders may be changed. The random factor for fire is fractional, and there doesn't seem to be much account given to the difference between fire at close and extreme range. Nominally there is no distance scale, but my system is to compare the frontage of a unit in its optimum firing formation (nominally a double or triple line) and compare that to the real frontage of a corresponding unit. By that standard 1" would be the approximate frontage of 2 figures (14/16th actually) representing 120 men in firing line, roughly 40-50 yds. By that reckoning the Prussian infantry (Dreyse) shoots 400 yds, Austrian (Lorenz) 500 yds, and French (Chasepot) 800 yds. I would increase a graduate. Also, like most rules, including my own, the relative frontage of skirmishers to formed troops is underestimated. The maximum increased frontage of skirmishers to troops in a triple line is 2 to 1.

Cavalry has its problems here, which some will say is only fair for the period. Cavalry in line or column, for example, takes double casualties compared to infantry in line--which might be valid for point blank volley fire, but should probably be reversed for long range fire where range estimating would apply. Moreover, even if cavalry takes more "hits" than infantry in tests comparing a six foot to a nine foot canvas screen, the real life density of a cavalry formation is less, and when you get into rifle fire, a hit on an infantry column might go through several men. It probably won't go through more than one horse lengthwise. Yet Mr. Brown will take out 2 horses for every casualty that would apply to an infantry line, or 1.5 casualties to an infantry column. I find this an unnecessary burden to apply to an arm already severely limited by the historical facts.

Skirmishers are a bit unusual. As stated, they are disproportionately dense. Perhaps for that reason, they melee at only a slight disadvantage. I'm inclined to disperse skirmishers who run afoul of close order troops, particularly cavalry, but Mr. Brown's skirmishers will make a fight of it.

For all that, I think these rules are understandable, playable, and worth the cost. I expect local groups may modify them with practice, and don't think that they will ever have the stature of WRG for tournament gaming (which is probably all to the good.)

Review Rebuttal (Issue 58)

More Courier Reviews

Back to Table of Contents -- Courier #57
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1992 by The Courier Publishing Company.
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