The signal is given. Imperial Guard bearskins are seen moving against the enemy, who gives way before them. The men and guns of the cavalry reserve are launched in support. The enemy line is smashed. Into the gap pours the light cavalry hard in pursuit of broken units. The battle is won... The Napoleonic Era, with names like Austerlitz, Eylau, Borodino and Waterloo, fascinates and intrigues many miniatures enthusiasts, inspiring many sets of rules and types of figures. Unfortunately, translating that interest into practical, playable rules is extremely difficult, even if one's historical research is excellent, and the results often unsatisfactory. Sometimes, in the quest for "realism" or "historical accuracy", designers overlook some basic problems in playability. Rules that are individually accurate, may, when combined into a set, lead to an unplayable game. Playability Pitfalls In designing my own grand tactical Napoleonic rules, VIVE L'EMPEREUR!, I ran into some of those playability pitfalls. This article will discuss a few of those problems, and, by way of illustration, describe how I tried to cope with them. I won't deal too much with historical research, or explaining the background of my rules -- rather, I intend to look at some of the rules from a practical, or playability perspective. First, I had to think about what I wanted in my game; I needed a picture in my mind of what the game should look like as it played in an overall view, no matter what kinds of rules I put into it. I wanted a game I could play sitting down; since at least half of the "battle fatigue" I've experienced in other games came directly from leaning over a six-foot table all day! Next, I wanted a game that could be played in one day, preferably on the typical Saturday afternoon between noon and six. Third, I wanted a game that allowed Grand Tactical battles, such as Austerlitz or Eylau (as opposed to one that could only handle battles the size of Vimiero), to be played with a minimum of detail mechanically, but not so simple as to become a generalized board game. This meant that my ground scale needed to allow me to use a table about 3 feet deep while still representing enough historical depth for recreating large battles. I settled on a scale of 1mm=4 meters, or, about 16" to the mile. Armies could be placed at 121b shot range apart and still have a 121b shot range distance to their rear with this scale. An afternoon game would be, perhaps, 3 - hours for smaller games, 5-6 hours for large; so I decided to plan around a 5 hour (300 minutes) game as a rules goal. Now I had to decide how many turns I wanted to see a "typical" game last. I'd played rules before that gave games of 5-9 turns, in as many hours, but felt that insufficient for the ebb and flow of Grand Tactical battles. My feeling was 15-20 turns would allow that kind of flow back and forth, while still within my afternoon time frame. Thus, if able to play one turn every 15-20 real minutes, I could get 15-20 turns played in a 5 hour game. Comparing this to some real Napoleonic battles, I derived a time scale of one turn = 30 scale minutes. I had a large collection of 25mm figures, but with ground scale and table size, 15mm figures became the obvious choice for this rules set. Besides being cheaper, they contribute to the panoramic effect of a large battle, and, on long tables, create the "fog of war" when one can't tell which side's figures are entering from the road at the other end of the table! How Many Units? An important point now arises -- how many units should a player be expected to handle in the Bame if one is expected to achieve turns of 15-20 minutes each? Many people feel that figure scale, i.e., 1 figure represents 20 men, or 1 figure equals 6.0 men, is important in determining the game length, or that the number of castings in each unit is important, or that the total number of figures on the table create long or short games. Actually, the determining factor is the number of units (or maneuver elements, or groups that need to be recorded on paper) that EACH PLAYER MUST HANDLE. I could have three units with 300 figures each and I would play faster than a player who had thirty units of only 3 figures each. It is true that the more units or players at the table you have, the longer the game will take; but this is secondary to the number of units a player is responsible for. Give that player twice the number of units he had before, and you can expect him to need at least twice the time to play the game, no matter how large or small each individual unit is. How many units is too much? Here, designers are forced to fall back on their own experience. Our group found that our experienced players, with playable rules, could handle between 20-30 units; less experienced players from 10-20, novices 5-10. Therefore, I settled on a goal of 20 units per player for my rules. Here I had to decide the basic unit around which I would build the rules, keeping to my 20 units per player while striving to simulate Grand Tactics, but not wanting to reduce the scale of the game to a boardgame with cardboard counters representing Divisions or Corps. In addition, I wished to keep what I felt was an important element in Grand Tactics; the combination of arms (infantry, cavalry, artillery), whereby a commander with all three arms at his disposal could defeat an opponent less able to use them properly. Therefore, I wanted the 20 units assigned to each player in a typical game to include all 3 arms. Since the lowest official formation of all three arms in the French Army was the Corps, I decided to try to make the average player a Corps commander. Now I had to decide how to match the 20 units to a Corps command. Most games seem to use the battalion as their basic unit, and deal with battalion tactics in some detail, which works well for Divisional level battles. If this battle is elevated to a Corps level, a player as Corps Commander, with 3 infantry and 1 cavalry division plus guns, would have to command 36 battalions plus 4 cavalry regiments (or, if using squadrons, 16 cavalry squadrons!) and at least 5 batteries, for a minimum total of 45 basic units. It is true that some systems allow you to combine units to move together, but one is usually still required to make morale checks, or keep track of fatigue points, etc etc, at the battalion level. Multi-player games, using the battalion basic unit, may be able to handle a single or double corps battle (say, up to 40,000 men a side at the upper limits) but using the battalion is not sufficient when trying to simulate the Napoleonic battles of 60,000 and up. Therefore, I felt a jump had to be made up to the regimental level. Now, the French Corps would have 12 infantry regiments, 4 cavalry regiments and 5 batteries for a total of 21 units, and perhaps 25,000 men, while able to deploy many units on the table, stay playable, and still be able to "combine arms". Arguments could be made for making the Brigade or Division the basic units; my choice was to stay at as low a level as possible while remaining playable. In moving from the battalion to the regiment, some changes in the frame of reference were required; since a new command level was being stressed, some rules details for battalions would have to be dropped or modified, while regimental rules would have to be emphasized. For example, on the battalion level, or as Divisional commander, deployment of voltigeur skirmishing companies from battalions is a valid concern -- but not for the Corps commander deploying Divisions and regiments. Thus, in VIVE L'EMPEREUR! we assume battalions have placed out skirmishers, giving them a mathematical value on the combat charts automatically, without forcing the player to physically place the figures on the table; figures are placed ahead of units if entire light units break up or send forward large numbers of men on the regimental level. If designers chose to simulate Brigade or Divisional basic units, there would probably be no need to show skirmish lines at all! By the same token, a Corps commander dealing with regiments must assume his battery commanders are competent to choose bail or canister without his having to order it; rules that simulate grand tactics, but force players to choose what type of shot their batteries use are emphasizing tactics, which takes time away from Grand Tactics. The player should be playing on a higher level, more concerned with maneuvering unit types to important points, than whether or not his battalion was in a column of companies or a column of divisions. This is not to say that all tactics need to be eliminated from your game; only that they need to be more generalized and made to fit the new command level emphasis. For example, in my game, the Corps Commander does not need to write orders for regimental formations, and is allowed to make the formation changes for the regiments as they move. The regiments, at any given time, must be in a formation of line, column or square, but cannot be in more than one formation at a time; to have its flanks protected, or to be supported, it must rely on other regiments being moved to the right place. This system allows some formation variety and units can react differently to cavalry than to aitillery, but the emphasis is now on the maneuver of the regiment instead of on the battalion configuration within the regiment, or some other low-level tactical consideration. By deliberately limiting the tactical choices available, one can spend more time, thought and effort on Grand Tactics. In many articles of the "old" Courier, Bob Jones had pointed out the dangers of mixing command levels; if one tries to be both Battalion commander and Marshal, he ends up being neither! Once settled on the regiment as my basic unit, the number of figures to be used can be determined. Here, one must consider unit type, frontage and individual taste. Also, as Jim Getz pointed out in an "old" Courier article ("It's all Relative'') one must relate unit frontages to each other based on unit type. One also needs to examine the scale of miniature (for VIVE EMPEREUR!, 15mm) to see how best to create a basic unit, since your ground scale may work for 15mm, but may be unable to hold enough 25mm figures on the same frontage. I found that using one 15mm figure to represent 100 historical men fit my aesthetic sense (18 figures to a typical regiment), my ground scale, and my wallet -- since 200 figures could represent 20,000 men and, in 15mm, could cost under $50! In this article I've used examples from my own unpublished rules, but it should be noted that many of these approaches were matters of taste. It isn't important, for example, that you use a 10 turn game or a 30 turn game -- that's up to you -- what is important is that you recognize the need to plan ahead when designing your game concerning playability; you may need to eliminate, change or modify an otherwise "realistic" rule, if its use obscures the play of the game. Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. 1 #5 To Courier List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1980 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