LeGrand Tactique

A Grand Tactical Simulation
of Napoleonic Warfare

review by H. Jarosak

LeGrand Tactique: A Grand Tactical Simulation of Napoleonic Warfare. Available from The Last Reserve, Box 4596, Helena, Mt., 59601.

Designers: Mark Mackin, James Mackin, Randy Strum. 61/8" x 9" looseleaf booklet, 80pp. rules, 78 pp. auxilary material, diagrams, 3 small illustrations, 2 sets of 2 thick card player summary sheets, published 1983.

According to its designers, LGT grew out of the disatisfaction of the Helena Gaming Group with existing Napoleonic rules. Their criticism centers primarily on "complexity", "lack of detail", and problerns with the "internal consistency of the rules," resulting from "poor design concepts", "hasty writing", "little or no proofreading," "inadequate research," and "inadequate personal preconceptions."

Their original objective being to modify some existing sets, the Helena designersseen developed a complete new set. They define playablilty as:

"the ability of two players to resolve a corps vs. corps scenario of 25,000 per side in 3-4 hours f rom start of tu rn one to agreement of resolution. Larger battles will require one additional hour per corps involved with one experienced player in command of each corps."

The objective of LGT is a set of rules that can be learned in two games, reflecting the "tactical ebb and flow of Napoleonic battle in a Grand Tactical context " "tactically realistic" yet allowing Grand Tactical results.

To gain a fair appraisal of the rules, I invited the local group to game them. We entered the situation with positive attitudes, but as we turned to the sequence of play, problems began immediately. We found that the card reference sheets, having only the move sequence, lacked a complete sequence of play. But it was when we tried to make the roster up that attitudes really took a turn. The samples and instructions were unfathomable.

LGT features tactical and Grand Tactical order writing, initiative rolls, gunnery rating by nationality, simultaneous movement, special concentrated artillery fire, command control, segmented cavalry charge moves, morale grades based on troop quality, special unit capabilities, and casualty and ammo rosters.

The rules set begins with a good description of Napoleonic warfare. It is presented in a clecimalized format, which provides major rules accompanied by subordinate ideas. The designers have included organizational information on the major nations (France, Peninsula British-Portuguese, Waterloo Anglo-Allied, Russia, Prussia, Austria, and Spain), diagrams of possible Napoleonic formations, and a glossary. Cordially, they invite questions from readers.

LGT is presented in a looseleaf format, which clearly benefits the wargamer in his not having to purchase the proverbial Nth edition at a later date. In this concept, the designers clearly have the gamer in mind.

Except for various formulae, there are no new mechanisms of play. The rules reflect wholesale borrowing from other sets and developing them into this framework. For instance, there is the familiar ability of a unit to voluntarily rout at any time to avoid impending disaster! I've always felt this was artificial, an example of excessive player control where good morale rules should perform the function.

LGT purports to merge GT and Tactical features of play. This is a difficult objective to achieve if we consider that GT involves division or corps level command for each player, thus representing the broad sweep of the battlefield, while tactics emphasizes the intricacies of organization, facing, and firing. Too general an approach can result in players' missing the flavor of the period. LGT doesn't seem to know where it wants to go in this respect, although the designers tell us to remember that "this is a GT game conducted with tactical finesse by corps and division Co's."

We are told that the game will allow two players controlling 25,000 troops each to reach an "agreement of resolution" within 3-4 hours, allowing an hour for each additional corps placed on the table. The designers claim that their game adapts to any scale and that the number of figures per stand is unimportant. We are given the turn-time as twenty minutes and ground scale as 1" = 40 yards, but the figure scale remains elusive. Roster system notwithstanding I believe every game should contain a figure ratio scale to enable the player at least to conceptualize the game's scope. LGT measures casualties in terms of "SP's" for Strength Points. in the glossary we find "SP's" representing approximately 20 infantry or cavalry and 10 artillerymen.

Traditionally a 1/20 scale is a tactical game! The designers allow us to break down infantry battalions and artillery into companies and sections, admittedly to fight only battalion-level games not above brigade strength on either side. The designers inform us that the rules are best used in engagements not exceeding 30,000 (1500 figures) per side. A few lines down, however, we are told that a very experienced player can handle 2 or 3 corps and in another place that LGT concentrates on simulating 1-3 corps-sized battles of 20,000-60,000 combatants or higher. This represents 3000 figures if the player games the literal 1120 scale!

The designers say that the rules work well with System 7, in which counters represent units, or any number of figures per base. If the player scales down the number of figures, the rules might work as promised. For the player who likes to represent the number of troops per game scale, this could be a problem.

While features like screening from fire are carefully discussed, the main formulae for fire are vague. The formula, (Heavy fire x FPF x Firer status x target status) - cover = Modified FPF, and how it relates to the Main Casualty Chart is poorly explained. Examples might have allowed us to more confidently muddle through. The three examples at the end of the book demonstrate the flow of play rather than illuminate the formulae. There were also problems with the morale table, such as how one recovers from a shaken status as opposed to disorganization.

The $15.00 price tag seems stiff for what you get-an undecorated looseleaf book containing only small illustrations within the text. Printing costs are high to be sure, and rules writing takes a lot of time, but compare other available sets of rules.

After hours of pouring through LGT, I've concluded that the disappointment lies not in their being an ill-conceived set. LGT has good potential. Rules are difficult to write and organize to make them comprehensible to the new player. The designer cannot assume that everyone finds his rules as clear as he does.

Cutting through the problems, these rules appear to have very playable and enjoyable features. They can be salvaged and should not be discounted by the wargaming public. The authors should take advantage of their own looseleaf format and revise the afflicted parts.

Every rules writer should base his set's organization on the ACW rules JOHNNY REB (Adventure Games) by John Hill. These are the most well organized larger wargame rule sets I've ever seen. The LGT designers should incorporate a complete sequence of play table on the reference sheet, put examples of play after every major rule involving formulae, provide a victory-determi nation system and include an index keyed specifically to the rules. They should also reconsider the price, even if it means excluding the looseleaf booklet (allowing the player to purchase one).

The wargamer should watch for a revised and corrected set of LGT.

Reviewer Personal Note: I have been wargaming since 1973 (boardgames long before). I am a consultant to EMPIRES, EAGLES AND LIONS, a contributor to the INTERNATIONAL MILITARY ENCYCLOPEDIA, a member of the Company of Military Historians, and the Civil War Roundtable.

THE REVIEW OF LE GRANDE TACTIQUE - A REBUTTAL

We appreciate the Courier having printed Mr. Jarosak's review of The Last Reserves' first publication, LE GRANDE TACTIQUE (LGT); and would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Jarosak for his trouble and to respond to his evaluation.

Our reaction to the review felt much like the review read. We found things we liked and some that left us confused. Many of his questions are easily cleared up.

Mr. Jarosak writes: To gain a fair appraisal of the rules, I invited the local group over to game them... problems began immediately. We have played three different sets of Napoleonic rules beside our own. Each time the first experience was confusion, eased only if an experienced person was there to give guidance. We understand the frustration involved. We are in error for not explicitly stating that LGT cannot be played from reference cards without familiarity with the text. The cards are a quick reference to the most used data and not an abbreviated rules text. Two games are usually needed before a player can use only the cards. if a group tried to use only the cards without familiarity with the rules, difficulty was inevitable.

We left the turn sequence off the cards deliberately. There is a very complete turn flow chart on page 4 of the introduction. The turn sequence is so straightforward and logical that after two games it will be memorized.

Mr. Jarosak also writes: LGT purports to merge (Grand Tactical) and tactical features of play. ... (LGT) doesn't seem to know where it wants to go. In LGT, command control is the Grand-tactical aspect of the game. Divisions and Brigades are maneuvered and committed as if they were single units. Players are the decision makers at Corps and Division level. Combat is resolved at the battalion level. Players also make the decisions for formation and fire for these units - BUT once troops are committed the number of rational choices becomes extremely limited.

We hold that the flavor and appeal of Napoleonics (and miniatures) lies in the tactical interplay of arms. We left that in LGT and elevated the command control and deployment functions to the Grand Tactical level. LGT resides at the "break point" between the tactical and Grand-tactical domains.

As to the roster problems mentioned by our reviewer, we may not have provided enough "how to" instruction for players. This is the first complaint we have had on it, but a re-reading of our text convinces us that it could be more complete. A new "Setup" section will be written.

The reviewer claims that there are no new mechanisms or concepts of play. May we call his attention to: the Semi-Simultaneous Movement Sequencing, compatibility with ANY figure scale or organization, the infantry combat team concept, the overrun rule (long used in board games but wherein Napoleonics?), gun calibre negating cover effect, and more. We hope that none of the difficulty Mr. Jarosak and company experienced was due to an assumption that they knew how LGT worked without having thoroughly examined it!

The reviewer could not find the "figure scale". The rules state on page3 of the Introduction and on page 2 of Appendix C that there is no figure scale and that any size of figure can be used. In LGT the strength of any unit depends upon the measured frontage, in inches, of the figure bases or stands; or, in System 7, the printed number of strength points. The miniature serves only to define the nationality and type of unit. We evidently compounded Mr. Jarosak's confusion when we mentioned in the glossary that a strength point equals 20 men. Perhaps he assumed this was our figure scale.

The only scales needed are given on page 3 of the Introduction. For example, 3-rank infantry are 5/32" frontage per strength point. A 2" figure base will accommodate four 25mm figures. At a 1/20 figure-to-man ratio this would equal 80 men. The same 2" base has 64/32" of frontage. Thisequals at least 12 strength points or 240 men. The difference in calculation accounts for the 300% error Mr. Jarosak made in the number of figures required. If the players never understood this, then we doubt they were able to get a game started!

Mr. Jarosak makes a valid point about our fire formula. We do need at least one example. The problem is not the vagueness referred to, but the mathematical precision we used to avoid confusion or argument. This has been mentioned by others. They resolved it by following a fire problem through the charts. We will put examples in the errata.

We still do not understand the problems with the morale tables. "Shaken" and "Disorganized" are degrees of morale status. One turn stationary will bring the unit back from "Disorganized" to "Shaken" and another will restore it to "Fresh". An example was provided.

Mr. Jarosak regards the optional "voluntary rout" rule as artificial. We agree. When playing with people who can maturely accept the consequences of their decisions we do not use it. LGT was written with this kind of playability problem in mind.

A victory determination system was recommended. We have one and plan to submit it as an article.

The Table of Contents is the index Mr. Jarosak requests. it is laid out in turn sequence rather than alphabetical order.

We have anticipated the recommendations to revise LGT: Feedback from others causes us to disagree that the revision needed is as great as Mr. Jarosak suggests. We have an errata in the works, and this review has been helpful in directing our attention to real and possible problems. We welcome any specific suggestions from any party.

Mr. Jarosak also questions our $15 price. Our dollar-for-value analysis of popular Napoleonic rules found LGT second only to Ned Zuparko's. Mr. Zuparko's rules are oriented entirely to the Grand Tactical Mega-Battle. Others with less value were selling at $20. Incidentally, the $15 includes all errata and revisions as long as we have your correct address.

Again, we thank Mr. Jarosak for taking the time to review LE GRANDE TACTIQUE and giving us the advantage of his opinion.

- MARK MACKIN

More Reviews

Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. V #4
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1984 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