Legacy of Glory (LoG) represents an honest effort to make a breakthrough Napoleonic simulation. We had a number of specific goals: 1. We wanted playability while retaining the scale of one miniature figure representing 60 soldiers. Using battalions, regiments, and batteries as the basic maneuver elements, we wanted to refight the large battles of the period in the same amount of time the historical tactical events actually took (or less). By including the infantry battalion and cavalry regiment we avoided a design copout as well as providing for the dozens of fascinating smaller battles of the period. 2. We wanted a system that intrinsically demonstrated the chaotic carnage of Napoleonic combat. The dramatic ebb and flow of the period should be reflected and explained through our model. The simulation should provide keen insight into history, and vice versa. 3. We hoped to provide players with the experience and accurate challenges of Napoleonic corps and army command. The system enforces a realistic perspective upon the players without diminishing the aesthetic enjoyment of the miniature figures themselves. 4. We sought to build an unparalleled psychological model of Napoleonic command as well. Players suffer the tension and uncertainty of battle. True friction of war should exist, as things go wrong, exact timing and coordination are difficult to achieve. It takes courage to stick to your plan. Your troops will perform like masses of men do in combat, with heroism and cowardice, and they will seem to have a mind of their own. wn. Battles should arrive at true morale breaking points. 5. Finally, because LoG is so different, we want to present here the dispute we have with "old model"  miniatures rules systems, and explain some of the many ways we sought to avoid those same pitfalls. Time and the Old Models The handling of time has generally plagued miniatures rules of all periods. From the 1960's to today, most rules focus on movement and firing (i.e., tactical combat) as the primary concern and activity. At wargame conventions, most miniature games we've observed consist of ruler-wielding players, moving troops straight ahead, (generally in 6"-12" lurches) until they can shoot or melee. Grand tactical planning for such battles generally consists of massing some troops in one area hoping to overwhelm the enemy before he can do the same to you. In this sort of game, troops spend all their time moving and firing until they basically either rout or triumph. The battle is decided in one slow rush. The defenders get to make all sorts of adjustments as they watch the attackers moving ever so slowly and steadily toward them - what suspense! Time and distance relationships seem to be an afterthought in such rules sets. Movement, firepower, and casualty rates all seem to be calculated using different amounts of time than the time scale claimed to be represented by one game turn. As others have noted, how many times have we read things like "the movement and fire rates are based on two to five minutes of time, and the designer doesn't claim to account for the other fifteen minutes of the turn." It's sad how often we accepted such rationalizations without demanding to know what the troops were doing with the rest of their time. Indeed, it would be almost embarrassing to historically evaluate the amount of movement most games allow per turn. The truth is that most of the old model games simply can't handle realistic troop capabilities. The old rules system isn't built for it. Now consider this: If the time scale within a tactical turn is out of whack, what then is the overall effect when you multiply those discrepancies by several turns? What does this do to the overall model of a battle? The answer here is relatively self-evident. If your basic time block is arbitrary and inaccurate, your battles will suffer accordingly. If you examine many Napoleonic miniatures games, what you see fails to represent the dramatic feel of a Napoleonic battle. No ebb and flow, no large scale rallies, no surprising or stunning manoeuvre, no loss of control, no real sense of crisis. This shortcoming most often stems from an initial design failure to adequately consider and represent time. And that structural failure hopelessly compromises everything that follows. This design failure means that the fascinating balance of combined arms in the Napoleonic period cannot be realistically reflected. The relative powers of the infantry, cavalry, and artillery will be invariably distorted. The problem here is not just combat modifiers. The design perspective of moving and firing as the central focus of a game is essentially a warped one for a grand-tactical level play. Directing tactical combat is usually the last thing a corps or army commander does. Historically, troops spent the majority of their time waiting. The actual "life expectancy" of a Napoleonic division in combat is probably from twenty minutes to an extreme of two hours. Troops burn out fast. In an eight- to ten-hour battle then, it's reasonable to assume that even troops in the front line generally spent only a fraction of their time shooting or moving. The Legacy of Glory Model The primary focus of Legacy of Glory is to reflect the true concerns of army and corps command: Guessing and second- guessing; planning; communicating and ordering; deploying brigades, divisions, and artillery; contending with smoke, carnage, and confusion; restoring order; committing fresh troops and reserves; and, as probably a last resort, actually leading men into combat. Properly done, this type of game should be more exciting and more realistic. In short, we decided to make our model using the perspective of command from the top down. Time Some of the best ideas on real- time and game-time relationships came from George Jeffrey's "Variable Length Bound," where timing considerations really became the game itself, and tactical combat is of secondary concern. Scott Bowden's Empire III also deserves great praise for its development of the grand-tactical level of play, the creation of an appropriate scale, and for its many daring concepts and creative mechanics such as the "TimeTelescoping" idea. Also, our collective understanding of the Napoleonic battlefield has increased exponentially through the research efforts of EE&L over the past ten years. As game designers, we thought the least we should do was try to develop concepts that kept up with this research, and to present all this new knowledge in game form. At any rate, a fresh approach was essential. Time is also relative, and in that sense what is generally more important on battlefields is not the precise minute of an event, but rather its sequence relative to other events: What happens first, how long does it take, what is the response, and who gets there next? Furthermore, how quickly does news of an event reach a commander, and how long does it take for him to make a decision and inform the troops? Time, distance, and line- ofsight were all variables in the historical battlefield equation, and they became the key variables in our command-control and order sequencing charts. For an overall time structure, we created what we call the "GrandBattle Turn (GBT)," which represents two hours of real time, and a "cycle" of grand-tactical combat in LoG. Army and corps commanders made decisions based on a decisions based on a large construct of time, and thus, they had to anticipate moves. We divide this Grand Battle Turn into six 20-minute tactical bounds (TACS) to measure time more evenly and steadily, with smoother shifts from one phase to another. Orders take time to implement, and thus the tactical situation almost always changes significantly between the time orders are written and the moment they are executed. In LoG there is no exploitation of "frozen units." Most other rules systems remind us of the child's game "freeze"Ä the turn ends abruptly, and before another shot is fired, a full order sequence takes place, large- scale movement is implemented, and commanders try to take advantage of "frozen" units' tactical dilemmas. In LoG, players sometimes find that what looks like a stroke of genius when they write an order becomes, by the time it is implemented, a disaster. Far too many games are structured such that orders are implemented immediately after they are written (if they "pass"). This is problematic for an era without electronic communications. We see delay as the essential Napoleonic operational problem, not absolute order failure, which is a rare historical occurrence. The Russians and Austrians generally followed orders - it just took them so damn long to do it! Most games that use order- giving represent some commands as having a high rate of failure; as high as 70% failure rate, an incredible level of incompetence which is not justifiable historically. How could such an obvious characteristic of command and control - the delay in giving, receiving, and acting on orders - be ignored so long by designers? Command Control To restrict the player- commander within realistic parameters, we developed a command point system that limits his ability to influence events across the board. Generally, the better the commander and his staff was historically, the more command points you get, although there is a dice roll involved, with modifiers for such things as placing your commander figure in a superior vantage point. To offer a simple explanation of the LoG system, players can use their command points to write orders, or use their- commander figures to intervene tactically (rallying, inspiring, leading, directing). At the beginning of the Grand Battle Turn, command points are restored after orders are written. Therefore, if a commander elects to conduct several "tactical" activities during a GBT, he won't have many command points left over to implement and execute orders at the beginning of the next GBT since he hasn't been monitoring the overall battle. Player-commanders must spend command points judiciously. In LoG a careless commander can lose control of a battle by getting caught up doing too many tactical things and by not paying enough attention to managing the battle. Anticipation and planning are essential to conserve command points. Giving formal, precise orders is critical as they define the action. Additionally, your division and brigade commanders play their part in implementing these orders. Delays can produce temporary set-backs or even disasters. Superior staff work can be decisive. The enemy commander may beat you to the punch, or launch an unexpected move that changes the complexion of the battle. Tension and uncertainty are hallmarks of LoG. Tactical Resolution and Exaggerated Player-Control Again, our goal was to limit player control of events they couldn't really influence historically. Yet, we wanted players to have the fun of watching the results and consequences of their grand-tactical decision making and deployments upon the tactical level. We also wanted to reflect the tactical capabilities and decisions of divisional and brigade commanders. In other words, your subordinates should do their jobs for you. You don't have to worry so much about tactical decisions. Lastly, when player- commanders do intervene tactically, we wanted all the events to be represented on the table for them to "find." Thus, Wellington can seek shelter in an infantry square, and Napoleon might well stop and sight a battery. Players fighting a Napoleonic battle should not have modern-style radio control and the ability to coordinate units separated by significant distances on the battlefield. On the other hand, we eliminated from LoG the excessive amount of tactical decision making required by many other grandtactical rules sets which in old model systems not only warp the entire perspective of the game, but increase complexity and playing time. Two seldom discussed but important problems emerge by allowing players to have too much tactical control in miniatures games: 1. The Beginner's Dilemma In all other rules systems we've seen, beginners not only suffer from inexperience at the senior command levels, but the rules "lawyers" and veteran gamers can assert their dominance at every other level as well. In Legacy of Glory, a player- commander's subordinatesÄas well as the substantial framework of the rules Ä protect and prevent beginners from being humiliated at every level of command. In fact, beginners can beat experienced players. Historical knowledge and insight should be worth at least as much as knowledge of the rules. When the difference in player ability with the rules is less important, the simulation results become more historical: a poor quality regiment under a "veteran" corps commander no longer defeats a seasoned regiment under a beginning player. 2. The Extension of Will and the Problem of Egos When a player is allowed too much control in a wargame, he is encouraged to identify his miniatures as a direct extension of his ego. Tactical combat then becomes petty competition. All perspective gets lost. Arguments abound as players get upset and tend to up the "ante" with bogus manoeuvres, thus destroying the fragile spirit of most rules sets in the intense pursuit of victory. Since Legacy of Glory imposes a historical perspective, we can actually improve the atmosphere and sportsmanship of our simulations. In LoG, your ego isn't at stake, and you can legitimately blame your set-backs on your subordinates or the lack of resolve of your troops. Action/Reaction Move (ARM) Versus Move/Counter Move (MCM) The design con-cept of allowing you to move your forces while your opponent simply watches, then he gets to make his counter move while you watch (standard in many boardgames), is an inferior game mechanic. However, because the MCM has become so widely- accepted, most wargamers never stop and question it. In the basic move/counter move system, one side is unfettered (active), and the other is relatively frozen (passive) except for perhaps minor formation changes, reaction fire, and opportunity charges. Basically, the MCM system works such that you inflict maximum damage on your opponent, then he inflicts maximum damage on you, in alternating sequences. Obviously, this type of game mechanism only exacerbates the aforementioned "Extension of Will and the Problem of Egos." Movecounter move is inherently given to excessive competitiveness, rules manipulation, and unrealistic levels of player-control. Even worse, from a simulation perspective, MCM looks least like a battle. Why shouldn't a defender get an equal opportunity to take the initiative, and be encouraged to be just as active and aggressive as an attacker? Why should an assault have to freeze every other phase and become passive? We're talking about simultaneous events here. Where is the existence of move/counter move in history? Legacy of Glory employs a unique system to replicate the effects of simultaneity in tactical combat. We call it the action/reaction move (ARM) system. In ARM, an assault keeps moving until it is defeated, or until it runs out of "impetus." Defending units are permitted a wide range of reactions which realistically prevent the attacker from seeking a series of unrealistic tactica1 advantages. The defender can wrest the initiative away from the attacker by launching a successful counter- assault, or by committing some cavalry. A defensive deployment may never need to be "active" to winÄin other words, it's possible that a defender might never "move" in the conventional sense, and still win the battle. The action-reaction move system also reflects the true ebb and flow of Napoleonic combat. Attacks run out of steam and sit exposed to counterattacks that sweep forward and throw them back. The counterassault may keep going until it too runs out of momentum and recoils. Cavalry covers ground fast, and seizes the moment, either crashing through the enemy or perhaps dissolving upon solid enemy squares. Objectives can change hands the way they historically did. Commanders keep feeding men into the battle, and the key objectives are fought over with savage fury. The last one to have and commit fresh troops generally wins the day. Deployment Many Napoleonic rules sets ignore historical deployments. Legacy of Glory was built upon them. That's why LoG looks like a Napoleonic battle and the other games often don't. Most rules don't reflect why Napoleonic armies deployed in such depth, and thus their games become narrow, dense lines of battalions in close proximity to each other, blazing away for long periods of game time. Again, part of this unhistorical simulation goes back to the mishandling of time and distance relationships. To put it simply, depth buys you critical time, both tactically, from wave to wave, and grand tactically, from front line divisions to the reserve brigades. "Old model" systems just don't have the scope to reflect this. Mechanically, Legacy of Glory shows why and how troops deployed the way they did, and what were the various consequences of using certain formations. Proper historical deployment is inherently rewarded by the LoG system. Players also learn that deployment took a great deal of time, and that any operational planning has to consider that crucial factor. The Criticisms 1. "Legacy of Glory is too hard." Yes, Legacy of Glory does take more effort to learn than old model games. In retrospect, we might have found ways to make the rules more "user friendly" and done better editing ("beginner's errors"). We also could have cut down on the amount of rules innovations and stuck to familiar concepts, but that would have defeated our entire reason for creating LoG. We refused to take a cynical axe to history. Respectful of our intended audience, we felt we owed the hobby an honest effort. Lastly, while some complex rules systems don't offer much satisfaction playing them after you've done the work necessary to master them, we believe Legacy of Glory will more than amply repay your initial efforts to learn the rules. 2. "I looked at the rule book, but I don't get it." You won't be able to envision or appreciate the game simply by reading the rules. It must be played a couple of times. The system has many, many subtleties. If you want to try LoG, you're going to have to commit a weekend or two getting your feet wet. 3. "We don't want to take the trouble to learn yet another set of Napoleonic rules." Some gamers just aren't ready for something new, and look for excuses not to do it. They are comfortable with old model wargaming, and don't share our dissatisfaction with it. That's OK; different gainers, different styles, different preferences. 4. "Simple games are more fun than realistic ones." We have a difficult time understanding this perspective. Our hobby is not well served by this minimalist trend, nor by the stridency with which some people in wargaming are advocating this view. We should be promoting respect for history, and playable simulations can do that far better than simple "beer and pretzels" games can. Furthermore, a good playable simulation is infinitely more rewarding and stimulating than a game. Games don't encourage you to read history, because, unfortunately, a player who masters old model rules can usually beat the player who knows his history. A good simulation, on the other hand, fosters a productive and even symbiotic relationship between the wargamer and his study of history, as one pursuit enlightens the other. We are witnessing a troubling trend in the hobby: Slick marketing and packaging wrapped around less and less history. While we discuss simulating Napoleon's battles, perhaps we should not forget the fable of the Emperor's new clothes. In the long run, less is less, and we better have the courage to say so. Post Script We are committed to improving LoG. We have published three newsletters with new rules, errata, and clarifications, and these are free to all purchasers. We will be releasing a new and improved set of bound charts which greatly illuminates, simplifies, and speeds up the game, making it more fun to play and easier to teach and to learn. The new charts should also make it possible for players to achieve our goal of playing in "real" time or less. For those of you willing to try LoG, you're going to be pleasantly surprised, and possibly amazed. With our new campaign rules and revamped charts, the game is only going to get better. Back to Empire, Eagles, & Lions Table of Contents Vol. 2 No. 8 Back to EEL List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1994 by Emperor's Headquarters 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