Arty's "Stand Games" Review

Shako'ed, but not Stirred:
Review of the New Napoleonic Rules Set

by John G. Curran

Game Rules Summary
Scales: Two scales provided, a "corps-level" game in which the units represent battalions or regiments. and an "army-level" game in which the units are divisions.
Men: No direct figure to men equivalent A battalion of 400 - 800 is represented by 3 (or if large battalions, 4) stands on which air number of castings may be placed.
Time: 1 turn equals 20- 30 minutes
Ground: No exact equivalent specified_ Infantry moves 6 inches in line. 9 inches in column. Small arms range is 6 inches. Foot artillery fires to 36 inches. ("Canister" range is 18 inches).
The designer notes that the artillery and musketry scales are distorted "to allow for proper relationships between fire and movement on the tabletop."
[Note that depending on basing. a standard 3 stand battalion will be from 2 1/4 incites (Napoleon's Battles) to 3 3/8 inches (Empire ?) wide in line. As a rough guide in the era of the smoothbore musket the effective range of small arms was roughly the same as the span of a battalion in line. Therefore the relationship does indeed seem distorted.]

Sequence of Play:
1. Artillery fire (simultaneous).
2. Movement (alternates firing side to side by division; side with more divisions :eider attack orders has movement option)
3. Small Arms Fire (simultaneous; skirmishers first)
4. Melee (simultaneous)
5. Command phase (change orders, rally; check morale)

Opinionated Diatribe:

I recently had the opportunity to play Shako courtesy of David Lnch (thank you Dave) who staged a game at the' Adventurer's Guild hobby shop in Riverside. Although I approached this game with some skepticism. I - as the actress said to the bishop - enjoyed the experience more than I expected. Four of us played, with three divisions a side, French and Saxons versus Austrians and Prussians. It took only 3 - 4 hours to reach a conclusion. As you might expect, much thinking has gone into the system and the resultant design decisions are often elegant. The rules have undergone thorough playtesting, which is reflected in few ambiguities. (One example of ambiguity - it was not clear how to treat artillery in different cases during battle. We ended up treating them as skirmishers for fire, and as a formed unit for melee).

The system is similar to some recent designs. (e.g. the DBA M R family, Volley and Bayonet. etc.). In other words no longer are number of figures important. but instead the stand (or the whole unit) acts as the basis of combat strength. Although the number of castings on each stand may be carefully specified b\ these rules, the actual number in combat is irrelevant. (Specifying the number of figures on a stand may aid recognition - a perfectly valid requirement that often speeds up the game.)

The game is quick. In Shako when a line battalion receives 4 hits (its frontal Morale Rating) it breaks and removed from the game. Skirmishers in the open contacted by cavalry are gone immediately - no die roll. ;{Shades of old board gaming, Ed).; There are both division level and corps level morale rolls. triggered by the loss of a percentage of battalions or divisions respectively. Fail the division roll and it goes over to the defensive for the rest of day. Fail the corps level roll and the game is effective) over.

Considerable thought has gone into the command control rules. A division can operate under only three orders - attack. defend and reserve. The latter two are straightforward; the attack order however reflects an interesting approach. If a division is to be under an attack order the commander must first draw, on a sketch map of the battlefield, an arrow that represents the line of advance to be followed by the division (the division HQ must track the line exactly while the regiments and battalions stay within a certain radius). At the arrow point the advance ends and the division goes over to the defense until it receives new orders. A morale failure secondary to casualties en route also may trigger a change to defend orders. It is difficult to get the assault going again as a new order has to come from corps HQ (which is stationary).

Various factors (no aide-de camp to hand, distance to division, delay in implementation) combine to make order changes require careful planning. The French, as usual, have an advantage in this respect - a new order takes effect immediately: the Allies after one turn.

Disadvantages

There are serious disadvantages of the "stand combat' system. One is that strange distortions creep in contrary to one's usual expectations of Napoleonic warfare. For example in Shako combat is decided by opposing die rolls, adding the attacker and defender's Morale Rating (MR) respectively. This is a little bizarre when cavalry attack a square. A line battalion has a frontal MR. of 4. while a cavalry regiment has a flank MR. of 2 (the flank MR. is used in certain adverse conditions, e.g., if attacked on the flank or cavalry attacking a square). The difference is therefore 2. Both sides roll 6sided dice so quick mathematics will show that the cavalry has a 1 in 6 (16.66%) chance of breaking the square (i.e., if the square rolls "1", the cavalry w in on a "4,5 or 6", if "2" on a or "6". etc.). This is high compared to the actual success rate of the period. Presumably the designer would argue that no one is going to risk damaging a series of cavalry regiments for a 1 in 6 chance. This is what Richard Berg calls "design-for-effect." and is of course a valid approach. However when you are watching cavalry attacking your square guarding the flank with a 1 in 6 chance of breaking it, you may anxious. Wellington didn't have these worries.

Another "unusual feel" situation is in respect of skirmishers. A skirmisher light battalion is represented by a single wide stand.. equal in width to a reoular battalion in line. Yet the formalities of movement in line are then imposed on the skirmishers - the single battalion cannot bend around the flanks for example. During movement the skirmishers must wheel as if a formed unit in line (than simply moving in a "flowing" fashion as some rules allow). Though units in the game are battalions. there are no independent rifles companies - instead the ratio of lights volitgeurs rifles are calculated and you receive one skirmisher unit (i.e.. a single wide stand) in a certain ratio (usually 1 to 4) depending on year and nationality. Whether this "loss of feel" is important is a matter of individual taste.

For example in Napoleons Battles many people are prepared to sacrifice historical detail because they get an enjoyable and quick game in return. I am not of the school that thinks Empire or some similar confection is holy grail: all our systems are games. but clearly sonic offer greater historical insight than others. How much history versus how much game is a matter of personal preference. We probably would all wish for the maximum of both, a very elusive synthesis.

Another downside to this method is that there is a strong resemblance to board wargames. A unit in these systems is the equivalent of a counter, "hits` equal "steps" and the values for attack and defense (termed "morale ratings' in Shako) are essentially identical with "attack factor' and "defense factor." (Eventually it may become too irksome expensive to paint set up figures. and instead one will again turn to board games [e.g.. the Clash of Arms `La Bataille" series]). The gain kith this type of miniature rule set is a cleaner flow and 'a decisive result within a reasonable time. but we lose in part the effect of "playing with individual miniature solders. For example. In an actual battle, the "Die-hards, " (4th battalion, the 57th Foot) fought on until they lost 75° o at Albucra. but in this game that is not p'ssible. Four hits and the 57th leaves. No real opportunity for that gallant "against the odds" stand.

The third disadvantage that exists in the current generation of "stand-combat " games. (in my opinion - see title above) is a serious failure of design. Board wargames are designed in somewhat large increments when compared to miniature games. This applies not just to combat, but also to movement. Thus combat results are clear-cut as is movement. You move 4 hexes and are either next to the enemy or not. There is no ambiguity.

This is not so in the "stand-combat" type of miniature game where the movement is the time honored "inches or similar. and this is where the largest design flaw occurs in the current generation of "stand-combat games. Combat (and morale) is clear cut: movement remains fraught with ambiguity. and offers plenty of opportunity for argument. as our game proved.

We had now reached the critical moment. I had damaged an Austrian light division such that the loss of another unit would almost certainly send it flying. On the other flank the Prussians had beaten up our right wing division such that it also was close to its withdraw al. In other words each side would face a probable game-ending corps morale roll depending on which division failed first.

At this point I had an opportunity to charge skirmishers in the open. Contact would automatically eliminate them. forcing a divisional withdrawal roll, which. if adverse, would trigger a corps morale roll. probably ending the game. Still ever-thing came down to those fractions of an inch. I needed to wheel a small amount at the start of my charge move (wheeling is only allowed at the beginning of a charge). As wheeling costs double it became a fierce argument about how much wheel was required to contact. Too much and I could not reach the skirmishers. Although everyone likes a close game that is not decided until the last moment, it is no joy to have the outcome become based on a back and forth heated discussion over the measurement of fractions of an inch.

Overall though. this is a well designed. playable set of rules into which much thought and work have bee spent. I would suggest that anyone with an interest in Napoleonic wargaming should try them.

Arty's "Stand Games" Reviews

Back to Table of Contents The Messenger December 1995
Back to The Messenger List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 1995 by HMGS/PSW.
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com