In MWAN 107, I presented an article detailing efforts to reconstruct the Battle at Quatre Bras using the SHAKO rules. Due to a number of variables - foremost of which was my need to tinker with a set of perfectly good Napoleonic Wargame Rules - I drafted several amendments to those same rules. The majority of these amendments were "scenario driven." The remainder were based on my impressions, opinions and historical research of warfare during this period. The following paragraphs then, constitute a similar effort or approach. The rule I am changing or adding to is presented first, in summary form. The revision of that same rule follows, and is presented in italics. SHAKO establishes a move/countermove game; the side with the greater percentage of divisions under "attack orders" having the option of moving first (moving the first division, that is) (Section 3.2, page 3). It may well be argued that Prince Bagration's Advance Guard is a division. However, if I follow the historical course of the battle and delegate "attack orders" to his Advance Guard, then the Prince will always move first (100% of his units under those orders) and will always have the initiative. Therefore, instead of a calculation of what side has a greater percentage of units under "attack orders," I will use a simple initiative roll at the start of each turn. The winning side has the option of moving first or of reacting to the move(s) of their opponent. Generals and subordinates are essentially, "decorative pieces" on the SHAKO battlefield. In the basic rules, they cannot be attacked or killed. In the optional rules, there is a provision for losing these commanders in combat situations. (Section 4.0, page 4; Section 7.3, page 7; Section 14.0, page 28) A review of the order of battle and map for this historical replay shows that I have elected to represent not only Corps, Wing and Divisional Commanders, but the commanders of Brigades / Regiments as well. Each level of commander will have a "zone of control" as per the rules. The radius of this command will be determined by the type of command (division will have a greater reach than brigade, for example) and the impact or benefit of command will be determined by the quality of the commander. To be certain, any level of commander may be attacked and subsequently wounded, killed or captured by an enemy unit or units. If the commander - at any level - is not attached to a particular unit of his command (the stands are physically touching), that commander may evade contact by enemy forces by rolling anything but a 1 on a 10-sided die. On a roll of 1, the commander is considered captured. If the commander - at any level - is attached to a unit that has "Kills" scored against it by artillery or small arms fire, he may become a casualty. On a roll of 1 or 2 on a 10-sided die, the command group has been hit. On a subsequent roll of 1 or 2, the commander has been rendered "hors de combat." On rolls of 3 or 4, he is wounded. On any other roll, an unfortunate aide or subordinate has been killed or wounded. If the commander - again, at any level - is attached to a unit that suffers a "Fall Back" result, roll a 10-sided die to determine his fate. A score of 1 or 2 means that the commander was killed in the retreat; a score of 3 or 4 means that he was wounded; and a score of 5 or 6 means that he was captured. If the commander is attached to a unit that is "Broken" as a result of fire combat or melee, then the chances of death, wounding and capture are proportionately higher. A roll of 1-4 on a 10-sided die results in the demise of this commander; a roll of 5 or 6 results in his suffering a couple of wounds; and, a roll of 7 or 8 results in his capture by the victorious side. Section 14 of the SHAKO Rules also considers the effects of "Generalship" and "Inspiration" by commanders. I think this is an excellent idea, and have used similar tables or modifiers in previous wargames. At this particular stage in the project (it is Saturday, June 22, and the wargame has not yet been waged) I cannot state for certain that I will determine command modifiers for all the commands on the table. It certainly is worth thinking about, however. Kellermann, Murat and Claparede are just a few of the French officers that I believe would merit a positive command modifier. I do like the idea of and argument behind Section 7.0 of the SHAKO Rules. (Orders, page 6) As a solo wargamer, anything that can be used to take away from omniscience and "unrealistic reaction" is always welcomed. Section 7.3.2 covers the process involved in handling French Flank Marches. For the purpose of this historical replay, the Russians are the only side to "have" a Flanking Force. On Game Turn 1 then, the Russian Cavalry from V. Column, including attached artillery and Generals, will appear on the board and move toward the infantry of Caffarelli's Division. The Guard Jaegers will also appear and move toward the village of Blasowitz. On Turn 5, the 1100 hour, the Guard Fusilier Battalion with supporting battery will come on the field; also heading toward Blasowitz. I also like the concept of the Command Zone used by Division Generals. (Section 7.9, page 9) As mentioned previously, I don't think the historical deployment favors Bagration in this sense. (As the table is presently arranged, Bagration has only two Regiments of Musketeers within the 18 inch range cited in the rules.) Upon review, checking distances between Murat's present position and cavalry under his control, this leadership radius or command zone is not met either. Further, there is no penalty or negative modifier that is explained in this brief section for units that are outside of the 18 inch command zone. How to resolve this question? For purposes of this reconstruction, the personalities of Murat, Lannes, Bagration, von Essen II and Skepelov are just that: personalities. This is not to say they cannot influence the outcome of a melee or lead by inspiration. It is simply to remark that providing for both the historical accuracy of the deployments and the requirements of the command zone rule is not possible. Even if the radius for Marshals and higherechelon officers is extended to 24 inches, I still found units that were out of this zone. Brigade / Regimental Commanders then, have a command zone radius of 9 inches. Division Commanders / Generals have a command zone radius of 15 inches. If these commanders attach themselves to a particular unit in their command, the radius shrinks to 3 and 9 inches respectively. Units that are found to be out of the command zone radius of their respective command will fall back, facing the enemy, until they are within the command zone radius. (The exception here, again, based on the deployment as provided in the Bowden text, is that of the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Division. One battalion holds the village of Bosenitz. The other battalion is the garrison of The San ton. Not finding any indication to the contrary, I placed Claparede, the Brigade Commander, with the battalion holding Bosenitz.) The order of Movement has generally been covered in that the side that wins the initiative roll will determine the order of movement for that turn. (Section 8.0, pages 9-10) Borrowing an idea from Mr. Barry Hilton, ("Backing the Right Horse" appearing in the August 1999 issue of Wargames Illustrated, pages 34-38) Bagration and Lannes will roll another die to determine what percent of their commands will move on a particular game turn. (A quick count of Brigades and Regiments gives a total of 13 for both Russian and French. Artillery was included as a part of the command. For example, the Russian Horse of V. Column is comprised of one brigade of three regiments and supported by three stands of horse artillery. This is considered one command.) Each commander / player will roll a 10-sided die after initiative has been determined. On a roll of 1, Lannes may NOT move any commands. On a roll of 2-3, he may move 25% (3) of his commands. On a roll of 4-6, 50% (6) of the French commands may move. On a roll of 7-8, 75% (9) may move. And on a roll of 9 or 0 (read as 10), then all of the French units may move. For the Russians, a roll of 1-2 and NO units may move. On rolls of 3 or 4, 25% (3) units may move; on rolls of 5 to 7, 50% (6) units may move. On rolls of 8 or 9, 75% (9) units of the Russian Advance Guard may move. Finally, on a roll of 0, 100% of the units under Bagration et al, may advance. A variation on this idea, and one designed to wrest even more control away from the player, is to have the result of the movement roll enforced. That is to suggest, that if Lannes is "fortunate" to roll a 9 on the die, then he MUST MOVE EVERY UNIT in his command. Three basic battery types are recognized in the SHAKO Rules. These are Heavy Foot, Foot and Horse Artillery. (Section 9.1, pages 14-15) A review of the order of battle provided in the Bowden text shows French Horse Artillery Batteries with Bpd cannon, and Russian Horse Batteries with 10pd Licornes. • weight then, these batteries have the SHAKO range and power of Foot Batteries but will move as Horse Batteries. The captured Austrian light artillery of The Santon will be classed at Horse Artillery and have that range, but they will be considered as Foot Batteries for purposes of movement. The "occasion" of casualties from artillery fire or small arms fire is termed "Staggers" and or "Kills." (Section 9.4a, page 16 and Section 10, pages 17-19) To quote the SHAKO Rules directly, "A Stagger represents a number of casualties causing a unit's enthusiasm to flag temporarily. Staggered units receive a -1 to their Musketry and Melee die rolls. Additional Stagger results have no effect." In that same vein, "A Kill represents many casualties. (...) It is possible to Stagger a unit and not produce a Kill and the reverse is also true. (16) I am not sure I understand the reasoning behind limiting a unit to just one Staggered marker. It seems to me that a unit could take more than one of these results and suffer a corresponding loss of effectiveness. Though this number has not been playtested, I think that a unit could "earn" a maximum of three (3) Staggered markers. It would then have a minus three modifier to any die roll for musketry or melee. Additionally, if a Stagger result represents a number of casualties and a drop in morale and ability, then why doesn't a Kill result produce the same effect? Another way of phrasing this question would be, "why don't Kill results automatically produce a Staggered result?" Or even, "as the Kill result represents many casualties, why not a -2 modifier against the unit in subsequent musketry exchanges or melees?" On the other hand, I do see the "simplicity" of the system used in SHAKO. One can readily determine how many Kills a unit has taken and also determine if the unit is in a state of disorder. My idea seems to involve an amount of record keeping or at the very least, additional math when figuring musketry or melee. In fact, one could reach a point where a unit or units would be fighting with a negative final die roll (even if they roll a 6!) To a degree, this strikes me as realistic, for a unit that is being pummeled by artillery turn after turn, raked by volleys and sniped at by skirmishers could not remain an effective force for very long. Note: In this reconstruction, I plan on using Black chits or markers to indicate Kills. Red chits or markers will indicate Staggers or Staggered. On the subject of Counter Battery Fire (Section 9.4.1, page 17) the SHAKO Rules provide for relative ineffectiveness of such shooting. I would like to suggest that between the black and white of a Kill result or no effect whatsoever, that there be a gray area. This gray area (any roll of a modified 5) would result in the suppression of the enemy battery that is being targeted. The shooting player has the choice of marking the battery as suppressed so it cannot fire the next game move turn, or the player may elect to have the battery limber and withdraw a full move to the rear. To reflect a reduced effectiveness with cumulative loss, I would also propose that any battery of artillery with just one (1) Kill left until elimination, fires with a -1 modifier.  Bagration vs. Lannes Shako Treatment of Right of Austerlitz Introduction Russian OOB French OOB Terrain and Deployments Amendments and Additions Replay Commentary and Conclusion Back to MWAN # 120 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2002 Hal Thinglum 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