Deception is Such an Ugly Word...Let's Just Say All is Not as it Appears One of the problems in hosting games is getting players to think like commanders and not like gamers. Inevitably, if you tell them the game is such and such a battle, the mental tome of information skips to braincell number "x" and starts loading in a number of preconceptions--force strengths, terrain, times of arrival, and so on. And if we place this historical simulation upon a single tabletop, well, you can add helicopter views and perfect intelligence to the mix. Sure enough, most Napoleonic re-creations on the tabletop tend to downplay the friction and fog of war so often encountered in written tomes of Napoleonic lore. Off the battalions go, shoulder to shoulder under the complete and mostly competent aura of millimeter precision. And they often move to rules as precise as the measurements. And while I can appreciate the exactitude of my formations and see the strict accounting of enemy casualties, I would appreciate a little more uncertainty...a little more confusion...a little more chaos. Years ago, and long-time MWAN readers may remember, I sat down to write a set of Napoleonic rules to create not only a denser fog of war, but a situation that maximizes commander friction. Snappy Nappy was the result, and if the first version in 1993 was, well, to be kind, promising, the concepts were sound enough. Over the years, I tinkered with the system, with anywhere from 8 to 15 people stomping across a tabletop Europe in my basement. I ran the latest version on Dec 28, 2002, smack dab in the holiday season (8 players arrived for a scenario designed for 20! Guess I'll think twice in throwing a big game over future holidays!). Russ' Rules I have a very straightforward philosophy for simulating a period: big games, simple rules, period flavor, and everybody does something. Big Games: One on one games are fine, and I play lots of those, along with two on two, and so on. But I like the idea of larger groups playing the same game, where each individual's contribution may be small, but the right person doing the right move at the right time has impact. You don't need "idiot rules" when 10 players are on a side--there's one in every crowd. Of course, I am not ashamed to admit that I have been that "idiot" on more than one occasion. And the more players per side, the more chaos inherent in getting the entire group to behave as one well-oiled machine. Simple Rules: Simple does not mean stupid. Simple means that the average history buff can grasp the mechanics of the 4 "M"s (move, musket, melee, and morale) quickly and spend more time figuring out operational strategy instead of deciphering charts. Snappy Nappy contains all charts on one side of one page. Period. And mostly in reasonable 10 and 12-point type, too. Snappy Nappy used to have its rules on (gasp!) two sides, but years of playtesting winnowed the important from the unused. The mark of a good set is the scalability--can you accommodate 20 players as well as 2? Period Flavor: It's a Napoleonic rules set, so it should have something in common with Napoleonic warfare, its three main arms, their interaction, and command and control. Of course, given the proliferation of rules sets, exactly how much period flavor should be added depends on the author's interpretation, the scale, and what you're trying to show. Every rule set has an axe to grind, mine included. I suppose a corrollary should be that "strange" things should be able to happen, but not real strange things. To wit, using a commercial set of rules printed on nice glossy stock and in a game run by its publisher, I still recall the disbelief of a dozen Napoleonic buffs around a table when the Scots Greys cavalry charged the flank of a regular French infantry battalion in line which did *not* form square. Once, twice, and three times we all re-did the die and modifier calculations, and three times the Scots Greys routed off the table in blind panic. Hmmm. That would be "real strange." Everybody Does Something: This is a big one. On a one-on-one game, no problem. On a 10-on-10 game, well...This sort of devolves into Igo-Ugo, at least on the basic level. Card style games, where each player waits for an activation card to be drawn from a deck, often has players sitting around. Likewise, time-telescoping mechanisms can get in trouble when only two players engage and the rest watch for several subcycles. Anything that requires activation rolls for command is another no-no. If you're the commander, there better be a great reason why you're sitting around on your duff instead of marching to the sounds of the guns...or running away from them. Mind you, I've seen the messages from an angry subordinate to his c-in-c complaining of his inactivity, only to be "released" and launch a devastating attack on an opponent's flank. Of course, if you choose to be inactive, that's a different story. There should be enough leeway to offer individual command interpretations and reactions. The idea is to offer enough rules rope for the player to hang themselves... A Snappy Nappy Game With the above disinformation in mind, what I told the players was that Napoleon decided that the Prussians needed a pummelling and Berlin seemed like a good city to occupy. I then used Prussian, Austrian, and Russian troops, which prompted numerous questions about whether this was before or after the 1813 armistice. I, as inscrutable umpire, replied it was *during* the armistice. In reality, the game was set in 1806 and is the classic Jena-Auerstadt battle in operational mode. The OOB was exactly the same as 1806 for the Prussians and French, except (1) I substituted Austrian troops for about half Prussian formations, (2) I added a small division of poor quality Cossacks (not Prussian cavalry) in the reserve, meant to be more of a theoretical threat than an actual one, and (3) I changed the unit names. It also meant that I could say Russians were involved. I used an OSG game: 1806 Rossbach Avenged for the map and scaled it appropriately to fit on the following tables: one 7'x8', one 4'x7', one 4'x8', one 5'x9' (ping pong table), and three 2.5' x 5'. I handed each player an 8 1/2 x 11" map which did *NOT* delineate the tables. I also changed the names of the better known towns--the more to fool the players, you know. These tables were scattered across my basement, with the orientation "spun" from table to table (i.e. north on the 5x9' table faced the furnace but north on the 4x8' faced the stairwell). In addition, when players exited one table, they did not go over to the adjacent physical table--it might be the one beyond that one or the one on the other side of the stairs, etc. I use river lines to edge each table, and troops cannot cross such rivers except at bridges and fords. Realistically, folks will be able to figure out which table joins another, as well as where the table edges were vis-a-vis the map, but during the opening moves, when they are committing their forces according to a pre-game plan, they don't know this at the start. And of course, no plan survives contact with the enemy. For this game, because I had a few experienced miniatures players who had only played Snappy Nappy once or not at all, and one player who had never played a miniatures game before, I coordinated the first three turns across all tables. After that, normal "real time" Snappy Nappy rules take over: players on a table follow a turn sequence, but there is no attempt to coordinate turn sequences across multiple tables. When a player arrives on a "new" table, he immediately conforms to the turn sequence on that table. Further, messages from the C-in-C to the individual commanders go through me, the umpire. They are in real time, where my watch determines the time, and I deliver the messages according to how far apart the commanders are at the moment. This has always had an impact, as the C-in-C must "time" his messages to arrive and "time" the actual response--think Napoleon at Austerlitz asking how long it would take troops to go up the Pratzen Heights, and then ordering them to go in 20 minutes time. Unlike a single-table game, troops don't pirouette into multiple directions in an instant. What usually happens is that by turn 3, when I cut everybody loose, most players understand the rules. As umpire, I end up being the messenger boy delivering communiques, and the occasional line of sight or rule interpretation. That's not to say that a game goes off perfectly... There's a few house rules that need to be explained, and to my chagrin, I forgot to note some in the dash of getting people moving out. For example, our usual group's "hitting a flank" rule, is one which I forgot to explain. We usually play a 180-degree frontage. If you draw an imaginary line across the front of a stand, any enemy unit that wants to charge home in the flank must start partly behind that imaginary line. If not, it automatically hits the front. In an IGo-UGo world, this eliminates that gamey tactic of moving past that line and wheeling to hit the flank while the defending unit waves at the chargers. In any case, that, along with crossing bridges under fire (you can in column, which I did not explain properly either), and how many units can attack a garrisoned town (four) were the rules oversights on my part. Or at least those were the ones I remember. No scenario survives contact with players, either! Another limiting factor was the number of players. No less than 8 regular players couldn't make it, and none of the 20 or so others invited could either. Hmmm. Four players a side for 10 commands of varying size. The point is that numerous smaller commands offer flexibility in detaching, screening, scouting, pulling back for refit, and victory point looting. Turns might go a little slower with one commander moving two or three different forces, but since the mechanics are simple enough, I didn't hear any complaints that players had too many troops. Flow of 1806 The Prussian plan was simple: use the fortress as a pivot point and sweep left with most of the forces while holding on the right flank. The French plan was more indirect: cover as much territory as possible to grab as many victory points (villages, towns, cities, the fortress, and supply roads) as possible. The Prussians moved out from the start, pushing troops across rivers (table edges) to see what lay beyond. The sweep began to work its way across the area, with two commanders concentrating in the Eisenberg-Weida area and pushing south to Hemsdorf and Pollnitz. The third headed towards Ecksdorf (with a detachment to Kamdorf), then turned towards Ampferstadt, and took refuge on the steep hill, while the last tarried in the Querfurt-Freistadt area. One French commander pushed northwards from Saalberg to Tanna while Napoleon pressed into the Possnack-Neustadt area. The third player, who was the "newbie," headed northwards to Ampferstadt, while the fourth remained in the Arnstadt-Stadtilm area keeping a watch on the Prussian garrison at Furdorf. Thus was set for the beginning of battle. At this point, the Prussians attacked towards, and eventually grabbed, Pollnitz. However, the commander did not guard his flank and indeed left a large area open (see the message section to sort out how this happened!). The French commander, keeping to his strategy, kept on the road (in road column no less!) and headed out of the battle area and deep into the Prussian rear with 2/3 of his troops. He grabbed Greizen, Kowzic, Altenburg and Bonnalt, severing Prussian supply and line of commmunications on that flank. Fortunately, the Prussians stuck a garrison in Geralt, but the city still fell fairly swiftly. Meanwhile, a scrum developed in the center, with Napoleon directing attacks towards Hemsdorf as the Prussians curled around. The French "newbie" finally deployed against the steep hill west of Kamburg and eventually stormed the heights as well as pushing the Prussians (admittedly a weak and ill-trained cavalry force) back over the river. The hinge of the Prussian attack--the fortress--lay in easy reach, but the newbie never sent a force to chase the Prussians and thus never saw the weakened state of the Prussian rear in this area. Instead, he turned west and headed for Ecksdorf. At the westernmost portion of the operational zone, the French bombarded the garrison of Furdorf into extinction/surrender, then quickly followed up by taking Weimr and reaching the minor river between Sommerda and Brittstadt. The Prussian commander appeared on the field and was given orders by his C-in-C to grab Weimr--by now, the French were nicely ensconced along the minor river line. As the Prussians attacked, the forces of the French "newbie" arrived at Ecksdorf and started to turn the flank of the attacking Prussians, who were also having no fortune against the river line. A quick message asking for a Withdrawal order for some badly needed re-organization, took a long time to reach the Prussian C-in-C and a long time to get back to the commander. During the interval, the Prussians failed to budge the French. At this point in time, the French had two commanders' forces at the Sommerda-Ecksdorf line, one running around the Prussian rear getting as far as the fortress Mannburg (in actuality Naumberg) and turning back onto the Prussians, and Napoleon in the center. The Prussians had one mauled force withdrawing from the Sommerda-Ecksdorf line, another mauled half-force trying to save the rear areas to no avail, and two forces plus about another half force slowly strangling Napoleon's force. This Prussian "half" force was interesting, for the player came to the Nedburg area via Kamburg and had three routes to take over the river. And because this was a table edge, he could not see where he was going to end up, although he knew that on the other side of the river and a few "miles" away, he could hear the sound of the guns. He picked the most southern route and his force started to cross. You could not ask for a better decision. He arrived behind the flank of the French, who were at that moment pounding their way up and across the ridge. Just as the newbie crushed the flank of the Prussians at Ecksdorf, so the Prussians started to crush the flank of the French at Hemsdorf. The Prussian commander who had let the French go by on the far flank turned to face the returning French and held them off for a couple hours, an important delay. Ultimately the French crossed, but they were too far away from what was soon to be called "Napoleon's Doughnut." Napoleon's Doughnut Smack dab in the center of the operational area stood Napoleon and what was left of his force, including a small and bloodied detachment of the Imperial Guard. This started out roughly in a triangle area between Neustadt, Hemsdorf, and Nedburg. As the Prussians increasingly brought pressure around the eastern and southern part of this area, the French line started to collapse. When the "half" force arrived on the west, the encirclement was complete. Worse, the formerly victorious French forces pounding their way across the ridge were smashed and hurled back into the doughnut--those that did not surrender or rout. Prussian cavalry were nibbling away at the French middle, in at least one case being somewhat overextended, but causing all sorts of havoc. Napoleon sent a courier for help, and the force he designated was the victorious newbie, who could not believe he was getting an order to break off his attack--just when he was at the point of enveloping the Prussians. He even asked, "Do I have to obey this?" knowing the answer was that the Emperor called but was told that he could pick an order "up or down 2." Snappy Nappy uses a heirarchy of 7 orders, with a Prussian player allowed to select the order above or below as well as the actual order and the French player allowed to go up or down 2 levels of orders. It represents the quality of staff work as well as commander's initiative. In any case, at that point, he muttered, "I feel like D'Erlon [at Waterloo]." On the next move phase, he turned his troops around and marched in the direction of Nedburg. Two virtually intact French forces marched to the relief, but would take several turns to reach Napoleon. Sadly, the game was called at this point with three players having to leave for home. It had lasted 5 hours (12 noon to 5pm). The French won the victory (79 pts to 61 in case you'd like the tally) because they had grabbed the most territory after five hours of gaming. The French would gain a strategic victory because virtually the entire Prussian army had been pocketed and would be ground into nothingness--some would survive, but I suspect not enough. However, the real question was whether Napoleon could hold out long enough for his fresh forces to bash the Prussians and rescue him from his doughnut. The Prussians have a very good chance of crushing the pocket and grabbing Napoleon. How would that be for an 1806 outcome? Snappy Nappy 1806 French vs. Prussians Introduction, Background, and Order of Battle Success and Failure Snappy Nappy: "Message for you, sir!" Back to MWAN # 122 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2003 Hal Thinglum This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com