Success and Failure The idea of spreading players out across multiple tables--an admitted luxury of mine--adds to the fog of war. Had this been fought on one table with helicopter views, I doubt Napoleon would allow himself to form the middle of a doughnut. I was surprised the Prussian commander at the far end allowed the French to march on by into rear areas. The French commander noted "I shouldn't have been back there, but I'm not complaining." It was similar to Davout's 1806 maneuver, except with more troops and less opposition. Ultimately, from a scenario perspective, it was a wise decision, for not only did he grab the points, he posed a threat--although in retrospect leaving half his force to help Napoleon might have been wiser. But his orders were orders. And another player would have helped in splitting the force. We did indeed encounter situations not covered by one page of charts--inevitable, I suppose, and if this was a big glossy rules set they would be addressed. But that's the job of the umpire, and I take the blame for such errors and irritations. The flank rule and river crossing/charge were not explained, though each came up only once (or at least once that I know of). Those failures were mine as an umpire. I neglected to include a modifer or two on the 1-page charts. The comments usually went like this: "Hey umpire, Road march column is just as effective as attack column?" "No, look here under....hey! Who stole my modifier?" "Hey umpire, cavalry charging against limbered artillery gets no bonus?" "No, look here under....hey! Who stole my modifier?" Those failures were mine, too. When I redid the charts and shifted things around, I left those melee modifiers out. If that's all that went wrong on the charts, then I count myself fortunate. King Frederick of Prussia made the only rant of the day when he believed his two brigades of Militia cavalry (the Cossacks) should be entitled to rout the one brigade of elite French hussars, even though the French had the initiative, attacked one brigade of Prussians, and pasted it in the melee. "But I put them together to support one another. This other one did nothing!" "And the French cleverly attacked only one brigade instead of two. This is a large scale game, it's not individual squadrons at a tactical level. There's no opportunity charge or things like that." "Bah! It shouldn't have just stood there!" "Even in a game of this scale, there's only so much room. The French had the initiative, used it, and won the melee." "But they just stood there! I wanted both to hit." And so on. I suspect he's still unconvinced. It's a good thing he doesn't know about "blown cavalry" rules from other games... One common complaint was the change of formation movement. I deduct a third off the *lowest* amount and make you change at the beginning of the turn. Thus, if your brigade of infantry is going from column (6") to line (3"), you lose 1" (1/3 of 3") and can move 2". Players constantly complained about that, especially coming off of road march (12"). They wanted to pro-rate it. I relented on the artillery, but stood firm on the infantry and cavalry--at least for this game. The next one we'll try a little more free-wheeling "change formation when you want and pro-rate it." The messages and use of orders played out well again. Pulling the newbie off Ecksdorf to try and save Napoleon was a reaction on Napoleon's part and did not anticipate such a need. Judging from the volume of messages I handled during the game, the Prussians were better handled on the whole. Mind you, the "Attack" orders towards Weimr were not the best idea, but when the King says attack, he means attack. He also said guard the bridge, and so the attack was diluted a bit--although, from a strategic point of view, the King was most prescient. Alas, the Prussians did not get to the bridge in time to place a guard, and the French marched across. Worse, at least from the Prussian point of view, the French won the initiative and proceeded to catch the Prussians ill-deployed and crumble the flank. Withdrawing in the face of the enemy is a difficult task. The Prussian commander managed to pull most of his remaining troops from the Sommerda-Ecksdorf line while losing a minimum of rear guard units around Kalleda, but only because the French at Ecksdorf maneuvered away--otherwise, most of the Prussians would have been bagged. Plaudits and Groans On the French side, the easternmost commander who pulled a Davout to bypass the Prussians and dive into their rear grabbed the victory points that ultimately led to a French victory. He was not as engaged as he could be, and his forces were sorely missed in the center, though they were on their way back. The westernmost French commander took Furdorf without casualties, snagged Weimr, and discerned the Prussian intent to recapture Weimr. He stood on the minor river line and battered the Prussians, then switched over to the offensive and pushed the Prussians back towards Querfurt-Freistadt. It was all very competently done. The newbie advanced cautiously at first, but dealt with the weak force sent against him. He didn't follow up, but turned west, grabbing Ecksdorf and doing a fine job of rolling up the Prussian flank. He was marching (albeit with a scowl) to Napoleon, although a long way off. He probably would have arrived at about the same time as the easternmost commander. What can you say about Napoleon? He won, but he allowed himself to be stuck in the middle of his doughnut. He got sucked in and the Prussians surrounded him. Now it would be a race whether the Prussians could crush the pocket before help arrived. Had he stayed for an extra hour... On the Prussian side, the westernmost commander followed his orders to try and grab Weimr, although there was a discussion back at HQ whether a third of his force should have been pulled off the attack to guard the bridges. As it turns out, that force was inadequate to deal with the big French force (which included the army's cavalry reserve) the newbie brought down on him like a hammer. The withdrawal was competent, although only the newbie's disappearance saved the force. The easternmost commander, a newbie to Snappy Nappy though an experienced miniatures player, erred in allowing a force to march right past him, although his orders may have contributed to this. At one point, the center commander suggested he "deal with" the French marching by, but by that time, the French marched by. He made up for it by hustling a garrison back to Geralt and contesting the French return, ultimately delaying them enough for his own troops to storm towns and curl around Napoleon's force. It was his cavalry that was causing such havoc in the doughnut. The center Prussian commander, facing Napoleon's immediate forces, did what he could but was being pressed back. The ridge and woods west of Hemsdorf was slowly falling to the French when a lightning bolt as wicked and devastating as you could ask for fell upon the French flank. Napoleon's Doughnut was formed. Good, competent generalship. What can you say about the King? He sent the lightning bolt. The noose was tightening around Napoleon. King Frederick lost the game. He'd more than likely lose the army. But if he could nab Napoleon, he would win the war. Lessons Much as commanders hate to do so, detaching units to garrison places may be a good policy if you're not going to be there in force. A couple garrisons in the right spots would have precluded much of the free-wheeling maneuverings detrimental to their side. The garrison at Furdorf, for example, delayed the French for several turns. With the exception of a couple umpire glitches in explanation, it pretty much went smoothly, although I would have preferred more players as it would really spread them out across the tables. A couple weeks after the game, I asked the newbie if he enjoyed the game. He answered that he didn't really catch on at first, especially when there was no other player (French or Prussian) on his table. But he appreciated the first few turns where he could sort out the mechanics of column-line-square-road march and getting his troops moving in the direction he wanted. When the enemy appeared, he had an idea of what he wanted to do and the "experience" of changing formation. If his attack was hesitant and slow to develop, it was ultimately successful. It helped that I kept an eye on him and helped him work through the firing and melee charts. By the end of the game, he certainly learned how to roll up a Prussian flank! I asked him if he would be interested in attending another game, and he enthusiastically said yes. And then he remarked that the miniatures aspect really clicked with him in a way computer games did not. He liked the way it looked (even though my terrain was mostly colored felt and less than aesthetic styrofoam hills) and he liked the way he wasn't overwhelmed with thick rules books--and mentioned Squad Leader (a board game he tried once years ago, which I guess didn't endear him to board games). And as for the deception, it certainly precluded a lot of preconceptions about the Jena-Auerstadt campaign. In this tabletop version, Napoleon really faced most of the Prussian army, but without most of the French army with him. All in all, a very pleasant afternoon... 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