I have been playing Napoleonics for over twenty years now. I started with Frappe, moved on to Napoleonique, then Pas de Charge, then Empire (1,2, and 3). I've playing Napoleon's Battles (NB) for about three years now, and like any good gamer who can't leave well enough alone, I've decided it's time to start tinkering with some of the rules. It's not that I don't like NB, it's just that, like every other set of rules, there are some holes that allow unreasonable things to occur, things that bother me because they are awkward, and others that don't reflect what I see as history. To this end I humbly submit the proposed changes below, with the request that other people who play this game give me some feedback on what they think. Not all of these changes have been thoroughly play-tested, because I don't get to play often enough to have given them a good trial. Also, the people I play with are not experienced enough with NB to start changing the rules on them. Yet.
1. Angle of Attack
The rules say that a unit is considered to be in combat contact if it contacts the defending unit with the front facing of one or more of it's stands. Often combats occur when only the front corner of the attacker contacts the defender. To avoid players taking advantage of this situation to "side-swipe" opponents, I suggest that these cases be considered close combats only if the angle between the front edge of the attacker and the nearest edge of the defender is 45 degrees or less. This can be checked easily using the Maneuver Template's arc of fire markings.
2. The 1" rule
This rule as originally written restricts the ability of a unit to change formation, wheel or use sideways movement when an enemy combat unit is within 1". While the intent of this rule is good, it leads to many bizarre and unrealistic situations. The most common is when the phasing player brings a cavalry unit within 1" of an infantry unit, to keep it from changing formation, then charges the same infantry with another cavalry unit. The infantry cannot form square, because of the presence of the first cavalry unit. Thus you have infantry unable to from square because there is enemy cavalry around, which seems odd (they usually form square because there is enemy cavalry around, right?).
I suggest that any non-phasing unit be allowed to make an emergency formation change attempt whenever an enemy unit approaches to within 1", unless there is already an enemy unit within 1". Thus, the defender can attempt to form square, or emergency line, or change front (more about this one later) when an enemy unit gets close. Any formation change allowed by the rules can be attempted, regardless of the type of enemy unit causing the attempt. if you choose the wrong formation, too bad.
A closely related topic is the type of enemy unit that should restrict movement. Obviously, there is more threat from an enemy unit in good order than one that has routed. I once saw an infantry unit that could not form square because the phasing player moved a disordered, limbered artillery unit to within 1". This struck me as absurd, but the rules allow it. To keep this sort of thing from happening, I suggest the following:
a. Disordered units may not move to 1" or less of an enemy unit (the current rule only restricts them from initiating a close combat);
b. Only unrouted infantry, cavalry, or unlimbered artillery cause the 1" movement restrictions. Routed units have no effect.
3. Flanks
The current rules make little or no allowance for the existence of units' flanks. No modifiers are given for units being fired at from the flank or being contacted in the flank. The reasons given are that the defending unit's response to a flank attack is given by the die roll. After all, the unit may refuse a flank to meet the attack. This seems like a whitewash to ignore the subject.
Flanks are very sensitive things, and unless the whole unit changes front to meet a flank attack, there is going to be a great deal of anxiety generated by being hit in the flank. This will reduce combat effectiveness. Even if a flank is refused, it will still be the case that the units refused to meet the attack will be outnumbered by the attackers. I suggest a -2 modifier to the defending unit when it is attacked in the flank.
As for fire effects, one must remember that even an attack column is nothing but a series of lines, and that lines are more vulnerable to fire coming down their length than to fire coming through their depth. This is most true of artillery fire, since the balls carry further and are not usually stopped by hitting a soldier. Thus, I suggest that artillery units firing at the flank of a line or attack column be given the same +2 modifier that is given for shooting at march columns or squares. No flank modifier applies to units that are routed, in march column, or deployed in a town.
What constitutes a flank? For close combat, I suggest that if the center of an attacking unit is beyond the front edge of the defending unit, the flank modifier applies. Routed units, squares, and units deployed in all-around fortifications or towns do not have flanks. For fire, the entire firing artillery unit must be beyond the target's leading edge. This makes fire from the rear of a unit the same as a flank, but I think the morale effect of being fired at in the rear would be at least as great as the increased casualties caused by flanking fire, so I do not see this as a problem.
Of course, now that I have opened the Pandora's box of flank attacks, I feel I should do something for the defender in such situations. Thus I propose an emergency formation change attempt such as those given in the rules, but this one changes the facing of the defending unit to meet the attack. I suggest the same procedure be followed as for forming emergency lines (as given in the Module, rule xx.xx.xx). Cavalry units ignore the -2 modifier, since they are more maneuverable.
4. Cavalry recall
I generally like this rule, but it needs to be toned down a little. A cavalry unit that continues to win close actions and make it's recall checks has unlimited movement, regardless of such factors as how tired the horses might get, or how disordered the unit might become from charging. I have seen one cavalry unit take apart an enemy army in up to six separate charges in the same turn, because it made it's recall checks. This seems a bit much. I suggest that if a unit makes it's second recall attempt in a given phase, it must stop or voluntarily make an uncontrolled recall move. This allows a cavalry unit to make one successful charge and gives it a reasonable follow-up capacity, instead of a potentially unlimited one.
5. Imperial Aides-de-camp
I have stolen this rule from Empire. Napoleon as emperor kept a number of generals de division at his headquarters for special assignments on the battlefield. These included generals such as Rapp or Savary. I suggest that any French army (1804-1813) with Napoleon as commander be given a number of Imperial ADCs, say one if the army is 50,000 or less, 2 if the army is 50-100,000, and three otherwise. Imperial ADCs are always considered to start as part of the Napoleon stand, and do the following:
1. Replace any fallen divisional commander, using the ADC's ratings as given in the scenario book;
2. Replace fallen corps commanders, using the ADC's ratings as a temporary corps commander (to reflect his unfamiliarity with the corps staff, etc.);
3. Form battle-groups using his divisional ratings. Battle groups may consist of units from any division in the army. Such units must begin their turn in the ADC's command radius to join the battle-group;
4. Ensure command control for corps outside Napoleon's command radius. The ADC is moved from the Napoleon stand into contact with the corps commander in question. On the next turn only, that corps is considered to be in command, even if it is outside Napoleon's command radius. Thi; reflects the ADC's ability to bring orders from the Emperor and use his authority to "chew the butt" of the laggard corps commander.
Imperial ADCs must be paid for like any other division commander. This rule should be considered optional, as it gives the French yet another advantage over their opponents, which they hardly need. But that discussion belongs in another article.
Back to MWAN #67 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 1994 Hal Thinglum
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