I couldn't resist replying to Dennis Daughetee's article in MWAN #85 on the use (or misuse) of combined arms in Napoleon's Battles. Now I must admit that when I first looked at Napoleon's Battles I didn't like it one bit. In fact, I owned it for several years before I even read the rules all the vay through, much less play a game of it.

But I was slowly won over, and last year I converted all of my 2000+ figures over to the NB basing scheme, so obviously I've been converted as well. I had two reasons for making the switch; first, the other gamers in my area have enough troops mounted he 'old way' to fight any battle, so mine weren't needed, and second I like the scale of NB. I like the idea of fighting Borodino on a 5' x 9' table (in fact we're going to do just that next month).

Here's where the trouble arises -- scale. Almost every set of Napoleonic era rules uses I figure represent 60 men, and the typical units are battalions and regiments. We're all used to this scale and it permeates our mindset. Now along comes NB, where each figure is 120 men and units are BRIGADES, and people are unable to adapt their way of thinking. Players persist in wanting to micro manage the formation change of every battalion and the deployment of every skirmisher company.

My Experience

My experience has been that most experienced players have some problems with NB conceptually until they make an effort to take a step back, let the battalion commanders do their jobs and worry about managing brigades, divisions and corp. These rules abstract lower level combat, and this abstraction doesn't sit well with many people. I think NB does a reasonable job of simulating a Napoleonic battle, but it's not perfect by any means.

It does however do an excellent job of rewarding players who plan ahead, use combined arms, and keep a reserve. It also punishes players who fail to do these things. Finally it has a fair amount of game-playing built in, by which I mean techniques or tactics which aren't immediately apparent which one picks up with experience and which give a veteran an advantage over a novice.

Now if you want state of the art simulation - buy something else. From Valmy to Waterloo and Legacy of Glory are probably the best miniature simulations of Napoleonic warfare around, but try teaching either one to a room full of new guys.

Which brings us to Dennis' article. His beef is with rule 8.4.4 which prevents a unit from attempting to form emergency square when an enemy combat unit (infantry or cavalry) is within one inch. It supplements rule 8.2.5.1, which prohibits formation changes if touching or within 1" of unrouted enemy combat unit. As Dennis points out, this leads to the straightforward tactic of placing an enemy unit in a disadvantageous formation, and then initiating close combat at your advantage.

Of course when this happens to you it seems incredibly unfair, but either side can do it in the same combat. So, say you're attacking an enemy position deployed in line. You can bring an infantry brigade to within 1" of one or two enemy units, pinning them in position. Now hit them with your cavalry; they can't form square, they get creamed. Or, charge a unit with your cavalry, if it fails to form square - great. If it does, attack it with a nearby infantry brigade, and he's toast.

Now this tactic appears to give the attacker an unfair advantage... well not entirely. Well placed cavalry units behind your line, with react orders, can throw a wrench into the works. If he pins your infantry with his, then catches you in line with his cav. Counter charge his cav with yours, now he no longer gets the vs. other modifier and, odds are, you'll be OK.

Or consider this: his pinning unit is within an inch of your unit, can't change formation either, so your cavalry can hit him, and run him off, showing turnabout is fair play. But, you say, I don't have any cavalry in reserve! Well whose fault is that? In that case you'll just have to anticipate his moves.

If you're worried about his cav, form square. Worried about his infantry? Stay in line. Can't decide? Good, the game system is making you think! Attach some artillery.

The bottom line is: artillery, infantry and cavalry working together will win battles and are much more powerful than any arm by itself. Is your opponent using these dirty tricks to obliterate your lines? Well good for him, we call this combined arms. Use combined arms in defense and you'll make his job a lot tougher, if not impossible.

Realistic?

But are these tactics realistic? Dennis quotes Chandler and Nafziger's descriptions (reasonable sources, but I recommend Brent Nosworthy's With Musket, Cannon, and Sword to anyone interested in what actually happened on a Napoleonic era battlefield) of the Napoleonic era tactic of cavalry forcing enemy infantry to form square, while friendly infantry and artillery pounded them.

He states that NB forces the opposite tactic on players - infantry holds the enemy in line/column while cavalry pounds them. He feels this can all be remedied by forcing the player to be in actual contact before formation change is prohibited. To begin with, the rule states formation changes cannot occur if an enemy combat unit is within 1", so an infantry or cavalry unit can act as a pinning unit.

Scale Again

Here's where the scale thing rears its head again. These tactics reflect the interaction of battalions and regiments, but this game is brigade level. What is going on when a unit IS pinned and can't change formation. The way I picture it, the brigade commander finds himself on a noisy confused battlefield, covered in smoke from cannon fire and musketry. Visibility is a few hundred yards at best (2-3").

To his front appears an enemy brigade, maneuvering aggressively; aides are dispatched with orders to the battalion commanders: "enemy infantry to the south, prepare yourselves", Enemy skirmishers begin to harass the leading units. Officers and NCOs out in front of the battalions preparing for formation changes are targeted by the skirmishers, slowing reaction time.

Meanwhile, distracted by this force, a cavalry brigade hidden by smoke and dead ground approaches from the left front, "form square! Too late! Save yourselves!" Fire combat in NB reflects the effects of skirmishers and attached artillery, that's why the range is typically 2-5";

Combat (what lots of people erroneously refer to as melee in these rules) represents actual firefights and the threat of melee. A unit within 1" is well within skirmisher range in these rules, and therefore engaged. In the context of the rules and the game scale, the tactics described above is realistic. Remember, low level decisions are handled by the unseen brigade and battalion commanders. Your job as a corp or army commander is to coordinate divisions so that your lower level units are placed in the most advantageous position to win battles.

Don't Modify

Now obviously, players can modify any rule or rules set they disagree with, so Dennis is well within his 'rights' to do so. However in my opinion the change he recommends will actually decrease the use of combined arms in NB. Cavalry vs. infantry combats will bocome rarer, since requiring an infantry unit to be in contact with the target unit will result in the infantry unit being the modifying unit most of the time, as infantry units are usually larger than cavalry units in this game.

Such a change would make life easier for players who don't think abead or fail to maintain a reserve however, at the same time punishing players who think ahead and have an eye for tactically advantageous situations. Lastly, and most importantly, I think making such a change would take a lot of the fun out of playing Napoleon's Battles. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

More on Napoleon's Battles

Napoleon's Battles' Misuse of Combined Arms
Combined Arms in Napoleon's Battles
Pinning Down History in Napoleon's Battles
A Response from the Ranks of the Intellectually Bankrupt
Napoleon's Battles: An Inch Away from Agreement