At Historicon '97 I had Be pleasure of meeting many new folks and trying a few new games. One such set of rules is Napoleonic Command by Crusader Games. My Friday night NOVAG companions plays Napoleon's Battles extensively, but I thought something new might be interesting. Lance King told me about their demo game Friday afternoon when I spoke with him at the Crusader booth. I attended the game Friday, and was intrigued by some of the rules novelties and its unique perspective on the Napoleonic period. I therefore offered to demo the game at NOVAG and write a review for MWAN. And here we go....

Format: Napoleonic Command: A Study in Grand Tactics (the full title) is a slim set of spiral bound rules with a green cardstock cover. Actual rules fill only 11 pages, with 7 pages of preparatory discussion of the thought process in game design, and 15 pages of Appendices which detail basing, army organizations by principal countries, deployment suggestions, a sample battle description, game charts and tables, and an extensive bibliography (great idea). The rules are written in a clear narrative style rather than the bullet format of many rules, and clearly delineate the sequence of play and basic mechanics.

Troop Organization: Napoleonic Command is a Corps level game, with each player running a Division or perhaps two. It is written for 1 Smm or 6mm play, with 6mm distances all half that of I Smm distances. Time scale is 1 turn = 15 minutes, 1" = 50 yards ( 15mm). Basing is different than NB: 3 infantry 1.5" X .75", 3 cavalry 1.5" X 1", 1 gun and 2-4 crew 1" X 1.5". Maneuver units are battalions of infantry (2 stands each), batteries of artillery (also 2 stands), and squadrons of cavalry (1 stand). Light infantry can assume a skirmish formation represented by 4 individual figure stand .75" X .75". Commanders are represented by single bases with an increasing number of figures at each level. For Napoleon's Battles players, the number of stands represented by a division in this game are fairly equivalent to those in NB.

Concept: The key to the game is the cohesion and effectiveness of the division. In this game, attacking single battalions that are within the divisional integrity distances is ineffective. To generate results against the enemy, you must maneuver significant divisional or more firepower against another division. Because whole divisions are affected, the use of reserves is critical, both to exploit success, but more importantly to plug holes when a division starts to crumble. Unless the division's own resources are properly placed so that a second echelon can support the first, a retreating division soon turns into a wrecked division. To effect this system, a move/countermove system is used in the following sequence: Both sides write orders (Corps Commanders only--an order must have a route and objective to be valid) and read received orders, side 1 moves (no formation changes), side 2 redeploys (change formation and/or facing), side 1 assesses (fire and melee type effects), then side 2 moves, side 1 redeploys, and side 2 assesses. For movement, units can move straight forward or back and change facing, or move obliquely maintaining the original facing. Terrain effects are pretty standard. Assessment uses a table that gives a unit graduated effectiveness based on range. For example, infantry in line assesses 3 points at contact, 2 points out to 2", and I point out to 4". Heavy artillery on the other hand, is 8 points out to 2", declining to 2 points at 24". The total assessment point are compared to the unit cohesion--a total of all units within the divisional integrity distance; 2" for inf/cav/art except 4" for light cavalry. Unit quality adds 0-6 points to the cohesion total, and a die roll is made with 2 d6. The difference on the dice is subtracted from the unit total. If the assessing total is less than the cohesion amount, nothing happens. If the assessment is greater than the target's cohesion, the target division must move during its next turn so as to reduce the enemies assessment. If it can't, the unit against which the highest assessment was leveled is removed. If the assessment is double the division's cohesion, the most assessed unit is removed immediately, and all assessed units must about face and move full column movement away from the enemy next turn (here is where that second rank makes a difference).

Observations: Napoleonic Command seems to have evolved from some sort of thesis or research paper (bibliography and narrative style). While readable, and a good Table of Contents provided, the rules are not easily referenced when you have a question. In fact, some rules appear only on the reference charts. Unfortunately, a good editorial job was not performed on the booklet either, as there are several instances where a section states a rule, and a few lines or paragraphs later states it differently (1" = 50 yards, then 1" = 100 yards, cohesion range is 1", later 2"). While we were not stumped by these as two of us had played in the Historicon demo games, it is distracting and a problem for unfamiliar players. While the math in the game is not complex (simple addition), it is constant and changing for both sides (adding assessment and cohesion factors for both sides) and we felt it bogged down the game somewhat. Also, because it is highly mathematical, it could be easily exploited by those "analytical" garners who play slowly but have the numbers wired. We saw this might lead to very stylistic and boring games. Squares move the same speed as line infantry. While this may be historical (we discussed this), it appears pretty radical and unrealistic, especially when your cavalry is driven off by an advancing swarm of squares. The divisional integrity idea is good--we liked it. But when you have your cavalry division strung out in line over 30" of table top, and a fight at one end is affected by troops 1500 yards away, it seemed ridiculous. We thought there ought to just be an arbitrary "range of cohesion--say 6" from the last engaged figure. It also seemed the "combined arms" concept which heavily influences NB, was very reduced in this game. Maybe we just didn't grab the right tactics, but although each branch (inf/cav/art) has its particular rules in the game, the "rock, paper, scissors" of combined arms was absent. Artillery movement (limbered vs. unlimbered is not explained well enough. The move/countermove system was popular. And since you can only change formation as a redeployment, it forced you to think ahead. Again, a popular idea. No discussion of pre-measurement was included in the rules--although we allowed it. The assessments seemed to take a long time to complete, but that may have been our experience level. Nevertheless, with large games (4+ per side, this could again slow the game. Finally, people liked the order writing, with its specification of a route and an objective. Although something similar is in the NB rules, we haven't used them. This may change their minds. Leaders, whether good or bad, have no "individual" effect on the game Napoleon = Blucher = Archduke Ferdinand). Finally, we fought small corps (3 average divisions/side) on a 5'X10' table and were crowded. However, the terrain rules (which are fairly prohibitive) and the amount of terrain on the board contributed to this. The game would play better in 6mm I think, just because of the opportunity to have more reserves, and maneuver room.

Recommendation: For $12 it's not a bad set of rules. Napoleonic Command contains some good ideas, and is fairly simple and easy to learn and teach. If you don't like Napoleon's Battles, or are just beginning to play the Napoleonic period and haven't based your figures yet, I'd say "give them a try." Otherwise, I'd say wait for the "supplement" or wised version to come out to address the shortfalls I have mentioned, and include detailed army lists by battle or year, as well as a point system for balancing battles. Good gaming!