I was disappointed to read the two responses (1) to Dennis Daughetee's article, "Napoleon's Battles' Misuse of Combined Arms" (MWAN #85), rejecting his proposed change to Napoleon's Battles (that infantry be prevented from squaring only if in contact with enemy infantry, not if within one inch of enemy infantry as Napoleon's Battles is written). Not because honorable people can't differ, but because the arguments seemed more emotional than rational(2).

Most critics of "house rules" seem to fall into one of three categories:

(1) those who possess a dogmatic adherence to the game rules simply because they are the rules;
(2) those who reject of change because change is either psychologically unsettling or because players become 'comfortable" with the rules (the intellectually bankrupt "we've always played them that way" reasoning); and
(3) those who accept the existing rules because they reflect their view of history.(3)

I've ranted and raved against the first category aready, knowing that those in misguided souls never budge so I've given up trying to convert them. Likewise, I'm hardly qualified to address those who fall into the second group: psychologically, I've always felt comfortable wielding the knife to make rules logical (to me). And it's hard to believe that people who spend enormous amounts of time and money to research, paint figures, make terrain, etc. are just too "set in their ways" to make amendments that are logical.

The frustration that I felt in reading the responses to Dennis' article was based on the lack of denial of the historical premise of his proposal. (5) Dennis essentially argued that in Napoleonic warfare, cavalry was used to threaten opposing infantry into square, which was then attacked by infantry and artillery. In Napoleon's Battles, the primary tactic is using infantry to pin opposing infantry in fine which is then attacked by cavalry.(6) Neither Mike nor Ron took the position that was used historically to pin enemy infantry in line so that cavalry could attack it (as done in Napoleon's Battles).

I've read the authors cited by Dennis (Chandler and Nafziger), as well as Nosworthy cited by Mike (7), and have yet to come across a passage even remotely suggesting that infantry pinned opposing infantry in preparation for cavalry attacks. I will quickly say that I have not read everything that has ever been written on Napoleonic warfare, and I would readily embrace the chance to read something-anything-that would support Napoleon's Battles as written.(8) If reputable sources exist, we can finally move on to a good ole fashion debate as to whether Napoleon's Battles does a good job of reflects combined arms in Napoleonic warfare. Where I am now in my research, however, there is no historical basis to endorse that aspect of Napoleon's Battles.

Notes

(1) Mike McClellan's "Combined Arms in Napoleon's Battles", MWAN #87, and Ron Dillies's "Napoleon's Battles: Misuse or Misread?", MWAN #89

(2) Mike made the statement that Napoleon's Battles does "a reasonable job of simulating a Napoleonic battle, but it's not perfect by any means," which left me wondering what he would change to make it "more perfect" if indeed Dennis's objection is not bothersome. My past disagreement with various features of Napoleon's Battles have been many and well documented (see "Napoleon's Battles-House Rules", MWAN#(64), but these points are trivial in comparison to the issue Dennis raises. It's such a blatant and obvious oversight by the game 22 designers, I'm embarrassed I did not spot it before.

(3) In fairness, another reason to reject a house rule is because the "cure' (the proposed change) is worse than the disease (the flawed rule). But no one suggested that Dennis' proposal was too complicated or difficult to understand (it's not), that it would slow down the game (it doesn't) or any other playability problem. Mike's Parthian shot that Dennis' proposal would reward "players that don't think ahead" and that it would take a lot of the "fun out of playing Napoleon's Battles" are conclusions he could not have reached as a result of playtesting, because neither is true. We found in our games that most units have a 50% chance or less to square anyway, so the majority of the time, the end result was not effected. Conversely, nothing in our play tests suggested that Dennis's proposal enhanced playability or is more "fun." The house rule (in our games) seemed to be "game design neutral", effecting neither the need to plan ahead, nor the advisability of utilizing the react phase (as Ron outlined).

(4) Ron's warning that changing rules may result in unintended (bad) effects is, of course, no barrier to someone like me: in that event, I simply discard the house rule. In fact, I've gone through many a house rule only to find that an unintended result invalidated it (including a number of those advocated by me in MWAN #64). But I'd hate to have Ron's rationale bar the quest for "more perfect" rules.

(5) Ron did concede that Napoleon's Battles did "conflict with history and all great authors of the Napoleonic period,," but unfortunately went on to conclude (I think) that history ought not restrict game design(!?). I have to have misread Ron's point here, so I apologize in advance for this unintentional interpretation-though having reread that paragraph several times, I am at a lossas to how else to read it.

(6) The issue is not whether cavalry should charge during the movement phase or the reaction Phase, but whether the rule mechanics simulate combined arms in the Napoleonic period. Ron's tactical insight is terrific, but irrelevant to the point Dennis raises. Under the rules, the pinning ofthe enemy by moving your infantry within an inch prevents squaring in either the phase. Butwas this ever done historically?

(7) Nosworthy paints a vivid picture of the Napoleonic battlefield, as Mike points out, but nothing in his book contradicts Chandler or Nafziger, or supports the premise that infantry was used to pin opposing infantry. In fact, Nosworthy is silent as to the issue raised by Dennis (unless I just missed it).

(8) Anyone can contact me at ForsytheG@aol.com. Just do me a favor and cite pages of books, not entire books. I am looking for specific references to support the proposition that infantry was used to pin the enemy in fine for cavalry attacks. Such support would provide us with some basis to keep Napoleon's Battle as is. But as it now stands, Dennis makes a convincing case--and an undisputed one so far-that a more historical game would incorporate his house rule requiring contact in order to pin.

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