I wanted to respond to Mr. Forsythe's article entitled "PINNING DOWN HISTORY IN NAPOLEON'S BATTLES" (MWAN #93). Let first congratulate Mr. Forsythe's rare ability to gauge my psychological makeup without ever having met me. I usually have the cumbersome task of meeting someone face to face, shake their hand, look them in the eye, and then spend some time with them before I can make such an acute observation. I applaud your talents on sucha unusual, and what must be ,a useful talent.

Let me clear the air and clarify what my previous article was answering in regards to Dennis's article titled "NAPOLEON'S BATTLES MISUSE OF COMBINED ARMS"(MWAN #85).

1. I believe many of us realize that this a GAME ruleset and that especially N.B. (for short) is a abstract ruleset at that. I do feel it is well written, organized and fun. I think that N.B. is to Napoleonics what Monopoly is to high finance.

2. Let me state that we all have a different view of history as individuals. This somewhat relies on education, life experiences and what we feel is important to any rule system. Therefore when I play N.B. I am not only engaged with a ruleset I like but I am playing the view of the Napoleonic battlefield that Craig Taylor and Bob Coggins relate to. It must therefore be a concilliatory move on my part to agree to that view when I play the rules I purchased. I am not strictly stating that this has to be all "according to Hoyle".

3. To say that the designers had "such a blatant and obvious oversight" in regards to the pinning rule is a little too presumptuous. Craig Taylor has designed many board games for Avalon Hill plus has consulted on many other gaming subjects for other companies. I find it hard to believe that it could be blatant or obvious. An error is a possibility, but a slight one.

4. Now, to this tempest in a teapot. Let me point out that the squaring prohibition rule could be related to the fact that NO formation changes are allowed with an enemy unit within 1" of that unit. My reasoning points to the fact that if a unit can square within an inch, should it not be allowed to change into any formation it wants? Are we dealing with such large abstract units anyway, that how do we define column, line , square within the pretext of the rules? Does line mean that 4 regiments are in line and the others are in the rear of the area that the figure bases occupy? Does it bother anyone that brigades are not allowed to move in a turn that do not have a leader within the specified radius? Is that historical? That entire batteries or even a grand battery can fire at a unit for an entire half hour and cause no figure loss? Is that historical?

5. I want to point out that I was looking at the problem with this situation from the rules point of view. This is why I suggested the reaction charge instead as it is a more effective way to take ground. I am at this time using Dennis' suggestion on the actual contact of the enemy unit to prevent emergency squaring to see if it affects the system as it relates to melee, etc. I again caution that sometimes changes can swing advantages towards not only the different combat arms, but can change the advantages that one nationality has, or has not, over another.

6. I wanted to let Mr. Forsythe know that I have seen many rulesets ruined over my tenure with miniatures games. I have played them the last 16 years. Rules are an integral part of the hobby in relation to the entire package. To some it is more important than the other parts. To some it is not. It is noteworthy to point out that within gaming groups or clubs it is usually not just one person adding the extra baggage of house rules but 3 or 4 and eventually the camel's back is broken. I want to point out that this derides play and perhaps robs you of incentive to paint more figures, terrain, etc.

7. I would like to see any historical evidence that does point to the pinning option being a complete sham if anyone has a more extensive library than I do. My Napoleonic book collection is limited. Let's hope someone out in Hal Land can illustrate Mr. Forsythe's point as it relates to brigade level tactics.

8. Thanks to Hal for allowing me to express my opinions in this great newsletter.

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