Napoleon's Battles

An Inch Away from Agreement

by Grant ForsytheDake

How embarrassing. I can see my personal appearances have made the same impact on Mr. Dillie (We have been going at this so long, perhaps we should be on a first name basis.) as my arguments have. Yes, we have met and Ron has played in a game hosted by me ("Bobcon" or the Lansing con), and I have played in a game hosted by Ron, way back when the quarterly gaming conventions were being run in Michigan in the 1980s (I hope I am right in thinking you are the Ron Dillie from the Traverse City area-if not, cops, sorry!). Incidentally, when gaining Napoleon's Battles ("NB") back in Michigan, our group very much enjoyed a NB house rule written by a Ron Dillie & published in the Michigan newsletter expanding the officer casualty possibilities....

To bring newcomers to this debate up to speed, Dennis Daughetee wrote an article suggesting that NB would be more historical by deleting the "one inch rule" (prohibiting infantry within one inch of enemy infantry from emergency squaring when attacked by cavalry ... which has led to the ubiquitous tactic of bringing your infantry to within an inch and then slamming into the opponent with cavalry). The proposed change would require actual contact by the infantry (to pin it in line), thus altering the game tactic to: bringing your cavalry into contact with the opposing infantry, which, if successfully squares, is then assaulted by your infantry.

Ron's article opposing this change was entitled "In Defense of Purity" essentially arguing that commercial game rules should be played only as written. On the points relating to the debate which Ron raises, let's identify where we agree and where we part company:

1. I agree whole heartedly that NB is a game, well written, organized and fun. Wouldn't be such a big fan otherwise. I agree further that we all have different views of history. And Craig Taylor's view is valid, but it is a leap in logic to say that by purchasing his rules, you must make the "conciliatory move ... to agree to that view." We have had terrific games using NB modified to conform to various views of history.

2. I withdraw the adjectives "blatant and obvious" (describing the designers' oversight in developing a Napoleonic simulation where the primary tactic is to pin the enemy infantry in line by your infantry to be attacked by cavalry-the opposite of every history I've read). If, as Ron thinks, this is a "slight" oversight, I won't quibble. And I never meant to disparage the designers. Since Craig moved down to NC, I game with him periodically at his abode, and think him an all round nice guy as well as a terrific designer. I meant only that it is obvious to me now and that I should have seen it earlier.

3. I concede that the one inch restriction is consistent with the prohibitions against other formation changes. And, yes, the game is an abstraction, and, yes, it bothers me that units out of command radius cannot move (we, however, have another house rule ... ) and that the luck of the die roll dictates that casualties do not always occur consistently. None of these, however, addresses the issue of whether dumping the one inch restriction on squaring makes for a simulation more in keeping with history. I had hoped that someone would argue the case against Dennis's proposal, citing historical references where cavalry was used to beat up opposing infantry which couldn't square because of the proximity of enemy infantry. No one has contacted me with any examples on this point (it's not too late: ForsytheG@aol.com).

4. I will be interested to hear whether Ron's testing swings the advantage over to one nationality or another (changes sometimes have unintended results). I have not seen much change. An exception may be my Ottoman army-with its numerous cavalry units-which has suffered with this change. But I rather think this is also more historical. Should players be discouraged from playing or painting figures, terrain, etc. because rules changes add too much baggage, they are correct in dumping the house rule. It is a game after all, and the purpose should be to have a good time, not confuse or upset everyone. My purpose in supporting Dennis's rule change was to make NB more historical, not less fun.

5. A conversation with Rick Wynn at Historicon this summer got me thinking about whole issue of squaring at the brigade level, and about whether infantry and cavalry simultaneously attacked opposing infantry. Rick, who has hosted the famous miniNB tourney there for the past several years, even questioned the validity of line-column distinctions at the brigade level. Certainly the Empire crowd would quickly agree that NB is played at a scale too large to capture the flavor of Napoleonic warfare. But I assume we prefer NB because of its simplicity and speed of play--neither of which is affected by the exculpation of the one inch prohibition against squaring. And I suspect that the feel of Napoleonic warfare would be lost entirely if all the tactical nuances of the period were eliminated because of the grandtactical level of the game (frankly I was sorry to see that the rules failed to address flank attacks, even though that is as inappropriate to the NB level as squaring). In any event, the fact that NB is grand-tactical rather than tactical is irrelevant to the "one inch" issue.

I had not intended to spill so much ink over what Ron rightly calls a tempest in a teapot. I am not dissuaded that gamers should try other approaches. It is the one way I know to stumble upon an improvement. But I do apologize to Ron (and anyone else) by insinuating anyone to be "intellectually bankrupt" by dogmatically sticking to [even "slightly"] flawed rules (I wanted this to be a discussion of history and game design, not a personal attack; and in my exuberance I badly erred). And I would quickly concede to the wisdom of not making such changes should the results deplete the fun-- that is, after all, NB's strong suit.

More on Napoleon's Battles

Back to MWAN #97 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 1999 Hal Thinglum
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com