If I always appear prepared, it is because before entering an undertaking, I have meditated long and have foreseen what might occur. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly and secretly what I should do in circumstances unexpected by others; it is thought and preparation.

--Napoleon Bonaparte

Fred Haub and I arrived at the house of Bob and Cleo Liebl for a game, and we were told that someone was going to arrive shortly and bring in terrain and figures and rules, etc., for a ‘tank’ battle.

Wally Simon at right.

After a half-hour of waiting, with the ‘someone’ not showing up, Bob set up his own 15mm Napoleonic game. He gave us our armies, handed out the reference sheets… and omigawd! it was the pit of pits! the wussest of the wust!… it was NAPOLEON’S BATTLES (NB)!

I was an Austrian commander (there were four Austrian commanders) in the year 1796… the year was important, because the NB data sheets (there are 12 of them, setting out information for 20 different nationalities) differentiate amongst the periods of the Napoleonic wars. For example, my Austrian line infantry, in column of attack for the period 1792 to 1804, may march forward 6 inches per turn, while in the years 1805 and 1806, they’ll speed up and advance 7 inches per turn… and then for 1807 to 1810, they’ll move up at 8 inches, while for 1811 to 1815, their rate is 9 inches.

For all of the above periods, covering a span of 1792 to 1815, or 23 years, the authors tell you that Austrian Grenzers start out at, and continue to march forward in attack column, a distance of 12 inches per turn. Over this period of 23 years, they never learn, as did the line infantry, to move any faster.

Here’s another interesting instance of the nitty-gritty contained on the data sheets. During the battle, my Austrian cavalry attacked a French brigade in line, which tossed a die and formed an “emergency square” to fend off the cavalry. In the ensuing melee calculations, in which both sides tossed a 10-sided die, the French infantry-in-square were given a +7 against my cavalry. A couple of turns later, the French cavalry closed with one of my Austrian squares. The data sheets said that the Austrian square received a +6 in the combat. Were my Austrian bayonets less sharp? Shorter? Made of cheaper metal? I noted that, depending upon the type of troop, and the year, the “infantry-in-square-versus-cavalry” parameter varied from +4 to +8.

I would have thought that if the infantry, any infantry, were able to form square in the face of a cavalry charge, then they’d all receive one consistent combat modifier.

For the guy who wants to “re-create history”, the NB charts are the pinnacle of “realism”. Each data sheet contains a myriad of troop types (infantry and cavalry and artillery) for each nationality, and for each time period, each troop type is given a huge assortment of 18 different parameters. There are parameters for movement in line or column of attack or column of march, parameters for firing, for combat strength in line or combat strength in column, for being disordered, for forming emergency square when attacked by cavalry, for routing, for recovering from rout… the list goes on… this is really good stuff.

And where did the authors of NB get their data and how did they translate it to the tabletop in such exquisite detail? Ah dunno… but, then, neither do they.

My command consisted of 2 divisions of infantry plus one division of cavalry. A division was made up of 2 or 3 brigades, which were the true maneuver and firing elements of the game. A brigade consisted of either 4 or 5 stands, and I think the stands each represented a battalion.

Long ago, because I thought (a) the data sheets were full of crappola, and (b) they listed the crappola in hard-to-read, teensy-weensy print, I refused to read the NB chart listings, and in the games in which I participated, I let the gaming host translate the numbers for me. After all, he inflicted the game on me; let him look up the parameters on the chart listings. What’s fair is fair.

And in this battle, pitted against my Austrian force, were the brigades of Bob Liebl himself and so it was Bob that did all the research and I have to admit that he was a busy fella. For not only did he turn up the numbers for me, but also for just about everyone else.

I had my two infantry divisions enter the field on my baseline. Each division had 3 brigades, and my brigades had 3 modes of movement. In line, all stands abreast, they could move forward 3 inches. In column of attack, a formation with the stands formed in 2 lines, each line behind the other, they could move forward 6 inches. In march column, a thin column with the stands lined up one behind the other, and the movement distance was 15 inches.

Bob’s French units were situated 24 inches from my baseline, and I thought I had plenty of maneuver room before contact was made. And so my units all appeared in attack column, each in 2 lines, one behind the other, moving up at 6 inches per turn. But note that the terminology “attack column” is my own, for there is no such thing in NB. In fact, NB hates “attack columns” the formation exists and is recognized, but the authors don’t like it don’t dare attack with a brigade in “attack column” it gets a ‘minus’ in melee, and always seems to get beaten. It’s the line formation that NB favors. At least, that was my experience.

Now, here’s the big surprise. While my Austrian brigades in attack column moved forward at 6 inches per turn, French brigades in attack column could zip up at 12 inches per turn. I hadn’t realized the French were so speedy. Within 2 moves, one of the French brigades in attack column contacted one of my own… it was all downhill from there.

The sequence for the half-bound is simple (a) After the active side moves, then (b) the non-active side fires, (c). The active side fires, and then (d) combat is resolved.

And so we fired at each other in Phases (b) and (c) and then went to Phase (d). Remember that I said that NB hates attack columns and always gives ‘em negative modifiers? well, here, my Austrian brigade got a -4 for being in that formation, while the French brigade got a -1 for its formation.

We tossed opposing 10-sided dice, and with a bias of 3 in the French unit’s favor, the odds of its coming out on top were (according to my calculations) 77.4 percent. My guys were whupped and they ran back. In point of fact, my guys were continually being whupped, and continually running back.

My Austrians were no competition for Bob’s French. No matter how I tried to match the French tactics and formations, the French always came up with a bigger and better modifier.

Of interest was the fact that, on the other end of the table, Fred Haub’s Austrian forces were having a great success advancing against the French.

Fred had a bunch of 4-stand (4-regiment) brigades. He placed each of them in the “attack column” formation, not so much to attack, but to increase firepower.

Facing him were the French divisions of Cleo Liebl, and Cleo had placed her brigades in line, placing the stands of each unit side by side, so that if push came to shove and the Austrians made contact, she’d get a huge ‘plus modifier’ for the melee. I noted before that the data sheets would give her French brigades a -1 in melee if they were in attack column, but here, the sheets would gave the French brigades a +2 for being in line.

And so, if the Austrian attack columns ever made contact, they would get, as I indicated above, a -4 melee modifier, while the French line formations would receive a +2… giving the French a huge bias of +6 on the opposing melee die rolls. Cleo was certain of victory should melee occur… her bias of +6 gave her a 93.8 percent chance of winning in melee.

But here’s what that wily Austrian commander, General Haub, did. Each of his brigades had a 2-stand frontage and he placed his brigades side by side, so that 3 of them, with a total frontage of 6 stands, could face off and oppose the 5-stand frontage of one of Cleo’s units.

And so, when the fire phases took place, General Haub had three times the firepower of the French. NB’s firing procedures mandate that each firing brigade toss a single 10-sided die, regardless of its formation. The opponent tosses an opposing die, and if the firing unit’s die is more than the target’s, a hit is scored.

Here, therefore, the Haub units’ each had three bites of the apple against each of Cleo’s units. No matter that Cleo’s entire brigade was formed in a single line, which in classical Napoleonic theory would maximize its firepower, no matter that Fred’s brigades were all squnched up, side by side, in little pairs of stands, which should minimize their fire power… NB mandates that each firing unit toss a single die, regardless of how you form it up.

The result was that Cleo’s units began to break. NB sets out a critical number of hits a brigade can take during one fire phase before it becomes disordered and has to fall back. And with Fred’s 3-to-1 advantages in firepower, Cleo’s units began running back.

There’s one other aspect of NB that’s bothered me, and I’ve mentioned this before. The rules give each division commander a “command radius”… units outside of his radius don’t move at all, while the commander dices to see how far the units within his radius will move. If my Austrian division commanders had, for example, a command number of 6 and a 4-inch zone of influence, a toss of 6 or under permitted all of his brigades within 4 inches to move their full distance. A toss over 6 and each of his units in the zone could only move half distance.

And so this detailed procedure had to be followed each turn before your units moved. Note that I don’t say, “well thought out procedure”… I only say “detailed”.

Now comes the time in the sequence when a unit breaks and runs. Where to? Which way? I asked Bob about this, since a lot of my units were running back each turn. His answer was to point to my division general, and say that I should make the unit run towards its commanding officer, so that it could rally easier. What this meant was that I had greater control of my running, disordered units than I did of the units remaining in good order. I had to dice to see how my units in good order could move, but I could direct my disordered units wherever I wanted. Is “crappola” too weak a word?