Someone on GEnie requested I write an article that would lay out the differences between the CWB and NBS series rules in terms of the mechanics of how things work and why. I will dispense with things like cavalry charges, countercharges, and squares because a simple answer of "Duh!" would suffice.

This article is a look at the differences between the two series. I will not look at every die roll modifier or minor "make-it more-intuitive" changes such as changing the rally roll from 2 or less (less the leader) to 5 or more (plus the leader).

What then, are the major mechanical differences between the two series?

1. Command and Control

The Command rules in the NBS are almost identical to that of the CWB. The only change of even minor significance is in the Acceptance Table. This table was split further. This allows minor differences between leaders and conditions to have more impact. The old column structure leveled the playing field too much, so one further delay status was necessary. The extra delay status (one with a 50% chance of success each tam) allows the transition between the different delays and straight acceptance to be smoother and more elegant. Lastly, the table was refitted to an 11.66 dice roll to smooth the progression of changes in probability. This leaves no big probabilistic jumps as in the earlier two dice 2-12 roll table. In the original table, attempting to smooth the probability jumps generated interesting "all-over-the place" result columns. With the 11.66 table, I could standardize so the statement "You want to roll high in Gamers's games" applies here, too. The only places left where you do not want to roll high, in any of our games, is in the field of morale checks. Don't ask me why.

2. ZOCs

Another major change between the two series is the complete elimination of ZOCs in the NBS. This was a product of the shorter weapons ranges of the period. These shorter ranges had a strict limitation on a unit's ability to influence its surroundings over distance. The result is that the game gives a distinctively different feel. It is a mobile non-linear appearance much more reminiscent of Napoleonic warfare. On the other hand, the CWB gives a linear slug fest look that is appropriate for that period but not the earlier one.

Besides changing the feel and look of unit handling, the elimination of ZOCs greatly changed the handling of artillery in a way that fits nicely into accepted Napoleonic thought The limitations on artillery unlimbering next to the enemy were thrown out. Thus, the artillery assumed its correct Napoleonic offensive status. Now, artillery can roll right up to 200 yards of the enemy, unlimber, and start pounding away-just like in the textbooks!

3. Offensive Slant of Close Combat

Due to the short ranges of Napoleonic weapons, most fire fights where a decision occurred, it was within the same hex as the defender. The close combat therefore becomes a standard way of righting once you decide to push the matter, not just the final act of pushing the enemy over the edge.

Close combat lost some of its desperation character. Troops of the Napoleonic era expected these close ranges, so the morale check modifiers for these combats needed to slant toward the offensive. This shift adds even more to the non-linear feel of the game. Moreover, the shift toward the offensive means that the player who takes charge and chooses to do something will find his aggressive behavior rewarded. Whereas, the player, who sits on his position and leaves the initiative to the enemy, will not.

4. Combined Arms

While this might fall under the column of "Duh!", I want to point out that combined arms means something in the Napoleonic sense. It really did not in the CWB. Civil War cavalry is a relatively impotent arm. Artillery merely adds some extra firepower to attacks. One protects himself (or doesn't) from artillery fire the same way as he does from infantry fire. This is the same faulty application of combined arms as the guy who thinks he's using combined arms when he calls in an air strike and artillery on an enemy position. To protect yourself from the air strike, you dig in, to protect yourself from the artillery, you dig further...

Napoleonic combined arms, however, do fulfill these conditions. When threatened with cavalry, infantry should form square to defend itself. This is the wrong move if enemy artillery or infantry is near. The player can use this to his advantage to force his opponent to make a mistake of which he can take advantage.

The result of the above is a more active, fluid game where the reward goes to the player who correctly applies aggressive play. The combined arms effect of having three almost equally important weapons systems generates more emphasis on tactical unit handling. The player that most correctly assembles the pieces of the puzzle will see rich rewards on the game map. This contrasts sharply with the typical Civil War attritional slain-dance, and generates a more fun and exciting game.