It was nice to read D. Newport's article, especially since I have not played that many games under the CWB rules yet. I even found that I already do some of what he suggests! However, I wonder about several things: [Ed. note: The responses here, in italics, are from me; do don't blame David Newport if you disagree with them.]

1) Under question #5 possible answer A, I thought the rules had changed to require an initial minimum of 2 gun points in a detached battery?

You are correct, per series rule 26.1b. To distribute the gun points 2, 2, and 1, you would have to have a detached battery that had already been reduced to 1 point among that set of 5 gun points.

2) Under question #7's answer explanation David says "a hit on the battery will knock it down to 3 points." My reading of the fire results table sees a max. of 1 gun point loss, so the remaining 4 gun points would still fire with 1 point on the 4-6 range column. Or did I miss something?

The last paragraph of question 6 proposes the case when a battery has already been reduced to 4 points. Sorry, I should have made this clearer.

3) Under question #13, would the "lanes" David recommends really be enough. It seems like the rules require units to retreat "straight back" so the grain of the map would result in units in 12.11 and 12.13 retreating into the support brigades in 11.11 and 11.13 or is the retreat rule more flexible than I think?

Series rule 5.2 says the owning player retreats units "in a relatively straight line which is locally 'to the rear'." Since 2nd Division in David's example is facing the enemy, then the lanes 1st Division leaves open are valid retreat paths. The retreat does not have to be straight-arrow away from the enemy.

The system is nice but I could use a handbook of hints or examples of orders, etc. (not to have a "perfect" solution, but to know if one can use "defend the left/center/right" say in April's Harvest or must identify pieces of ground more closely). Guess I should make it to Homer some September to learn from the experts. . . .

I had also asked Dean about a campaign series in which the results of the individual battles had an impact on future events, but there seems to be enough going on!

Thanks for your time with this and keep up the good work.

Regarding your article Out Brief in Ops 28, I agree completely with your assertion that wargame designers should not get into the patenting "game." My observation of patents is that they are too easily acquired. (I have one myself.) I believe I've read where 75%+ of patents are merely improvements on patents already issued. The other effect of patents is to freeze out any competitive pressures, something which I have seen little evidence of in wargaming in the past.

Contrary to your assertion that SimTac is copying game systems, I believe Sagunto and Los Arapiles are a significant step up from the regular La Bataille system which has been around more than 20 years, (three years longer than a regular patent would be in effect). The SimTac games have added command, control, battle fatigue, and a significantly cleaner method of handling routing units. There is also an "operational" addition which allows some pre-battle maneuver to affect exactly where the clash occurs. These upgrades make the SimTac games much more than La Bataille "clones." To be sure, the lineage is clear, but I would have a hard time justifying to myself that SimTac has ripped off Ed Wimble. If you don't believe me, check out page 27 of Operations 28 and see what is rated #3! It appears that at least 8 others agree.

My main beef with the La Bataille system is that despite the spectacular graphics, the battles are presented as two masses of battalions fighting with no higher control. Only recently (1997) has Clash of Arms issued an updated set of rules to address this shortcoming. My question is, why did it take so long? Could it be that some competition has surfaced? I think if competition will help their system get better, then as a consumer I have to be happy.

I will continue to buy Napoleonic battle games, but I want to buy the best available. I hope the NBS gets a few more titles out soon, and I look forward to more of SimTac's offerings due to their superior design. If Ed Wimble doesn't like it, then I suggest he get the old design juices flowing and come up with some updated designs.

While I fall short of "asserting" that SimTac is merely copying La Bataille, I did use phrases "copy cat" and "lack of originality." I should clarify. I'm not calling SimTac games complete rip-offs or mere clones and I'm not commenting on the validity of Ed's objections. Rather, the point is that while many wargames present a melange of ideas drawn from numerous other games (ZOCs, combined arms effect, artillery barrages, step losses, whatever), the SimTac games have a single, prominent source. (The dual-rules approach of Alexandria 1801 is a different question).

You point out some of the differences between the two systems that make you appreciate Sagunto and Los Arapiles. I theorize that many gamers are attracted to those games because of their similarities to, as well as difference from, La Bataille. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; you don't see anyone coming to market with a "new and improved" version of 3W's Strategy. Anyway, here's my take: to the extent of SimTac's debt to La Bataille, the games from Spain stand on the shoulders of giants.