BONAPARTE IN ITALY From: Paul Crispi I wanted to let you know that I am very pleased with the game that arrived yesterday. This is my first experience with OSG and has been a professional and satisfying one at the very least. I would like to be kept informed as to the expansion set to this game whenever it is available. Please add me to the list (if one exists), or let me know if I should just check the website occasionally to keep updated. I also have Struggle of Nations and Napoleon at Bay which I believe are your works also. FORAGING IN BONAPARTE IN ITALY From: James D. Parmenter A question: I can not understand a part of a line under Cartographic Notes. Second paragraph: "... seed-bearing cultures comprise 77% of land (50% arboreal especially wine, 27% barren/no rice)." Barren/no rice just doesn't compute as part of seed-bearing cultures. If the phrase read: "... seed-bearing cultures comprise 77% of land (50% arboreal especially wine, 27% cereals/rice) with 23% barren/no rice.", it would make sense. "No rice" would mean swamps or bogs not cultivated for rice, and "barren" would include roads, houses/yards, villages, rivers, etc. in addition to the usual connotation of not worth a s--t. There would still be a small question if fieno counted as "seed-bearing" to be lumped in with cereals. You see, the phrase "... some cereals, mostly grain,..." is used later. I know you see these as nit-picks. I think they have to do with really understanding foraging/looting. As you know, the bulk of what was needed by an army living off the land was forage to keep the horses going. [Now it's gas/diesel to keep the trucks/tanks moving.] Horses don't do well on wine (alone / at all). They need foraggio which is bulky and hell to move to them. So you look close to where you have them - like gassing up your tanks & APCs from the local Service Station. So where was it in Northern Italy in 1796-97? They need grano as a supplement, and it is somewhat easier to move. But not all kinds are suitable. Frumento [English (British) corn] makes good pasta, but it screws up a horse's digestion. Damn if I know about rice. What I'm trying to get to is -- was there really that much for horses on "... Europe's most fertile plain!" when about 50% of everything in sight was arboreal? It seems to me that even though Bonaparte was not heavy with cavalry & artillery, and really pretty short of heavy transport, he still would have foraged out the area pretty damn soon as far as horses go. I know none of this is new to you. I really appreciate the cartographic notes. The part on crops is a good departure from the usual commentary at this scale. Of course wine was the way to go for cash crops. Our frontiersmen were finding out the same thing at the same period. Whatever you grow, turn it into booze and it's easier to haul to the city to sell for big money. I will appreciate it if you care to comment. CULTURES IN BONAPARTE IN ITALY From: Nicola Prandoni Rereading what I wrote, I realized that I used a wrong word, "barren", to describe all and every culture not growing in a tree shape. I apologize for that, as it turned out to be a major misunderstanding. In fact, as I first wrote my comment, I was considering the military use of the terrain more on the intelligence than on the logistic point of view. That's because I did think that whatever the culture, is the major categories (altitude related) that make the foraging differences. Instead I wanted to shape up all that BiI 1st ed. clear hexes, into a military meaning terrain: wood in the high ground, but also a certain percentage of orchard hexes (arboreal and wine), swamps (rice, at least in some seasons), everything else (cornfields, wheatfields, and all other sort of cereals, but also cabbages, beets, cucumbers, potatoes, tomatoes, sunflowers etc.), which can be portrayed as real clear terrain, was grouped in the "barren" category, to signify that such terrain can't hide troops moving into it. At the moment in my mind the map designer should have used the percentages given in the regional breakdown, to cover with such terrain the clear hexes of the Po valley. It's important to understand that "arboreal" is in no way woods, but is really orchards (or the even lower vineyards), so that is in no way a movement obstacle, just a visual (intelligence) one. I can't say about your horses point, as I think that the small armies involved in this campaign shouldn't have much trouble feeding the horses in the plain; doesn't matter where, especially if you consider the extreme close mixing of the various cultures on the territory, so that anywhere you are, you are close to what you (or your horses) need. Ask Kevin for the cultures map. I really believe the Po valley is the Europe's most fertile plain, because there you get everything everywhere you are: cereals, fruits, vegetables etc., but also livestock and water. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< FORAGE IN THE CAMPAIGNS OF NAPOLEON From: Mark Sterner Reading through the "forage" rules of this game raises again in my mind the questions that arose when I began contemplating my own 18th-19th C. operational/campaign game. I have been highly influenced by recent writings on military logistics, particularly van Creveld's and others coming later. In addition, I recalled your detailed treatment of forage in the first ed. of this game, and threw that into the hopper, hoping to reconcile the apparent theories. Of course, those were not available when you designed the first "Bonaparte in Italy", but one cannot put the djinni back in the bottle, eh? My thought, consistent with van Creveld, is that cavalry (and even horse attached to infantry and artillery) ALWAYS foraged. The demands of feeding horse were too great ever to be supplied from a depot (except during the rare "winter campaign") and hence, the move to "winter quarters" when forage was not available in the field. Moreover, if one reads van Creveld's treatment of the 1805 campaign, the Grande Armee foraged the entire time (men and horse) and such activity did not slow them down -- to the contrary one can see. In fact, the effect of "foraging" purportedly impelled the army forward toward Vienna b/c to stop meant to "eat the countryside clean" (this effect is also noticeable in some of Frederick's SYW campaigns). Orders were even given by Napoleon, if I recall correctly, for one corps to forage ONLY on one side of the [given] road, and another corps to forage from the other side -- ON THE MARCH. Moreover, to go even further back, Marlborough's march south before Blenheim was accomplished through "forage" of sorts -- officers riding ahead to towns/cities en route to arrange for the provision of the necessary supplies (i.e., forage). The only difference (perhaps little, in a practical sense) was the manner of "payment", if any. Clearly, most armies of the "horse & musket" era, including the Napoleonic Wars, depended on local supplies for sustenance; not really upon established military depots conjured up by the theorists positing the "umbilical cord" of the army back to its depot. In this sense, Napoleon's famous statement that "an army 'marches' on its stomach" takes on a revelatory meaning, eh? And certainly, in 1812, Napoleon counted upon Moscow for the army's "winter quarters", right? Not on a supply line back to, say, Poland. Now, given two-day turns, and the fact that cavalry and other horse would be foraging as the norm, is constant "forage dispersal" to avoid severe attrition appropriate? Would not a "forage period" attempt to provide human supply for a number of days' march, both stored on each soldier and on supply wagons? I'm thinking here of the "forage rule" abstraction in the GCACW (Avalon Hill) which has a "supply check" and possible "forage" at certain intervals; fortnightly? (I forget the exact time period offhand.) I realize that you have more to do than "justify" your game (excellent as it is!), but I'm interersted, as a natural and scholarly matter, in your logistical assumptions of this period. To me, logistics were the element that drove the direction of many famous campaigns in this period of history (particularly Frederick's) and I would like to know, as briefly as you can manage for both our sakes, what you assume with respect to your foraging rules (and what is happening when NOT "foraging") and where you differ, if at all, with van Creveld et al. N.B. I'm not saying that France's enemies were unable and also more inclined to "trace" supply from collection points (depots, e.g.). However, while conducting "blitzkrieg", Napoleon's armies frequently operated w/o depot supply traces and were not "slowed" as a result. In fact, one could argue the contrary (tying oneself to a depot chain would slow the army!). LA GUERRE VARIANTS From: "Jarek Andruszkiewicz" Exchange Murat's ratings for Massena's and vice-versa (I personally think of Massena being better leader than Murat). New Rebellion Table lists: Ireland, Tyrol, Naples, Egypt, Serbia, Greece, La Vendee, Catalonia, Georgia, Switzerland. FIRE AS SHE BEARS From: Phil C Fry Here is how the scenario will look in the on site book: "The Battle of the Nile (hypothetical) 1 August 1798 In this hypothetical action, Admiral Nelson catches the French on the way to Alexandria and fights them at sea rather than meeting them at anchor in Aboukir Bay." One scenario will be run on Friday at 6pm (5 hours). The second game will be run on Saturday at Noon (also 5 hours). Both are the same scenario. "Fire As She Bears!" is a moderate complexity game. It stresses command control as being critical to the tactics of the time. Staying in a "line of battle" until the decissive moment is paramount. Knowing when to break the enemy's line and engage at close range (The Nelson Touch), and when to avoid a more powerful fleet is a large part of the game. The rules encourage historical tactics (i.e. the British are tougher at close range, the French tend to fire high at medium and long range, etc.) Each player will command four ships. The rules put you in the role of a commodore or rear admiral, rather than than that of an individual captain. There are no written orders (as in other sets) as we use an intiative and command system that encourages historical formations. WARGAME DESIGN VOL. II, NR. 5 From: N. Contardi My personal impressions on the magazine which arrived some days ago. My ratings range from 1 (the worst) to 5 (the best) Front cover, 4 Good (but see Graphic presentation) Summary, 4 Good. But your editorial is the first thing most of us want to read. Don't let it look an incidental footnote. BiI, Proof Positive, 4 I like playtesting narrative experience. One or two other examples of system trouble-shooting would be fine. BiI is priced but release date is missing. OSG's Operational Level Nap. Series, 5 Good marketing announcement. And necessary. Operational Studies on CD-ROM - Nap. & Waterloo, 2 With this article I haven't understood well the contents and the intents of your CD. The 2000 Nap. tour, 5 Good. Very clear and complete. The Sun of Austerlitz, 5 There should be such an article for each upcoming OSG game. Readers like Designer Notes a lot. Release date? (everyone has a dream of it) Feedback, 5 Ok to see it there. Interface System between TER and LDGA, 5 Very good ! I would have the time to test it, as I had some questions on how it could exactly work Design Symposium, The evaluation of units, 4 Design Symposium, What is Wargame Design, 5 Design Symposium, The Subsystem, 5 Are you going to edit a book on Wargame Design? Useful concepts in order to understand designs. Also useful to newcomers in wargame design to cope with the design issues. In your sentences, I have found many analogies with my job of building complex software systems... it's not so strange. The pre-advanced games, 3 I like this kind of section most. But here games are treated in different manners: some are detailed, others are not. Readers would like to have some more information also on unusual topics you present. LDGA, A question of Elan, 5 Well done. And useful. LDGA, Q&A, 5 Ok. Ordering & Subscription, 5 Ok. Graphic presentation, 4 Overall: fine. Simple, elegant, very accurate, OSG-styled. OSG's logo is missing from any page and instead it should be, at least in the front cover (I like it very much: I have used it with other images for my personal edition of La Guerre's Golds...courtesy K. Zucker ;-) . - Bold insert among chapters: perhaps too many ? Value for money, 3 $7.50 for a single issue of WD are probably a lot of money for many persons. Right price imho: $5. Subscription rates are right. Overall judgement, 4,5 I have enjoyed it very much. Keep up with the good work .... Back to OSG News June 2000 Table of Contents Back to OSG News List of Issues Back to Master Magazine List © Copyright 2000 by Operational Studies Group. 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