(response to Consimworld discussion, CoN Folder, around #200) When you have a large force which descends upon a smaller force, which in turn fails to disengage, the battle will normally result in a 'pursuit' battle since the outnumbered force will lose and reveal his 'pursuit' chit. Why would any force which is outnumbered choose 'pitched'? Because, if one had a nearby force not blocked from reinforcing the combat, the outnumbered force with sufficient strength to prevent getting extinguished in one round will choose 'pitched' and accept some losses (if the position or combat is important) until the nearby force can engage the attackers and either divert them or join the first defender's hex. I favor the optional rule which makes the force-marching force arrive on a later round depending on distance to the battle. It didn't seem right that a force 20 miles away (by road) could march to the battle and be there on the first round. Some have suggested a simpler 'one die roll' combat resolution and other saying that a simple 'pursuit' battle resolution, as found in the initial NAB and B. in Italy offerings, served perfectly fine for combat resolution. I don't think its viable to move to a completely "Pursuit" oriented combat because the vagaries of forces marching to reinforce in the midst of the battle would be lost and I, for one, would miss that suspense, despite it getting really used somewhat infrequently. If you did move to a "one die roll" combat system, I'd like some technique to be utilized to reduce the value in combat for units which arrived 'late' to the battle, as seemed to happen frequently in some of the larger Napoleonic Battles. It's possible that the combat system is a bit more overblown now, but I have so far enjoyed the changes you've implemented. The operational concerns of nearby friendly forces joining a combat during the course of that combat appeals to me and seems essential to me. That process also seems completely impossible with a "one die-roll" system, though if it could be done I'd be happier. The existing combat methodology, as it now exists, seems to model operational combat concerns pretty well, so the only valid complaints by others, it seems to me, appear to be the numbers of casualties lost by the respective parties. So, if you deem the critics correct in assessing that the casualties are too balanced (too equal was, I think, one of the complaints), then perhaps merely a modified CRT would produce the range and diversity of results that the critics appear to desire. Because of the Leaders' Bonus Points, I'd suggest that if you decided to test this option, that you use the 11-66 range type CRT results rather than just the additive 2d6 technique that only produces the 2-12 range of results. The latter produces a bell-curve which produce funny results due to the Bonus Points. Along the lines above, perhaps the 'Administrative Point Accumulation' table might also be 11-66 so that the Commander's Bonus Point benefit might produce a more even effect. Another possibility might be to take a leaf out of the Victory Games' "Civil War", and produce two (probably not three) CRTs, one for small combats and one for large combats. You'd be better able to judge the break-point in results. You might incorporate the disruption results that you abandoned previously in the system into the CRT itself, as a combat result, regardless of leadership, though perhaps reducing/eliminating some of its handicaps. But put recovery into the initial phase of the friendly turn. Thus, good leaders will recover immediately from disruption, but poor leaders will get handicapped for a few days. Small combats might disrupt more frequently than cause losses, providing a bit more 'push' for smaller forces. Pursuit might still destroy the force, but cavalry screens might be able to reduce pursuit results through their superiority and the high Initiative of cavalry commanders would allow them to also recover pretty quickly and resume their effectiveness. So, in summary, I don't think any kind of 'one die roll' resolution will capture the operational context of battles. I don't mind extra detail in the resolution of combat as long as the detail reflects the operational combat concerns of the Commander. In the games I've played, the two players fenced for considerable time. Where the two players knew they weren't superior, they faded back as much as possible while the opposing player advanced, attempting to catch a weaker force and destroy it. I think weaker forces engaged in combat might vaporize too easily in the current table, but I can't really judge, not having studied the historical combats enough. But, when both players thought they had a shot and engaged in combat, the extra time taken added to the enjoyment as one side or the other sought a "Napoleonic Decisive Victory". So don't let the critics convince you to 'water down' the combat system. But perhaps a little more variation in the results and detail in the outcomes might give you that little bit of extra that will enhance the operational maneuver already such a wonderful part of the system. Don't water down the combat system. Currently, most operational concerns appear modeled. Perhaps only the actual outcomes might need to be re-examined. If you change it, perhaps just a trifle might soothe the critics. Two tables (perhaps still with 1d6) or perhaps one larger table with ranges from 11-66. I'm not averse to change, though it should not be done all willy-nilly. I trust your designer instincts and your many years of immersion in Napoleonic historical facts and research. Back to OSG News January 2001 Table of Contents Back to OSG News List of Issues Back to Master Magazine List © Copyright 2001 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