Congratulations on another interesting issue of PA. Regarding your opening article on IENA (you failed to credit the author so, sorry, I cannot reference he/she directly). (CHV: Mea culpa, cry ye mercie good sir knight, it was Niall Taylor)
Frankly, I'm in agreement with much of what he /she says. The Designer Notes included in the rulebook pretty much sum up shat I was trying to show, and, yes, the result did not explore every nuance of the Napoleonic contra Fredrecian methods of command. In my defence, however, I'd like to point out that the author is forgetting the point of view the player of the game assumes when he starts moving units around on the map; which is essentially that of Napoleon himself, or Hohenlohe/Brunswick (depending on the number of Prussian players available; the game being ideal for three players).
When the author extrapolates from Vachee and states... "The delay between receipt and the start of the day's march for the various [French] corps ranged between one hour (Davout) to four hours (Lannes) with the average being two hours..." he commits two errors: 1. (superficial) That Davout and Lannes were not always at these respective distances from French HQ (as if this were a constant), and. 2. Most turns in the game represent two hours (5 day turns of two hours each, two night turns of 4 hours each, one dawn turn of 4 hours). Two of the late-day turns and both night turns only permit movement via Force March, which is very restrictive and costly.
I chose the two-hour turn length because I too have read Vachee (in fact, he is cited in the game's bibliography), and, because this was about the average length of time it took a body of men roughly the size of a division to cross a bridge over a significant water barrier (such as the Saale or Ilm rivers). Thus, if one's perspective of the game is that of Napoleon, the average distance to your subordinate commanders is two hours; i.e., you are in contact with them virtually every turn, albeit with a two-hour lag. Now, while incorporating this two hour lag between yourself and your subordinates seems tempting upon first discovery; it becomes a little ridiculous when you have to write rules for it... and these types of rules are exactly the kind of rules you hear critics screaming about in the back of your mind as you write them (I think every designer has a critic's conscience once their cherry's been popped).
When the author states that "these general orders [written by Napoleon to his corps commanders] contain very little in the way of instruction..." he seems to be affirming the initiative based command system used by the French subordinate leaders. This is especially so if the passing of this initiative check is looked upon by the superior commander (Napoleon/French player) as an action conforming to his designs.
I think if we look at the Prussian response time as extrapolated from Vachee by the author we'll find that they lagged behind the French by a factor of two or three. In that the game allows them only two turns a day in which they can issue new orders the ratio when compared to the French is roughly the same.
While the author appeals to my personal desire for accuracy and detail, articulating all the nuances of the French and Prussian command systems would, I'm afraid, only please him. I'm also sure that if the author were focused on logistics, or the tactical nuances of combat, instead of the intricacies of command, just as legitimate arguments could be made in favour of elaborating those aspects of the game. The end resulting in a game with considerable more development costs and a rulebook two or three times greater than the current 14 pages. While this has merit, of course, as stated in the Designer's Notes this was not my intent (it's odd, I purposefully added the designer notes section to this rulebook because CV in all his wisdom thought the inclusion of same in L'Armee du Nord would have nipped in the bud some of the controversy surrounding that game. Viola!
(CHV: Or even Voila, or is this some cunning Twelfth Night pun intended to expose my ignorance?)
Iena Review (PA#99)
Another Iena Review (PA#95)
Back to Perfidious Albion #100 Table of Contents
Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2000 by Charles and Teresa Vasey.
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