1 . I note that in the current issue of THE COURIER, Issue #82 (the magazine has, for years, refused to state the date of publication), that Paul Koch, author of ON TO RICHMOND, contributed an article on a "DBA Based Set Of Napoleonic Rules". Now, why in the world would he do that? Paul uses 20mm Airfix figures for his collection, and for this latest effort, he says he rebased them to give the impression of mass... 14 to 18 infantry figures per stand, 8 to 10 cavalry figures per stand. "... it really looks nice", he states. And then, of course, he gives his 12-stand army lists... the British army has 6 regular infantry stands and 1 light infantry stand, the French army has 5 regular infantry stands and 1 light infantry stand, and so on. The question that I stated before was "why in the world would he do that?" What does a 12stand game have to do with Napoleonics other than that the figures are Napoleonic ones? An ancillary question is "why in the world would the magazine print this stuff?" In the Koch article, infantry are classed as "blades", with +3 in combat against other blades. Usng 6-sided dice, there's only 4 chances out of 36, 11 percent, that one side or the other will destroy the opponent by doubling his modifed die roll. The remainder of the time, there'll be a lot of pushing and pulling and shoving and stepping back, but no action. Definitely not my sort of game. 2. I down-loaded from the internet, a set of rules called HORSE, FOOT AND GUNS (HFG), which were, purportedly, generated by Phil Barker for the horse-and-musket era. The rules cover the years from 1775 to 1865. The rules are in the DBM format, i.e., the same automaton-like language where the author gives army lists and army points and allocates generals and then you toss a 6-sided die or two to get your movement pips. Same old crappola. Nothing new here. What was interesting to me was the fact that HFG appeared on the internet... free for the taking. That told me that if, indeed, the rules were generated by Barker, that he had given up on them, that they were a loser, first, in replicating Napoleonic warfare, and second, as a potential publishing item in terms of marketability. This will not, of course, prevent lots of gamers from grabbing the rules and exclaiming that they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. 3. Got two interesting comments from readers of the REVIEW, both along the same lines. First was one from Pat Condray. I just received the latest copy of your "tour de farce", he said, noting that once again, Simon had smashed and bashed "other people's rules". My return message simply pointed out that it was not only "other people's rules" with which I was dissatisfied, but also my own endeavors in trying to come up with a satisfactory set. The second input came from Dick Bryant, editor of the COURIER. He, too, noted, that I never met a set of rules I ever liked. How about writing an article for the COURIER entitled "Why I Hate Other People's Rules"?, he asked. I told him that I'd think awhile on his offer. Back to PW Review May 2001 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2001 Wally Simon 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