If you're gonna do it, then ... gol dang it! Do it right! Rudy Nelson's rules..."a simulation study of Napoleonic warfare"... start off on the wrong foot on the cover. His "simulation study" simulates the French "Garde" with the English word "Guard." i have another "professionally" published set of Napoleonic rules brilliantly titled "AVANT MON ENFANTS." Cheez! One would think that an author, if he's going to choose a snappy title, would ensure that, at the least, the title would be beyond reproach. After all, it's only got three lousy words in it! In THE COURIER, Vol VIII, No 1, Jim Birdseye wrote a review of this set of rules in which he finished up by stating: "The rules are generally well written and well designed." I definitely take issue, with the first part of his statement. Incidentally, even Jim was confused by the title; in his article, he goes back and forth between GUARD DU CORPS and GARDE DU CORPS. In this issue of the REVIEW, Hank Martin describes a GUARD (sic) DU CORPS (let's call it GDC so as not to get wrapped up in semantics) battle which he hosted one fine Saturday afternoon at his house. I couldn't attend the event; instead I played in another set-up which I had asked Hank to present at a PW meeting to a bunch of novices, me among 'em. I must admit the game went smoothly... 8 full turns in around 3 hours with a total of 14 players - the majority of whom were unfamiliar with the rules. Hank, of course, played the part of the expediter: "OK, you've got 10 seconds to change formation", and "you guys better hurry up and finish moving your troops in 15 seconds", and "Only 5 seconds left!" and so on. With Hank constantly prodding the butts of the participants, it's no wonder that all flowed smoothly. Right at the outset, I was unfavorably impressed when I opened my rules book - purchased from, and autographed by, ol' Rudy hi'sef - and found that nowhere in the text did it describe artillery firing procedures. Hank had the 2nd edition; I had the 1st. There is no resemblance between the two, other than that the word "Guard" is prominent in the titles of each. In my book, for example, there is an entire chapter, aptly titled "ARTILLERY CHAPTER" devoted to guns and gunning, which encompasses pages 20 to 28. This chapter speaks of Artillery Effectiveness Value - the dreaded AEV but it doesn't tell you what to do with the AEV (fear not, I know what to do with the AEV!). It speaks of transferring equipment between batteries, of the ammunition supply, of special rules for the French Guard Horse artillery, of naval guns, of rocket batteries, and so on... but it does not tell you how to go BANG! Rudy's energies, in the 1st edition's artillery chapter, seem to have been devoted to the compilation of a three page listing of the national characteristics of 29-count 'em-29 principalities. For example, we are given that, for Naples: a. The gun crews have a "C" Rating factor. b. For 1805 to 1813 (i) A battery has 14 field guns, 2 horse guns. (ii) Every 2 infantry battalions has 1 field gun. (iii) Every 4 cavalry regiments has 1 horse gun. C. For 1814 to 1815 (i) A battery has 5 field guns. (ii) Every 5 infantry battalions has 1 field gun. (iii) Every 4 cavalry regiments has 1 horse gun. This is super-terrific, tremendous, invaluable... the list goes on and on... "historical" gamers apparently thrive on such expositions as this as they set out the proper number of field and horse guns evidently without realizing that after the set-up, the rules book has nothing more to do with the weaponry and leaves 'em hanging. Second Thoughts What's even more fascinating is that, between the 1st and 2nd editions, the author had second thoughts. Many second thoughts. In the 2nd, the artillery content is down to a mere 4 1/2 pages, and gone is the historically realistic multipage listing of artillery units, and... wonder of wonders... an artillery casualty chart is provided that actually describes the firing procedures. GDC 2nd restricts the number of shots that artillery can make; each type of gun is given a certain number of "Barrage Points". The interesting item is the table titled, "BARRAGE POINT ALLOCATIOLOCATION CHART". I kid you not. The author was in such a rush to publish that he evidently missed this typo tidbit. On the other hand, perhaps it's not a typo... ? Although it pains me to admit it, GDC 2nd does have some goodies in it. It is useless to speak of GDC 1st; that's a complete loser. Gdc 2nd uses a "chit" system of simultaneous movement. Each unit gets two chitties... one for movement/charge options, and the other is used for facing/formation changes. There are 11 phases in the movement sequence, and Hank Martin tells me that only 7 or so are used. Both sides perform their evoldrions simultaneously during the CHANGE OF FORMATION/FACING phase, the MOVEMENT phase, the MUSKETRY FIRE phase, and so on. To me, the most interesting part of the book is termed Operational Objectives, in which Rudy has put a lot of thought into combat concerned with specific geographical objectives. Houses, towns, forts, villages, etc., are broken into sectors; the sectors are "pie-shaped" and each must be conquered before the objective can be won. When troops are within a sector, the combat result is deterministic, i.e., there's no dice throwing, and so one loses control of one's troops until the combat tables tell you... and this may take several turns... that you've won or you've been ejected. Melee in the open follows the usual routines of dicing for a certain percentage to be declared the winner. Another neat touch is that there's a Victory Point Schedule in the appendix... something for a captured hill, for a village, a bonus for captured enemy cannon, etc. It appears to me that Rudy Nelson's characterization of GDC 2nd as a "simulation study" rests, not on the rules, but on his army organization charts in the appendix. There are seven pages of organizational data, enough to satisfy the historical buffs. Here the 29 principalities, for which he originally listed the artillery information, now are listed in terms of orders of battle for the different periods within the Napoleonic era. There are some touches that I consider *neat*, but I'm not sure they belong in a "simulation study". One such item concerns couriers; if a dice throw indicates the courier is killed (either fired at as a skirmish target, or caught in the path of a cavalry charge), then the opposition gets to read the message. One thing I did note in this "simulation study". GDC 1st specifies the scale as 1 inch equals 40 yards and 1 figure equals 60 men. When one looks at GDC 2nd, one sees the same figure scale, but now: 1 inch equals 25 yards (25mm figures) and 1 inch equals 50 yards (15m figures) And all this is done using the same mounting system and base sizes in both editions. The effect of this, of course, is to completely change the battlefield scale and weapon ranges. But if this doesn't bother the advocates of historicity, then it doesn't bother me. GDC's definitions leave a lot to be desired. In general, Rudy Nelson attempts to define all the terms he uses... this is an admirable quality. Terms such as "operational objectives," "trafficability", etc. each have explanatory paragraphs assigned to them. But he gets into trouble when, for example, a concept called "regimental integrity" (page 8 of GDC 2nd) is defined as "a condition which is worse than Disrupted and shows the officers' inability to control the unit." On page 7, "morale" is discussed: "... it indicates the unit's severity of morale." On page 13, for "movement": "Movement allowance is the amount of terrain that a unit can traverse in 15 minutes and still be able to fight." The above looks like doubletalk to me; I know what he means and you know what he means, but it appears that the task of drawing up the definitions was given to some newly arrived boat people. GDC's procedures were recognizeable to me as being quite similar to those employed in EMPIRE. I mentioned this to Hank, and he admitted that GDC is often referred to as EMPIRE 2 112. What can I say but that GDC is a rules system that apparently works... I know it works because I actually saw a game being run under its guidelines. However, in the main, it really offered not that much new and unique except in the awkward grammar employed. Enough of GUARD (sic) DU CORPS... Back to PW Review July 1988 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1988 Wally Simon This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com