I had an interesting telephone conversation with Hank Martin some time ago. He had participated in a grand-grand-grand tactical Napoleonics effort (not mine) and was having negative thoughts about the results ... excessive dice throws, lack of proper command and control functions, overpowering artillery, etc. Hank's thought was that if one was truly well informed and well read about the Napoleonic era, one could include all the required nitty-gritty pertaining to the "national characteristics" of each unit, down to the probabilities associated with an encounter between two given units. Hank stated that his own area of expertise in Napoleonics centered on the Austrians and the French, and he could, within limits, define the probability that a French unit of Type A could whup an Austrian unit, Type B. Now I consider myself as being quite "well read" on the Napoleonic era. My problem is that I am not "well informed". I can read and read and read and read, and I retain ... nothing! Absolutely nothing! I dimly remember things about French light troops and Chasseurs a Chevals and 12 pounders, but when someone references General. Cornichon's famed cavalry charge against the Austrians at Burgfurt, the light in my eyes goes out, my jaw goes slack, and I can only reply: "Huh?" And so I was forced to retreat in the face of Hank's insistence that a "good" Napoleonics game must take into account what we have come to know as "national characteristics". My own approach to the early 1800 era is what I term the "generic Napoleonic game". If it's Napoleonics, ya gotta have skirmishers ... so I throw in a ski misher rule. If it's Napoleonics, ya gotta have infantry forming square against cavalry, so I throw in a square rule. If it's Napoleonics, ya gotta have rifles and muskets, so I throw in a rifle rule. And ya gotta have a canister rule, and a lancers rule, and a Congreve's rocket rule and so on. But once having included these elements, I have no idea as to how to evaluate them. What is the casualty rate due to rifle fire as compared to musket fire? How much of a plus - or is it a minus? - do lancers get in a cavalry melee? How effective are skirmishers in evading cavalry? What's the ratio of cannister-caused casualties to those caused by roundshot? And so on. I truly admire those good people who not only can assign numbers to these elements, but can do so knowing that they're the right numbers. I am the first to admit that my own numbers are introduced solely on the basis of playability. For example, in the majority of systems I've devised, I "devalue" artillery. These stand-off-at-a-distance weapons are bothersome ... don't know how to treat them. I have tried fire sticks and cannister cones and burst circles and automatic hits and ranging-in factors and charts and simple equations and complex equations and limited ammunition rules ... I'm still not happy. And if I have trouble evaluating factors in my "generic" game, think of the difficulties I have in generating numbers for the national characteristics that are superimposed on the main structure. Out of curiousity, I looked into my library of Napoleonic rules sets to see what the various authors did in this area. A truly fascinating subject. Some of the more interesting items concerning a "national attribute" are listed below: Brits got a plus in firing... is this a "national characteristic of better marksmanship" or does it account for the two-rank British line which permits more men to fire than the French three? And if so, why don't the Portuguese, who were trained by the British, get a plus, too? British cavalry are uncontrollable... once they charge, it's hard to rein them in. Russians are vegetables... they move slowly, they perform inefficiently. But to make up for this, they get a plus in morale. And they get an even greater plus if they're fighting on Mother Russia's soil. It's hard to rout the vegetables. The French column attack always gets a plus in melee... although there's some controversy as to whether or not there was a French column attack. Prussian Landwehr are the pits. Cossacks are basically chicken, but amazingly mobile. Austrian Kurassiers are super, unless they turn their backs to you, when, because of the lack of an armored backplate, they're not super. French Guard Artillery units are devastating. Spanish troops get a minus in every attribute you can think of. French troops move faster than other troops, evidently a carryover to the tactical table-top battle from Napoleon's ability to grand-tactically gather and march his units more rapidly into battle than his opponents. French troops perform evolutions in more rapid fashion than other troops. Prussian units prior to 1812 get a plus in firing; after 1812, they fire like normal people. Dutch-Belgian troops don't melee too well. How do you assign numbers to the above? I would certainly appreciate hearing from all self-appointed members of the Select Committee On Assigning Numbers To National Characteristics (SCOANYNC). Back to PW Review October 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