Jeff Wiltrout invited us to his house for a table-size Napoleonic battle using Peter Gilder's rules IN THE GRAND MANNER (ITGM). In the past, I have reported on other ITGM games, played in the '80's... in truth, ITGM didn't make the Simon prime-time list then, and, after this current outing, still hasn't.
ITGM is a descendant of COLUMN, LINE & SQUARE (CLS), the 'big battalion' Napoleonics game, and ITGM's main attribute, like CLS - according to me - is that it uses huge units, and thus presents a very pretty picture on the wargame table. French battalions are composed of 36 figures, Austrian battalions of 60 figures, etc. According to its devotees, however, its main attribute is that it integrates the three components of Napoleonic warfare... infantry, artillery and cavalry... in significant fashion, thereby emulating (simulating?) the complex balance of arms to be found in a Napoleonic baffle (where have I heard that before?).
There were six of us at table-side... Tony Figlia, Bob Hurst and me commanding the French; opposing us, Marc Shannon, Fred Haub and Jeff were in charge of a lotta Russians. And so the battle started. We grabbed our battle-manuals and were off. I should note that Gilder's original rules-set format, published some years ago, was a complete disaster. It seemed to have been written in free-flowing, extemporaneous and random fashion... in short, incomprehensible.
Bob Wiltrout took the, rules and completely reformatted them. Out of his word processor flowed a very well formulated booklet. As you methodically go through the sequence (movement, firing, melee, etc.) in order, you simply keep turning the pages of the rules-set in order, and there, on the page, is all you need to know about that particular procedure. This means there is little or no requirement to search back and forth in the rules book about what to do to undertake a particular function... each phase in the sequence has its own separate chapter, the chapters are in the order mandated by the sequence, and each chapter is complete in itself. All rule-books should be written in exactly this manner. Kudos to Messr. Wiltrout.
I must note that having the perfect format for the rule-book does not necessarily make for the perfect set of rules. Indeed, on Bound 3, when Jeff grabbed the booklet to swat a fly, there were murmurs to the effect... "Great! You finally found a proper use for the book!"
I commanded the French right flank, and directly opposing me stood Fred Haub's men. I had a hill... Fred had a woods. I had a squadron of dragoons and some infantry... Fred had the town of Kiev (not the town of Kiev, but one slightly smaller) and some cavalry. Upon seeing my dragoons, Fred took his Jaegers well into the woods and formed square. In the woods? How come?, I asked, How come you're forming square deep in the woods?.
Fred's answer was to the effect that, woods or no, he knew my dragoons would charge forward. He had evidently faced me before.
On Bound 4, I advanced 2 full French infantry battalions (each of 36 men) toward the town of Kiev. Fred's Hussars were near his baseline, facing me. One of the reasons I advanced was that I thought General Bob Hurst, our beloved French Commander In Chief, just to my left, was going to support me. How come, I asked, How come your troops are not advancing side by side with my own ... how come you're not supporting me?
General Hurst's reply: "Because Haub's cavalry are going to charge and kill you!"
Hurst was right... on Bound 5, out came the cavalry. Fred diced to see where his oncoming troopers would momentarily haft to be fired at by the unit being charged. They hafted 9 inches from my battalion. Here's where ITGM and I part company. At this point, even though the charging unit is halted to be shot at, the charging unit and its target are defined to "be in melee". A charging unit can be fired upon only by the unit being charged. It is not a viable target for any other unit.
And so the area encompassing the charging unit (the cavalry), the unit being charged (my battalion of Frenchmen), and the 9 inch zone between the two units, forms a sort of 'dead zone' in midfield wherein -no other unit can move or fire.
I'm not sure why ITGM requires this. The sequence appears to follow a basic pattern which would allow full defensive fire on an advancing unit. There are 8 basic phases in the sequence:
a. Compulsory rout moves stemming from the prior bound
b. Charge declaration, and charge morale tests to see if the units get off the mark Charging units move forward, and haft to be fired upon.
c. Regular movement
d. Skirmisher fire
e. Artillery fire
f. Volley fire
g. Charging units that took casualties test to see if they continue.
h. Melees are resolved
i. All units that took any hits from fire test morale.
In the cavalry melee, Fred's Hussars numbered 16 men, my French battalion numbered 36. To win, Fred had to toss three "6's" on three 6-sided dice, not an easy thing to do. And this without my boys even forming square! Why ITGM made my formation so impenetrable, I don't know.
If the Hussars had been extremely lucky and gotten the requisite dice toss, they'd have wiped out my battalion. They didn't, however... my formation held, and the cavalry 'bounced off' and retreated. Neither unit lost men.
One thing you must make ensure in ITGM... if one of your units loses a combat and routs, make sure there's a clear path for it in which it may retreat. During Bound 8, Tony Figlia's French cavalry charged a Russian cavalry unit which was pinned in place because a unit had routed through it; the Russian unit had taken a morale check and failed.
In reply to the question..."what can the poor defending cavalry do?... Tony's response, in the true spirit of ITGM, was: "Nothing, because the enemy unit, the Russians, were broken and stupid!"
The ITGM morale checks were, in short, a 'pain': tests for cavalry charging, for countercharging, test when you took casualties from fire, test at the end of melee for the unit that took fewer casualties, and so on... There were several sets of morale modifiers for the different types of troops. A cavalry-versus-cavalry melee was treated quite differently than other melees. Each figure received a die (6-sided) plus additional dice depending upon the type of unit (line lancers got 1 die per 2 men, Guard lights received 1 die per 3 men). Casualties were inflicted via the individual dice tosses.
Infantry melees, in contrast, used a full page chart of 'figures versus factors', a la WRG. One of my 36-man battalions (6 stands, each stand with 6 men on it), was placed with 3 stands in the first rank, 3 in the second, and advanced to contact one of Fred Haub's Russian battalions of 24 men. Here, the enemy, also with 6-men per stand (4 stands in all), had 2 stands in the first rank, 2 in the second.
I didn't receive credit for my full -unit size in the first round, since I wasn't in proper 'column of attack'. Consequently, the enemy unit received a '+2" on the factor chart for being in proper column of attack formation, defined as a 2x2 formation.
After amassing our other factors, we both tossed dice, referred to the melee chart and picked off the casualties we inflicted on each other. On the first round, we each suffered the same number of casualties, hence neither of us took a morale check, but hung in there for a second round.
On the second round, all of my men came in, and I inflicted more casualties on Fred's unit than he did on mine. Since he suffered more casualties, his unit took a morale test... it failed and off it ran.
To illustrate the distinction in the procedure when cavalry met infantry, sometime later, Fred's Cuirassiers charged one of my infantry units which had just won a melee. By definition, my victorious unit was in disorder... it needed a bound to recover after the combat. Here, in the cavalry-versus-infantry melee, we didn't refer to a chart. The Cuirassiers received a +4 modifier, and to win, needed to total an '8' (including its +4 modifier) on three 6-sided dice. Obviously, not a difficult thing to do.
The result: seven Cuirassiers each knocked off 4 of my men, a total of 28 casualties out of my original 36-man unit!
Another helacious result occurred when one of Bob Hurst's French infantry battalions made a frontal assault on a Russian battery. On the fire phase, the guns, firing canister, took out half of Bob's unit. The unit promptly took a morale? reaction? test, failed, refused to close and halted in its tracks.
Note in the listing of phases within the bound given above, that the last phase in the bound, Phase (i), requires a morale test of all units that took casualties from enemy fire. Here, Bob's unit tested again, failed, and took off.
On the fire chart, as you pick off the resulting casualties, some of the numbers are starred. This means that your unit has lost an officer, and on subsequent morale tests, will suffer a negative.
If you like to push huge units on the table, then ITGM is the game for you. Does it really portray the balance of arms of Napoleonic warfare? No more so than other rules sets, I reply. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
Back to PW Review August 1996 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
Copyright © 1996 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