The discussion then continued via email exchanges.

From: mjb@crow.crippslaw.com
Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 08:23:03 EDT
To: kzucker@charm.net

I assume that there was errata for NAB (as the article in F & M 102 referred to it). That article also had some good ideas which I think need fine-tuning. Perhaps you can track the author to see if they can be added as optional rules. The game needs errata as there were a lot of questions I had over unit placement etc, if it helps I can send you copies of the rules with my notes on them by fax.

Possible suggestions to be added to the system

a. Wagon rules
b. attrition in 100's as the italy game idea
c. Artillery
d. Hospitals
e. A more "modern" combat system which could retro-fit other games.

Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 14:06:34 +0200
To: kzucker@charm.net
From: Nicolas Pilartz

I was reading through the rules when a few ideas came up to my mind. Very often in wargames the game turn is very rigid, you move, you fight, then i move and i fight. Some games of course try to simulate more interaction. There could be a very interesting rule for your operational system, it would give full interaction in movement and in a lot of phases that both players historically play more or less at same time. Proposition : Leaders of both sides would move alternately, starting with the lowest initiative rating. Slowly move up to the overrall commander.

A higher leader can move before a lower enemy leader--this is a simulation of anticipation and initiative of commanders. Prussians want to move a leader with 3 initiative, French decide to anticipate with marshal Pilartz who is 4 and succeeds in rolling 2, he then takes the city before the Prussian leader. Automatic move command would move normally and before other commanders who only have the initiative roll. Forced march could be now attributed to a second move of a commander if his initiative roll permits it Automatic orders could permit automatic forced march ! Or we could choose that when a force moves he can do a forced march in his movement and extend this from 5 to 9 !

Combat would be resolved at end of all movement on the map or be resolved each time there is a zoc to zoc situation. The different ways have to be played to be sure they work.

These modification could give much fun and interaction, players shouldn't have time to smoke a cigarrete or go vanish. Situation of each leader and their movement possibility would be very important.

From: AIROPS {CDR Christopher Janiec}
To: "'kzucker@charm.net'"
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 11:12:23 -0700

The one major change I remember is to prevent the Allies from winning by having a couple of cavalry factors with a Major General running around in the French rear. I don't recall the exact victory condition, but I think our fix was to require the Allies to have an Infantry force across the river...

From: Kevin Zucker
To: mszarka@physics.utoronto.ca
Date: May 10, 1997 4:14 AM

I appreciate your article on NAB in F&M 102, and I was wondering whether you ever got a chance to test the suggested changes to combat resolution included at the end of the article. I am working on a new edition of the game. The basis of the new edition will be the Standard Rules for 1807.

From: "Mike Szarka"
To: "Kevin Zucker"
Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 23:28:54 -0400

That was indeed a well-written article, the only problem is, I didn't write it. That article was actually written by Chris Perleberg.

In any event, I really like the design work in your series (I've only tinkered with a couple of the games because the map size is a problem for me), and wish you well in resurrecting OSG. I also think these games would translate particularly well to an Aide-de-Camp or other computer format for PBEM.

Continued via E-mail:

Back to Beginning Discussion