Editor's Note: And this is always the problem I come to with this game series, especially trying to test out and blog about a scenario. The system is so complex and labour-intensive that my interest bogs down. After starting this iteration, I got through six posts in about a week, but almost nowhere in the scenario. Part of that is surely the fault of my short attention span and my busy life, and part of it is the need to set the scene for the reader, but part of it is wrestling with less than perfect rules and the sheer complexity of the combat and morale systems. The unnecessary use of base six (including modifiers that are sometimes presented as base ten and have to be translated), OK, that's one thing.
One big drag is the need to constantly compute proportions and its incredibly convoluted systems. Unit X has a melee strength of 11, but it has lost 2 of its 7 increments, so we have to figure out 5/7*11 and make a ratio of that to 5/6*12 to find a modifier for one of FIVE base-six die rolls needed to resolve an infantry assault?
I recognize that this system has a horde of fervent proponents. But I strongly suspect that if it were somewhat streamlined and made more playable, its playability and popularity would increase dramatically. As an old friend of mine pointed out many years ago, the most detailed game can be reduced to a single die roll or even a coin flip if one wishes. One sacrifices satisfying detail and some degree of simulation value (the amount is arguable), but one saves time and headache. Deciding where to draw the line is, ultimately, a question of taste. I don't imagine many current La Bataille followers would agree with me, but I think that my taste would be somewhere closer to the coin-flip than where this system currently stands.
Of course, computerization is one solution; if the machine keeps track of all the details and executes all the subroutines for you, the load on the player becomes less. You also get in some ways a more realistic simulation, because players don't have access to information (and even decisions) that a historic commander would not have. One can even limit the time players have to make decisions in a more realistic way. I've used the Carnage & Glory system for moderating miniatures games. I haven't tried computer-based games (one where the entire board and all the pieces are depicted on screen) much because the visual appeal of miniatures or counters are part of what make the game fun to me. But maybe something like Carnage & Glory, but tuned to run the La Bataille games...
Also...
A General Remark: I've been struggling with these rules (again) for the past three weeks, and it makes me realize a couple of things. One, I'm really spoiled by dealing mostly with boardgaming companies who make a professional effort, eurogame companies who are trying to make a profit publishing games or wargame companies like GMT and MMP that rely on their reputation to sell games. Those publishers put a level of effort into their games that shows not only their desire to get a product out the door but to make it easy for people to play to product.
Publishers like Clash of Arms and Marshal Enterprises, both of whom put out the La Bataille series, and OSG, who put out the more grand-tactical Library of Napoleonic Battles series, are doing what they do simply because they love it and have an "installed user base" who will buy their games no matter what. They make dismayingly little effort to produce clean, well documented, well edited products.
Certainly there's one point of view that says if you're doing it just for fun, who cares if your users have to struggle to use your product? We've all certainly encountered authors who--because they have adoring fans who will buy anything with their name on it--write whatever they feel like, clearly not putting the effort into revising and rewriting that they had to when they were struggling unknowns. This is the boardgame equivalent. It's annoying and frustrating, when one pays money for a product to realise that it's not important to the producer to do the little things that would make it work properly.
Anyway, for now, back to our battle of St Amand. In the 3.20 turn, the first chit to be drawn is the non-MU leader chit. Again, no need to move Ziethen yet. Next chit is regroup; no one needs to regroup now. Next (of course) is artillery, also not applicable. Finally, an MU--the French. So with Le drapeau d'Austerlitz playing, I begin.
The 1/12me Legere declares an assault against the Prussian jaegers (who will probably Retreat Before Assault). The other two battalions close on the village to shoot up the fusiliers from close range. 1/4me de Ligne moves in column around the west side of the village, declaring an assault on the fusiliers (this raises an issue I'll address later). The 2/2me moves up behind the lights, in readiness should mop-up be needed.
The other brigade moves to attack St Amand La Haye. The lights move up to screen and fire into the Silesians west of the village center, while the line troops move in column to dispute the north end of the village with the landwehr, hoping they will make easy pickings. Girard moves to a position that he hopes will allow him to stay in command of all his troops.
The artillery positions itself to bombard the Prussians in the walled fermes at the south end of La Haye. With all the cultivated ground (which blocks LOS) around the villages, there aren't a lot of targets for it, especially at range.
Then comes the Prussian move. They will push the landwehr into the unclaimed bit of village and move the supporting jaegers into position to, well, support.
One major difference between the Marshal Enterprises version of the game (Premier Rules) and the Clash of Arms rules (Règlements, Règlements Marie Louise, 5th Edition) is in the sequence of play. In the latter (which I'm using for this example), through the system of command and maneuver units, each player moves all of their units (including declaring and executing cavalry charges), and only after all units have moved is firing and infantry assault resolved. (In the other system, one side conducts its cavalry charges, moves, conducts fire combat and melee, then the other side does so.)
So, in this case, the Prussians could simply give up on holding Le Hameau and pull their troops out during the movement segment, since the French have shown what they intend to do. Troops can fire at enemy leaving their zone of influence (the front hexes of their units), so the Prussians would not necessarily get away scot free, but they could avoid the carnage that is coming.
Only a cruel commander would have put them out there in the first place and failed to pull them back during the last few regroup opportunities. But they are the proverbial sacrificial lamb, set out there as a speedbump (to mix my metaphors) to slow down and hopefully degrade the French units before they get to La Haye. So, sorry, Prussians; you're stuck where you are.
Fire Combat Segment: Lots of shooting here. At Le Hameau the French lights will fire into the fusiliers. The 1/82me Ligne and 3/1st Westphalian Landwehr will exchange fire. The 11me Legere and the Prussian jaegers and schuetzen in front of them will exchange fire. And the French guns will try to do some damage to the Prussian 1/12th in the ferme at the south end of La Haye. They've unlimbered close enough that the schuetzen three hexes away can take some pot shots at them. We'll see if that proves to have been a bad idea.
Under the normal rules, the French column (hidden under the big 3) planning to charge the fusiliers in Le Hameau would not fire, nor would the fusiliers, because the fire of assaulting troops and their targets is done separately during the assault segment. Same thing for the French and Prussian skirmishers nearby. I have mixed feelings about this rule. On the one hand, it's tied into a whole procedure: both units check morale to see if they are actually going to commit to the melee, then both fire, then you resolve the melee and its denouement. On the other hand, it's separating out the normal processing of some units' actions from others. It also makes this situation... tricky. The French skirmishers south of Le Hameau are going to fire on the Prussian fusiliers in the hamlet. The fusiliers would like to fire back. Technically they have to wait to fire on the troops assaulting them. If they were not able to do that because of formations and fields of fire, I would let them fire on the skirmishers and to hell with the rules. But since they are holding the village, they are in General formation (not battalion line or column, but kind of dispersed to make best use of the terrain), so they will be able to fire at the troops charging them.[Ugh. Except that apparently troops can be in any formation BUT general in village, as distinct to town--the only difference being that buildings in towns are more substantial. I'm calling bullshit and making villages general order terrain too, just a tiny bit less sheltering
So let's resolve some of this fire. All fire on a target is combined, so the two French light battalions add their factors (3x4 and 3x4 = 24; no more than 3 increments of skirmishers can fore per hex) and compare them to the defense of the fusiliers. Infantry in towns have a defense of 14 in general order, 16 if in skirmish order; let's say these guys are a 12--better than line in the open (9) but not as good as skirmishers in the open (14). So all that fire from the lights comes to 2:1. A die roll of 5,3 inflicts one hit on the fusiliers, their sixth loss, since they start with five hits (out of a TO&E strength of 8).
Units check morale for fire causalities according to which increment loss it is--an even loss, an odd loss (including or not including the first). That designation is made on a module by module basis, to differentiate the fragility of various armies at various times. I find that an overly complicated rule, but whatever.
Here, though, we come to one of the instances of sloppy publication that annoy me so much. I have the first edition of the game, but the second edition documentation is available online, so I've been using that (it has substantial changes to the OBs and setups, among other things).
The original Ligny exclusive rules consist of four pages of special rules, six pages of scenario information, eleven pages of historical commentary, a page of acknowledgements, and five pages of charts and tables. These are printed without any reference numbers, just section heads. The second edition exclusive rules contain seven pages of numbered special rules, nine pages of scenario information, and seven pages of charts and tables.
The new edition's special rules, despite being numbered, are badly organized and confusing. Guess what they omit? The critical piece of information about when units take morale checks. To quote the table entitled "When To Check Morale: Recapitulation": "As a result of casualties from a fire attack (see #4 in the Exclusive Rules". Section 4.0 in the Exclusive Rules deals with Terrain.
Fortunately, I have the old Exclusive Rules to fall back on, so the Prussian fusiliers will follow those provisions, which are that Prussian units check on odd losses, including the first. So no morale test for now.
In the area of La Haye, the French infantry column fires into the landwehr. The landwehr will fire back, and the adjoining jaegers from their regiment will joint them, as their officer sees the column as a bigger danger than its skirmishing buddies. Their Silesian comrades will fire on the lights to their right front. Each battalion of lights will fire on the skirmishers to their front.
The column has a basic FP of 8; firing at the troops in the village with their defense of 12, as I decided above, makes a 1:1.5 ratio. A roll of 3,6 is no hit.
The landwehr in genera order fire at 5 FP plus the two-factor jaegers at 6 (2x3) is a total of 11. The French infantry column would be a 6 defense, but the shoulder-high green rye they're moving through obscures them, making them 8 defense. That's not quite 1.5:1 ratio, and 4,2 on 1:1 is a miss.
The French lights fire on the jaegers: 3x4 = 12 at skirmishers (14) in cultivation (16) is 3:4, 1:1.5 but not 1:1. Roll 3,3 no hit.
French lights firing on the schuetzen, also 12:16, roll 6.5, a hit. That'll need a morale check.
Schuetzen firing on the skirmishing French: 2x8 = 8, skirmishers in open 14; better than 1:2 but not 1:1.5 [these would be SO MUCH EASIER to resolve if the charts were written as decimals--0.50, 0.67], roll 2,4, no hit.
One last shot: our French artillery, having unlimbered, put some cannister into the schuetzen at the south end of town, who fire back, hoping to pick off some gunners with rifle fire.
This artillery at range 2 fires 16FP, that's exactly the defense value of skirmishers in cultivated terrain. Roll of 2,5 is no hit. The rifles don't lose FP at two-hex range, so they are 2x4 = 8 to artillery unlimbered in the open, 8, so 1:1. Roll 1,6, so no hit.
So with all our shooting, only two casualties, only one of them requiring a morale check. The Silesians took an odd casualty. It also constituted 50% of their strength. They will take a check modified by a -6 for reaching half strength and another -6 for taking 50% losses in a single combat event. They roll 3,6, which becomes a 1,6 for the two -6 modifiers (-6 x 2 = -20 in base six! :). 16 is lower than their fairly good morale of 23, so the Silesians become disordered.
There we are with all the shooting. Next up: the two declared (attempts at) melee.
