From: "John Best" Subject: [consim-l] L'Armee Du Nord Dear Members of the Consim-l reading list: Telegraphing the punch line. There's a lot to like in the old COA game L'Armee Du Nord, but some seemingly very idiosyncratic design decisions make the game's view of Napoleonic combat very much out of step with other games. I still think there's a good game, and maybe even a good simulation somewhere in L'Armee Du Nord's box, but for me, the personal balance sheet was more frustration than fun. And now on to the details. Overview. The game depicts the maneuvers and battles of the French forces commanded by Napoleon in 1815 against the Allies consisting of the Prussian army commanded by Bluecher, and the Anglo-Dutch army commanded by Wellington. The game has three scenarios: Ligny-Quatre Bras, Waterloo-Wavre, and a campaign scenario, which begins with the French forces crossing the Sambre at Charleroi against the Prussian 1st Corps. Ed Wimble designed the game; it was published by Clash of Arms in 1993. Some Previous Reviews. I'll make some references to a couple of print reviews of L'Armee Du Nord: Jackson, S. (1994, April). L'Armee Du Nord. Moves, #93, pp 47-48. Dezarn, B., & McEvoy, S. (1994, May). L'Armee Du Nord. Paper Wars, #15, pp 20-21. Wimble, E. (1994, May). Notes by Ed Wimble on L'Armee Du Nord. Paper Wars, #15, pp 21-22. (These comments are not exactly a response to the above review, but they are an attempt to clarify some of the issues that arose in the game.) The Box and Its Contents. L'Armee Du Nord (ADuN) comes in an 11 9/16" x 9" x 2 1/16" inch box (I apologize for the English-system measurements). It contains 3 standard sized map sheets, 1 rulebook of 23 pages (14 pages of rules, 7 pages of historical commentary by Ed Wimble presumably, 1 page of credits, and a 1 page annotated sequence of play on the back), and 1 full sized, and 1 half sheet of counters, which contain a total of 360 counters. The box also contains the following cardstock items: Organization and Scenario Manifest sheets for each of the three belligerent armies, an Off-Board Movement Track, a sheet showing the CRTs on one side and the TEC on the other, and a sheet containing the combined Morale Tracks. The box also contains five "ephemeral" elements (credit John Kula for the felicitous phrase): one glossy price list for all COA games at the time, one sheet advising people that COA had recently moved to a new address in Phoenixville PA, one 8 page "newsletter" or mailing, one special offer for A. A. Nofi's Waterloo book, and one response card. The box also contains a D6, (white, black pips, rounded corners). I thought the die was wooden at first, but I have since concluded it's plastic. This game may have also appeared in a "boxless" version in which all of the components were apparently just shrinkwrapped together-I saw one like that on ebay. Evaluation of Physical Components. The maps were done by Rick Barber, and they depict France and Belgium using a kind of cross hatching in a light green that suggests furrowed fields, or perhaps fields of grain. I thought the maps looked really nice, and other reviewers have apparently agreed, suggesting the maps have a "period look." The 3 maps are arranged to create a playing area of approximately 66" x 34" with the town of Phillipeville on the southern edge and Brussels on the north (I make it out to be a distance of about 47 or 48 miles). Each hex represents approximately 700 meters. The counters were also done by Rick Barber. If you're familiar with some of the other Clash of Arms Napoleonic titles, you probably have a good idea of what you would be looking at here. Each combat counter is two sided with the business side of the counter using slightly modified NATO symbology: Infantry, artillery and heavy cavalry are shown with the standard symbols, but light cavalry is symbolized with the braided dolman characteristic of their uniforms. I guess I've gradually gotten used to the riot of color in the COA Napoleonic games, and I admit that I found the Brunswickers contingent, for example, with their black color and gold "gothic" script combat values, quite striking. The back side of each counter sports a national flag (the units of the Anglo-Dutch army all have the Union Jack). When you set up a scenario, like the Waterloo-Wavre scenario, the whole effect is very invitational. Context of the Game. One of the things that I think makes ADuN unique emerges when we compare the game to some other games of the Waterloo campaign, which I'll do here. For several such games (by no means all of them), I've listed the game title, the hex and game turn scale, and the size of the typical units depicted. Game hex scale game turn unit size Battles 210 yards 30 min French: Inf brig, cav brig, arty "battery" of Anglo-Dutch: Inf regt, cav. brig, arty batt Waterloo Prussian: Inf regt, cav brig, arty batt Nap's 480 meters 1 hour French: Inf brig, cav div, arty "battery" Last Anglo-Dutch: Inf brig, cav brig, arty battery Battles Prussian: Inf regt, cav brig, arty brig 1815 600 yards 1 hour French: Inf div, cav div, arty "battery" Anglo-Dutch: Inf brig, cav brig, arty batt. Prussian: Inf brig, cav brig, arty batt. ADN 700 meters 2 hours French: Inf div, cav div, arty "battery" Anglo-Dutch: Inf brig, cav brig, arty battery Prussian: Inf brig, cav brig, arty battery The 2 miles 24 hours French: Inf div, cav corps, arty "abstract" Emperor Anglo-Dutch: Inf div, cav div, arty abstract Returns Prussian: Inf brig, cav div, arty abstract The table is a simplification. First, many of the games show some of the units at a lower scale: For example, the Imperial Guard infantry in AduN is depicted at the brigade level. Several of the games will show the odd cavalry regiment. Second, I've simplified the artillery designation. By "battery" I'm referring to the fact that most of these games show all of a Corps' artillery in one counter. They may use a brigade symbol, a battalion symbol, or no symbol, but that's what they are depicting. The use of the term "abstract" to describe the artillery in The Emperor Returns refers to the use of a single artillery counter to represent the "artillery reserve" of each army. The counter is basically just a place-keeper to keep track of abstract artillery points that can be used in combat. Third, the Prussian infantry brigades are really more like divisions in the other armies, that is, the Prussians had no divisional level infantry, so the brigade designation isn't really a finer granulation than the French. Despite the simplification though, some interesting things emerge when you put the games in canonical form like this. First of all, it's interesting that AduN is referred to by some as an "operational" level game, but I don't think I've seen 1815 referred to that way. The basis of the distinction cannot be found in the unit levels-the OOBs are almost the same for each game. Basing the distinction between the "operational" level and whatever is below it on just a small difference in hex size and turn length implies more precision in our terms than I think we really have. It's clear that Battles of Waterloo, and of course, all the La Bataille games, aspire to be "tactical" games. But I think there is really a gray area between the tactical level and operational level in Napoleonic games-it is this area that is occupied by NLB and by 1815. But there's another line we can draw between AduN and TER on the one hand and 1815 and the other games on the other hand: The three smaller scale games begin the "campaign" after the positions for the initial battles were fixed by history. In other words, you start with Quatre Bras-Ligny on Friday, June 16, maneuver on Saturday, and then find your way to Waterloo-Wavre (or not) on Sunday, June 18. AduN and TER both start the campaign with the maneuvers that Napoleon used before Friday to first get his forces concentrated and then to blast across the French frontier at one point, hopefully before his opponents could concentrate their forces against him. AduN is, I think, unique among Waterloo games in that it has the smallest hex scale, turn length, and unit size that still lets you see the pre-battle maneuvers. You can see them in TER of course, but there you have to "pay" by moving counters that represent larger units in some cases, and by losing so much of the detail in battle resolution. One of the things that I like about AduN is that the combat units actually move on the map (this is one of the things that I dislike about TER and the Zucker system in general). Having the units on the map gives the battle resolution a time and space "whereness" or "locality" that I miss so much with the Zucker system, celebrated though it may be. At the same time, the number of maps and the sort of large hex scale means that you still get the operational flavor of maneuvering before battle and trying to concentrate your guys against what you hope is the enemies' weak point. Now, if AduN worked right, it might enable the gamer to get some insight into why Quatre-Bras and Ligny happened where and when they did, instead of just plunking you down there. Actually, as I'll try to show later, the game doesn't work right, but still, these possibilities are appealing. Theory of Combat. What actually happened on the Napoleonic battlefield that contributed to, or determined victory and defeat? Of the games I cited above, The Emperor Returns has the simplest, but possibly most accurate model in some respects: Most of the battles were won by the side that had more troops. Napoleon was fond of claiming that he had won 40 victories, but on those few occasions when he was outnumbered his winning percentage was not particularly lofty. All the games below TER in scale have models in which one side might "attack" the other, and roll for combat effects, which might include a variety of negative events for those attacked including some type of morale effect and some type of "losses". And I'll add that, right or wrong, this is the sort of thing that we expect to see in a Napoleonic wargame. But AduN has very little of that. Each unit has a combat strength that corresponds approximately to its numerical strength, with the usual fudging going on for artillery and cavalry. When a unit takes losses in combat, this strength is decremented by individual points-you put a loss marker under the unit; it works like a negative number. I like that feature, showing the units as gradually being whittled down rather than the more typical two-step counter that results in a big unrealistic dead pile by the end of the game. But actually, there are very few necessary combat losses to be taken. The only sure way to cause losses is to barrage a target hex with artillery. Even this is far from a sure thing. In all other combats (infantry and cavalry combats, and the cavalry "overrun" that I'll talk about in a minute), the defender has the choice of taking his result in either losses or retreated hexes. I believe this "loss or retreat" decision is one of the most problematic mechanics in all of wargaming, and in this case, it just doesn't seem to produce anything like the historical results because there's very little reason for the defender to stick around anywhere. I'll come back to that point, but first let's deal with the cavalry. I don't think NLB or 1815 have a separate "charge" mechanic for cavalry, but AduN does. It works like an overrun (it occurs during movement); the charging cavalry pays the movement cost for the terrain of the target hex. The charge mechanic itself though is based entirely on a comparison of the averaged morale of the charging cavalry units with that of the averaged morale of the defenders. This leads to some unusual situations. For example, the Imperial Guard contains three cavalry units: The Heavies, the Lights, (neither of which has a size designation on the counter), and then a third unit, a brigade designated "EE" and commanded by a General Letort. There is no guide to abbreviations in the rules, but I think this third counter is supposed to represent the Gendarmerie d'Elite, and possibly another regiment called the "Eclaireurs" (I'm pretty sure I messed up the spelling on these guys). All three units have a morale grade of "5" which is good as it gets. The EE brigade has a combat strength of only "2", but don't worry. Of the 16 Prussian infantry brigades in the game, fully eight of them have a morale grade of only "1". So even though some of these brigades have a large combat strength, (up to "7" and none smaller than "4"), the little EE brigade can push them all over town, all day long, at virtually no risk to itself. If they succeed in pushing the brigade out of the way, they can keep charging, as long as they have enough movement points to do so (and the EEs have movement allowance of "7" so they can keep charging for a long time. As I said, the brigade can "choose" to take losses instead of retreat. But that may not be wise decision, because the cavalry can still keep hitting them. I'm not positive about this, but in the worst case scenario, it might mean that the EE brigade could wipe out a Prussian brigade in one turn. In his Moves review, Scott Jackson said that the cavalry in AduN was like driving Panzers into France in 1940. I see his point, but it might even be more lopsided than that. In his Paper Wars review, Barry Dezarn says the cavalry (and artillery) are absurdly overvalued. And he goes to speculate that the French cavalry may be able to take on the entire Anglo-British and Prussian forces and win! I think it's more an issue of how the combat mechanics are arranged than the values on the counters, but I nevertheless see his point. There's one other thing that I'd like to address about the cavalry. You might think that if a solitary brigade of the Guards cavalry can manhandle a Prussian brigade, then the awesome power of a French cavalry corps would be even more effective. But that's not true. If you take the average morale of Exelmans ' II Cavalry Corps, it's "3" (You do get a DRM for having the whole corps, plus Exelmans himself in the charge). But still, your chances of displacing a Prussian brigade are somewhat greater with a single brigade of Guards, than they are with a whole corps of line troopers. I know that Ed Wimble is a Napoleonic guru, but this just doesn't seem well thought out to me. Victory conditions. What was Napoleon hoping to achieve by campaigning in Belgium in 1815? Napoleon knew that the strategic balance had tipped against him, and he realized the implications of that: It would not be possible to win the war on the battlefield as in the glory days. Although Clausewitz, might not agree, Napoleon knew that some additional political action would be required, and that his military forces could be the lever he needed to achieve that. Knowing that the government of Belgium would not withstand any turbulence, and that the Belgian soldiers were reluctant allies at best, Napoleon determined that the occupation of Brussels could knock Belgium out of the coalition arrayed against him, and this would be a way of partially redressing the strategic imbalance he faced. Although The Emperor Returns displays the entire theatre in 1815, and encourages the players to explore some of the strategic options that Napoleon could have taken, when you look at a map, you'll see why Napoleon ran it straight up the gut the way he did: the route that he took was the shortest route from the French frontier to Brussels. I would also point out that Napoleon's analysis was very modern: He was "fighting to move" rather than moving to necessarily deliver a decisive knock-out punch to either of his adversaries. According to this view (which is my own, and not necessarily shared by others), Ligny was basically a time-buying operation: Even if D'Erlon had made it to the battlefield, Napoleon knew that one battle would not take the Prussians out of the fight for good. A bigger victory would have bought more time, but Napoleon rightly judged that he had bought enough, provided the Prussians retreated east as they should have. Similarly, Quatre-Bras was an accident that shouldn't have happened, but as long as the Allies were fixed on that location, an outright victory on Friday was not necessary. As you'll recall, it was only when Napoleon showed up at Quatre-Bras at noon on Saturday, and realized that Ney had let the Anglo-Dutch slip away that he became furious. What was he mad about? Not because he had been deprived of a battle that he thought could knock the British out of the war, but rather because he could not afford to move to Brussels with an intact army permitted to move against his communications. No, he would have to knock the Anglo-Dutch heads together before the dash to Brussels was feasible. After a furious pursuit on Saturday afternoon, in the rain, Napoleon had run his quarry to ground again at Mont-St. Jean. Napoleon's famous and ironic comment that the business at Waterloo would be no more complicated than eating one's breakfast turned out to be as wrong as could be, but he was justified in saying so on the grounds that all he needed to do was push the Anglo-Dutch army out of the way, preferably to the west, for a couple of days. If all went well, on Monday the bearskins would be in Brussels, and possibly 10,000 soldiers would be removed from the ledger sheet against him. And, after that, who knew? Napoleon was again justified in thinking that if he could knock one adversary out of the coalition in June, maybe July and August would see some other opponents decide it wasn't worth it. Given the strategic situation then, it's not surprising that, for most games, a French victory at Waterloo is predicated on the French army's ability to capture Brussels (or do something that would lead to the capture of Brussels, such as exit units on the Brussels road). In that sense, it's interesting that AduN does not include anything like that. There is no geographic component to the victory conditions; the winner is determined exclusively by demoralizing, disintegrating, or "shattering" opponents, and these levels are determined only by losses. But, as we've seen, it's difficult to actually force strength point losses on your opponent. So what 's the deal? Ed Wimble and his proponents may say that, as the French, you have to maneuver your enemies to the point where they can retreat no further, and then and therefore must take losses on terms that are favorable to you. I like this in theory, but my question is, where on the AduN map is such a location? Given the absence of geographical victory conditions, there is nothing special about the Mont St. Jean location. So there's very little incentive for the Allies to fight anywhere in this game, if the campaign unfolds the way it did historically, a point I'll deal with now. The Prussian 1st Corps. In support of my contention about Napoleon's strategic plans for at least June of 1815, I would look at the behavior of the Allies, especially the Prussians. The French attacked the dispersed outposts of Ziethen's 1st Prussian Corps on June 15th. The orders of the leading Prussian brigades were to delay Napoleon's advance, but not to oppose it. I think this suggests that the Prussians did not want to see the 1st Corps destroyed, but nevertheless Ziethen was supposed to at least get in Napoleon's way somehow. When Bluecher discovered that Ziethen's brigades had been attacked, he immediately began to concentrate his forces at Sombreffe with the stated intention of offering battle as soon as possible. Again, this response is sensible only in the context that the Prussians realized Napoleon's strategy and were attempting to counter it by grouping an intact army on his flank. To this end, Ziethen's orders should be interpreted as buying time for the Prussians to concentrate. This is all well and good, but the problem is in the game, I couldn't see any reason for Ziethen's Corps to try to delay Napoleon's advance, given that by hanging around at all, the Prussian player risks the chance that Ziethen's Corps will be overwhelmed, and demoralized, thus contributing to Prussian disintegration, which in turn contributes to a French victory. In other words, in history, the Prussians wanted the 1st Corps to fight to buy time for the rest of their forces to concentrate and thus oppose Napoleon's plan. In AduN, as in some weird funhouse mirror, the Prussians help Napoleon achieve his victory conditions by using the 1st Corps to oppose the advance of Napoleon's forces. According to this view, the game couldn't be more wrong. Far from having a chance to see the campaign unfold, once you dope out the victory conditions, the game invites you to see how fast you can get the Prussians to skedaddle anywhere but in the path of the French army. The rules. I should say that AduN is not a hard game to learn how to play. The rules are neither long, nor particularly complex. They are somewhat incomplete, and not particularly well organized. I would be not at all surprised to hear that people made up their own rules from their analysis of what they thought the rules must have meant to say. At least, that's what I did. This is already much too long, so I won't get into it, but I would say that the activation rules, at the least, need some additional clarification. Well, believe it or not, I have a lot more that I could say about this game, but I know that I've tested your patience enough if you've read this far. It would be fun to talk about the game's name: L'Armee Du Nord. What does it mean in English? The Army of the North? I'm not so sure (but that is how just about everybody translates it). It would also be interesting to address Ed Wimble's comments in Paper Wars; they are informative. But, enough for now. Ok, that will about do it for me; thanks for reading. John Best jlbest@tuscola.net