There is an understandable wish at our club to cater for all tastes and offer a varied menu of gaming options. We therefore tend to flit between periods and rule sets. The drawback of this approach is that games can be slowed down mightily by unfamiliarity with the rules., so we do try to play one rules set several times in succession, to help bed them down. We find that when we do this, games really speed up as the focus shifts from checking the index to playing the period, as someone or other says. Paul has done this in the past with several great WW2 games using Battlegroup, while recently Alistair has been running a very successful linked AWI campaign using Sharp Practice. The result of sticking with the same rules for several sessions is certainly rewarding.

We don’t have a favourite Napoleonics set at the club. The contenders for games above skirmish level are Black Powder, Blucher, Soldiers of Napoleon, General d’Armée 2 and Lasalle. We have played them all in recent months, but rarely more than a couple of times apiece. Each has its fans. Blucher stands apart for Corps and Army level games, though there has been talk of trying Napoleon’s Battles again. My own top candidates for ‘divisional’ rules are Soldiers of Napoleon and Lasalle. So far, I have honestly been unable to choose between them, partly because we have not yet played enough games with the same rules to really get used to them. Until recently, that is.

Outside the club, we have a smaller gaming group that occasionally meets on a weekday evening. We tend to lean heavily on Napoleonics and for the past four meetings, we have played Lasalle. I am very glad we did as the ease of play has improved noticeably with each game.

Our first Lasalle game was at the club, where we played the combat at Markkleeberg (Leipzig, 16/10/1813), using 15mm figures and a Base Width of 40mm. This and the other scenarios described below are on the Scenarios for Lasalle page. The aim of the scenario for the Allies (Russians and Prussians) is to dislodge Poniatowski’s Poles from the village of Markkleeberg and so help their Austrian Allies to cross the river Pleisse into the French right rear. In this first game, the Allies assaulted the village several times without success, having elected not to soften it up first with musketry or artillery fire. We repeated the scenario a few days later but trying to apply the lessons of the first game. The result this time was much more satisfactory for the Allies, who pummelled the village with fire before taking it by assault. I am certain that the challenge in the first game was unfamiliarity with the interplay between firing, movement and close combat in the rules. Every rules system has its nuances that it is important to grasp if you are going to make the best of things.

The third game was Jakubowo, an action between Oudinot’s Corps and Wittgenstein on the northern flank of the invasion of Russia. For this one we used 6mm figures and a 30mm Base Width. Harry and my Russians emerged from the forest to find Dan and Ian’s French deployed around the settlement of Jakubowo. We tried and failed to dislodge the French in the 8 turns allowed in the scenario. I think on reflection the game should have been 12 turns to reflect the greater distances we had to cover on the table with our 30mm BW, but I think we would still have been bottled up by a very effective French defence. I do enjoy the mass visual effect of playing in 6mm and am so impressed by the MDF figures that now make up most of our 6mm armies. They are as cheap as chips and look stunning on the table. (If you are interested, look for Commission Figurines, who makes Napoleonic and ACW figures in 6mm as well as some lovely buildings and ruins in various scales). All players were comfortable with the rules by now and the game flowed well.

We played our fourth game on 18 June so thought it fitting to play something from the Waterloo campaign. I only have French and Prussians in 6mm and we have not long ago played the first Prussian assault at Plancenoit, so we jumped back two days to the battle of Ligny. I had written the scenario for both Soldiers of Napoleon and Lasalle and we had played the SoN version twice before, but this was the first time with Lasalle. Will led the Prussian counterattack against Dan’s 7th Division holding Saint Amand la Haye, while I champed at the bit in the wings, hoping to bring French reinforcements onto the table in time to make a difference.

This fourth game was the most tense and entertaining I can remember for a long time. Dan had an option to cover the whole front but chose to anchor his left in St Amand la Haye, more or less at the mid-point of his baseline, thereby leaving Will free to send 5th Brigade deep into the French left table half, for much of the way in march column. Dan therefore found himself with Prussians both in front of the village and on the high ground to its left flank. This was a bold and risky deployment by Dan and initially, he seemed at risk of being chewed up from front and flank as a lot of Prussian firepower converged on the northernmost sector of St Amand la Haye. Indeed, Will damaged and then evicted the garrison from this sector. Meanwhile, however, Dan’s right swept away the Fusilier battalions on Will’s left, and his compact division was then well placed to support the remaining two sectors of the village. Then Will inflicted an upset by capturing Dan’s baggage, - the first time this has happened in one of our games. The French camp was decidedly gloomy at this point but at the end of the turn, the French reinforcements finally arrived.

The French reinforcements appeared to the left of St Amand la Haye, to find Will’s flanking force on the high ground. Will turned his troops to face them and it looked as if they could contain the new arrivals, at least long enough for the village to fall. However, the French then had one of those turns when nothing can go wrong and the reinforcements charged and immediately broke two previously unscathed Prussian battalions and an artillery battery. Not only did this effectively snuff out the Prussian threat to Dan’s flank, but it brought the Prussians to within one unit of sudden death. The struggle continued to the final turn when Will’s Hussars, having survived all sorts of scrapes thus far, were finally destroyed by canister fire. And that was that.

I am really glad we have had a run of Lasalle games in a shortish space of time. There is nothing like being punished for your mistakes in one game to teach you to do differently next time around. The best example of this for me is Dan’s tactics for defending a village. In Markkleeberg, he had all battalions in garrison and no reserves close by. They held out well until they didn’t and at that point, there was no way to recapture the village. At St Amand la Haye, the two sectors nearest the enemy were garrisoned but the third had a battalion in mass formation, ready to counterattack if needed. He also had friends outside the village, near enough to support the garrison. The result was far better!

Gamers like variety, especially on club night, so I won’t push my luck with Lasalle. But we ought to play another game before long, so we keep on top of the rules. It would be a shame to have to go through the learning process all over again!

I am currently reading the memoirs of Henryk Brandt, who was an officer in the Vistula Legion during the Napoleonic Wars. It is full of anecdotes, some of them quite revealing of the tough culture in the French army serving in Spain. His account of the siege of Saragossa is particularly frank. I found the following passage interesting.

“Our brigade commander, Habert, enjoyed a good reputation with the troops. He was tall, energetic and serious, with the bearing of an athlete and a rough manner that was much appreciated by his soldiers.

I recall one incident involving him during the street fighting at Saragossa. We had taken a street that opened onto a square that was still occupied by our enemies and had barricaded the entrance to the square so we could pass without danger from one side of the street to the other. When passing behind the barricade we had to bend down to avoid the Spanish fire, and tall men like Habert had to crouch even lower. The general was crossing the street in this manner when a nearby soldier declared: “What? So generals are afraid as well?” Habert, enraged, spun around, grabbed the unfortunate soldier by the shoulder and dragged him into the centre of the street, holding both himself and the soldier to their full height. A shower of musket fire fell around them: the soldier was pierced by 5 or 6 musket balls and the general emerged unscathed except for a light wound on his arm. He then threw the bloodied corpse of the soldier on the ground, kicked it, uttered a filthy insult and walked away.

“He did the right thing” said the French. “It’s wicked to say something like that about a general like him”.

Translated from “Moja służba w Legii Nadwiślańskiej” by Henryk Brandt, Armagedon, Gdynia 2002.

General Pierre-Joseph Habert, 1773 - 1825

I’ve been down another rabbit hole recently, reading up about Poles in the Napoleonic era for a Sharp Practice game about the death of Poniatowski. There is an excellent facebook group called “Epoka Napoleońska”, which often posts albums of uniforms and battle scenes from the period. Recently this group posted a link to an article from the Polish magazine “Historia”, published on 27 February 2023, about the origins of the Polish national anthem. It was so interesting that I decided to summarise it here.

The story begins with the Third Partition in 1795, when the Polish State disappeared from the map, her territories shared out between Russia, Austria and Prussia. In 1797 the Polish Legions were raised in Italy under French sponsorship, attracting former soldiers and young patriots in exile. Their commander was General Jan Henryk Dąbrowski, an experienced officer who would serve the Polish cause throughout the Napoleonic wars.

Also in 1797, the Polish nobleman, politician and writer, Józef Wybicki, a friend of Dąbrowski who had joined him in Italy, wrote a poem that became known as “the Song of the Polish Legions in Italy”. The words were set to the music of a popular Mazurka and sung for the first time on 20 July 1797 in Reggio Emilia in Italy. The Dąbrowski’s Mazurka soon became the Legions’ marching song and its popularity spread. In 1806 it was first printed in the partitioned Polish territories, and from then on, it became an enduring symbol of the ambition to regain independence. Despite being banned by the partitioning powers, the song kept its popularity and eventually became the official national anthem of the restituted Poland in 1927.

The loyalty and courage of Polish troops in Napoleon’s service is legendary. The words of Dąbrowski’s Mazurka help demonstrate how tightly the dream of restored nationhood was bound to the person of the French Emperor. Small wonder they fought so hard for him, right up to the end.

The original song had six verses, though verses four and six have been dropped in modern times (you can guess why) . Some of the words have changed slightly since 1797 but the gist is exactly the same. My loose translation is below

Poland has not yet died
As long as we are alive
We shall take back by the sword
What foreign powers have stolen.
Refrain:
March, march, Dąbrowski
From Italian lands to Poland
Under your command
We shall unite with the nation.
We will cross the Vistula, cross the Warta
We will be Poles
Bonaparte has shown us by example
How we shall be victorious.
Refrain
Just as Czarniecki returned to Poznan
From across the sea
To save the fatherland
After the Swedish partition.
Refrain
Neither German nor Muscovite shall settle (our lands)
When, having drawn our sword,
Our watchword will be “Unity
And our Fatherland”.
Refrain
So the father says
To his weeping (daughter) Basia
“Hark! It seems our (lads)
Are beating the military drums”.
Refrain
At this we all say with one voice
“Enough of this captivity!
We have the scythes of Racławice
Kościuszko, if God wills it”.

And the Polish original text:

Jeszcze Polska nie umarła,
Kiedy my żyjemy.
Co nam obca moc wzięła,
Szablą odbierzemy.
Refrain:
Marsz, marsz, Dąbrowski
—Do Polski z ziemi włoski
—Za twoim przewodem
—Złączym się z narodem.
Przejdziem Wisłę, przejdziem Wartę
Będziem Polakami
Dał nam przykład Bonaparte
Jak zwyciężać mamy.
Refrain
Jak Czarniecki do Poznania
Wracał się przez morze
Dla ojczyzny ratowania
Po szwedzkim rozbiorze.
Refrain
Niemiec, Moskal nie osiędzie,
Gdy jąwszy pałasza,
Hasłem wszystkich zgoda będzie
I ojczyzna nasza.
Refrain
Już tam ojciec do swej Basi
Mówi zapłakany
Słuchaj jeno, pono nasi
Biją w tarabany.
Refrain
Na to wszystkich jedne głosy
Dosyć tej niewoli
Mamy racławickie kosy
Kościuszkę Bóg pozwoli.
Refrain

I have been gathering ideas for a Sharp Practice scenario of the last moments of Prince Józef Poniatowski, Commander in Chief of the army of the Duchy of Warsaw, who died on the last day of the battle of Leipzig in October 1813. I found two accounts in Polish, one by Mariusz Lukasiewicz in his book “Armia Ksiecia Jozefa, 1813” and the other in “Lipsk”, by Jadwiga Nadzieja. Both accounts drew on eye witness reports and are almost identical. The following is a translation of the account in Lukasiewicz, with a small comment from Nadzieja’s book.

Introduction: On 19 October 1813, Napoleon’s army was retreating westwards from Leipzig, covered by a rearguard including Poniatowski’s Polish VIII Corps. The army had only one route out of the city and while the details are still disputed, the single bridge over which the troops were retreating was blown up prematurely, leaving several thousand troops of the rearguard on the far side, including the Poles. With the bridge gone, the only way the stranded troops could avoid death or capture was to cross two rivers, the Pleisse and then the Elster, either on makeshift bridges or by swimming. Meanwhile, Russian and Prussian skirmishers were racing to cut them off.

“Poniatowski retreated from the water fountain, together with his headquarters staff and remaining soldiers. They moved through the Reichel‘s garden and the Rudolf garden towards the river Pleisse under fire from approaching enemy skirmishers. The cuirassiers and some chasseurs were still fighting. General Bronikowski strongly urged the commander-in-chief to swim his horse across the Pleisse. Poniatowski was reluctant to withdraw, but eventually ordered his escort to gain time with one more charge and then jumped into the river. The Pleisse was deep and fast moving due to the autumn rains and Poniatowski’s horse couldn’t make it up the far bank. Seeing him in trouble Hypolite Blechamps, a young French captain on the Headquarters staff, ran to help. (Jadwiga Nadzieja says he was assisted by another aide, Ludwig Kicki, who was shot soon after dragging Poniatowski to the bank). He freed Poniatowski from his horse and pulled him onto the riverbank.

The prince now proceeded for a time on foot. As he retreated through the gardens he was wounded for a fourth time, this time by a musket ball in his side. The wound was serious and only quick attention stopped him from bleeding to death. Poniatowski fell unconscious into the arms of his escort but soon regained his senses. His staff begged him to hand over command to one of his generals and surrender to the Allies so his wounds could be properly treated. Now half-conscious, Poniatowski refused, saying that his honour and duty to his Fatherland would not permit him to do this. With the help of his adjutants, he mounted another horse and supported from both sides, rode along the River Elster towards a crossing place that had been indicated by an officer of engineers.

Allied troops had by now already reached the river and some had even crossed to the other side, shooting at the soldiers as they tried to swim to safety. Bleeding heavily and losing consciousness every few moments Poniatowski’s path was suddenly blocked by an enemy detachment and he turned his horse and jumped in the river. The horse managed with difficulty to reach the far bank, but as it scrambled to get out of the water, Poniatowski was hit again by a musket ball. He slid off the horse into the water and began to drown. Captain Blechamps again jumped in to help him, but soon they both disappeared in the current and neither was seen alive again.

Poniatowski’s corpse was recovered from the Elster by a local fisherman on 24 October and his identity confirmed by Polish prisoners.”

On 10 September, my friend Keith came up from Devon to attend Colours at Newbury and then play a game of Soldiers of Napoleon. We played the Ligny scenario mentioned in my last blog post, on the Napoleonic scenarios page here. On 26 September, Dan, Spencer and I played the scenario again. They were both cracking games.

As Soldiers of Napoleon (SoN) is still a new set, it might be worth summarising the way the rules work. The USP is the deck of cards, which regulate various aspects of play. The players start the turn with a hand of cards each, which they play alternately until both run out and the turn finishes. Each card can be played for one of three purposes: to issue orders to a variable number of units in one brigade; to rally all eligible units in a brigade; or to launch a special event. Of course, you can’t use a card for more than one purpose at a time so there are always tough choices to be made.

Movement and shooting are both straightforward processes, in much the same mould as other Napoleonic rules. There are a couple of unusual orders that we really like: light cavalry can ‘harass’ enemy skirmishers, with the possible result that the skirmishers will fall back to rejoin their parent battalions. Heavy cavalry, meanwhile, can intimidate enemy by their very presence. I like it that your cavalry can influence the battle in more subtle ways than charging at the first target.

The rally and stand removal mechanic is highly original and takes some getting used to. An important point to remember is that while every card has a Rally function, you can only rally troops of the quality levels specified on that card. Pretty much every card lets you rally elite and professional troops but very few cards allow you to rally militia. So if, like the Prussians in 1815, you have a lot of Landwehr militia in your army, make every card that can be used to rally militia count. Sadly, this will mean forgoing some neat special events and high digit orders, but your army will dissolve if you don’t rally your militia when you can.

The Rally process involves different steps that it is important to follow in sequence. You can soak off disruption points in different ways including stand removal. While stand removal is seemingly voluntary, it is better to lose a stand or two in a rally action than to lose the whole unit at turn’s end because it had more disruption points than stands remaining.

Anyway, we were both set up and ready to go.

In game 1, Keith took Girard’s 7th Division, holding St Amand La Haye, while I led the Prussians, tasked with expelling Girard from the village. In Turn 1, the Prussians began with two special events, both to boost their artillery: one round of off-table grand battery fire and a card that allowed all on-table artillery to fire. Neither made much difference, to my deep annoyance. The Prussians advanced on both wings, towards St Amand La Haye in the East and through Wagnelée towards Le Hameau in the West. In front of Le Hameau, the French focussed artillery and skirmish fire on one Landwehr battalion, nearly bringing it to break point in one turn but fortunately, I had a rally card that included militia so avoided a rout, at the cost of a lost stand. In the East, the Prussian advance got off to a slow start but by turn 2 I was ready to charge St Amand La Haye. Or not. The 28th Line, ordered into the village, declined to advance so fired an ineffectual volley instead. I hate/love the Charge mechanic! In retrospect, that might have been the time to use a Command Point for a discipline test reroll. So turn 2 ended with no serious combat in the East and some enterprising French skirmishing and artillery bombardment in the West. At this point, we called time for food and drink.

Phase 2 of the game saw a change to solo play as Keith was sent back to Devon. The two sides were now in striking range and each made aggressive moves on their left. In the West, helped by the arrival of their reserves, the French stopped the Prussian right dead and pushed it onto the defensive. In the East, the Prussians tried again to assaut St Amand La Haye and this time, at least they managed to charge home. However, the first combat went against them. The Prussians regrouped and the second assault pushed one French battalion out of the village. The French lacked reserves on the right so transferred two battalions from the left to try and retake the lost sector of St Amand la Haye, which they successfully did. All the while, victory points were accumulating as both sides had to shore up crumbling units. At the end of turn 4, French VPs exceeded the Prussian morale total so Girard won the day. I don’t play solo games that often but enjoyed playing this through to a conclusion.

In the second game, Spencer took the French while Dan and I shared the Prussians (Dan on the left, me on the right). To cut a long story short, the Prussians attacked St Amand La Haye from two sides and after shooting up a seasoned French Line battalion, they got a battalion into St Amand La Haye and managed to hold on there. The French left came out swinging to try and disrupt the Prussians right, but rolled some very unlucky dice and stalled in the Standing crops. On the French right, a lone battalion charged and roughed up some Landwehr and French skirmishers caused a ot of disruption, but when it mattered, French dice rolls were particularly unlucky. Dan meanwhile ground steadily forward, his men watched by Blücher himself. French morale broke at the end of turn 4. At this point French reinforcements were just arriving on the table, too late, alas, to alter the outcome.

These were two very entertaining games. The rules flow easily and both battles ‘felt right’. We especially like the skirmishing rules, which, for me, are way better than the bucket of dice palaver used in Lasalle 2. The choices players face are constantly challenging: is this card more valuable for its order value, for its special event or for the troop qualities it can rally? It will take a few more games to be sure but my evolving feeling is that special events should be used sparingly, however much fun they seem. This is particularly true for the attacking side. By all means play a special bombardment event before charging in but every card played for its special event is one card fewer for moving units towards the enemy. Also, make sure you hang on to the rally card that covers the troop qualities in your army. The Prussians in this scenario have 4 Landwehr units who can quickly get into trouble if you don’t have a rally card that covers their militia quality.

In the Facebook Soldiers of… Group, somebody wondered if small units would survive for long on the table against much larger opponents. This scenario has a number of 3-stand French battalions and overall, the Prussian battalions are significantly larger than their French opponents. We certainly found that the smaller French units held their own well. Unit size is of course a factor, but so are troop quality, skirmish ability and formation.

I was impressed in the second battle by how quickly the game played. We had all got our heads around the mechanics by then so we rattled through each turn. In truth, the movement, firing and melee mechanics are very straightforward and logical. The challenges in these rules derive from the card play, not from long lists of dice modifiers. This is as it should be.

I have no niggles with these rules. There are however a couple of unit stats in the rulebook that I am not sure about. For example, in the Army lists Prussian Foot artillery is only allowed to be 12 pounders, whereas in reality the majority of Prussian field foot batteries were 6 pounders. This might even be a typo I guess, and it’s no hardship to ignore the lists and give the Prussian foot batteries 6 pounders. I am also tempted to revisit the stats for Prussian Landwehr, some of whom were, by 1815, veteran units with fearsome reputations. We needn’t go overboard here but it may be fitting to increase the quality of Landwehr from the older Prussian provinces (and hence recruited first) from Militia to Trained. This small shift would make quite a difference to the staying power of a Silesian Landwehr battalion.

Finally, the scenario worked well, though I tweaked the objectives for Prussia between games 1 and 2 to make St Amand la Haye more important (they were given the Take a Strongpoint objective, but only redeemable in that village).

Overall, I am delighted with these rules and I look forward to the first supplement.

I have uploaded a new scenario here for Soldiers of Napoleon (Scenario SoN 3), covering Girard’s 7th Division’s defence of St Amand La Haye during the Battle of Ligny on 16 June 1815. I started with the Lasalle scenario that I had already written for the same action, but was soon moved to revisit the sources because of an interesting difference in approach between the two rule sets.

Lasalle 2 makes all units a standard size (Russian artillery excepted). Lasalle 1 did have an option for large battalions, but even then there were only two sizes. Sam Mustafa is an accomplished designer who tests his rules extensively before releasing them. Lasalle 2 works very well indeed and there is no doubt that standard unit sizes (and hence frontages) makes for smooth play. The argument for standard sizes generally runs that it is hard to know exactly how many men were present at any given point and that on average, most battalions were around 500 men strong after a few months campaigning. If an army’s battalions were seriously understrength, as the Russians often were in 1813, the player is free to represent two actual battalions with one model battalion. Fair enough. I didn’t give much thought to this approach until reading through Soldiers of Napoleon.

The approach to unit creation in Soldiers of Napoleon is more fluid than in Lasalle 1 or 2. A battalion can be any starting size from 2 to 6 ‘stands’ and the rules for firing, melee and morale management are geared for this. Looking at the orders of battle n the 1815 campaign, I was struck by the wide variation of battalion strengths between the French and Prussian armies. On the whole, Prussian battalions are significantly larger than the French. Now, at the scale of a divisional fight, the difference in battalion sizes could have a significant impact on play. So in adapting the Girard scenario to SoN, I have tried to reflect actual unit sizes in the order of battle (using the ratio of 132 infantry or 100 cavalry to a stand). Consequently, the largest unit is a Prussian Line battalion of 6 stands and the smallest is a 3-stand French battalion. I look forward to testing the effect this has on scenario balance when we play it on 11 September. I have a feeling that Girard is going to have a tough time hanging on to his real estate!

Soldiers of Napoleon provides a fast-moving and entertaining game. The cards pose tricky choices and have bags of period flavour. Our historical scenario gave moments of high excitement and a plausible outcome. Highly Recommended.

I recently bought Soldiers of Napoleon, the new card-moderated tactical rules by Warwick Kinrade, author of Battlegroup (and more besides). Five of us played our first game last week, using a scenario based on the fight for Markkleeberg during the Battle of Leipzig. This clash between Poles, French, Prussians and Russians seemed a good testing ground for the rules.

The mechanics for movement, fire and melee are intuitive, straightforward and easy to learn. They hang together well, give good period flavour and on their own could have been the basis for a respectable IGO-YOUGO game. The card deck, however, takes things to another level. Every turn, each side receives a hand of cards linked to the number of Brigade or higher commanders on the table and players alternate card play until both run out. A card has three possible uses: to issue orders to a given number of units within a brigade; to rally units; or to play the special event that is described on the card. I’ve seen a couple of reviews that describe the rules at length so rather than repeat it all again, I’ll try to show how they affected our battle.

I have put the Markkleeberg scenario here. I created it by following the game preparation procedure in the rules. The main Tactical Orders for both sides were chosen for them (Coalition attacking, Franco-Poles defending). The Order of Battle was fun to write because SoN doesn’t have standard unit sizes. A battalion or cavalry regiment can have between 2 and 6 stands, or roughly between 250 and 800 men. This suits the OoB for Markkleeberg well, as Helfreich’s 14th Corps was seriously understrength (so 3 stands per battalion), the Polish Cuirassiers only consisted of 2 squadrons/bases and the Prussian Landwehr battalions were numerous (but inexperienced).

We played the scenario with two players per side. The Poles deployed their three brigades first, then the Allies set up in left echelon. Both sides had reserves off the table. The Russian 14th Corps advanced on the right; Coalition artillery in the centre bombarded the Polish hilltop position and the Prussian Foot screened Markkleeberg on the left. The Poles played a special event early on that allowed the Krakus lancers to advance far down the table and catch and destroy a Russian battalion in column (an incident that was only made possible by the special event: without it, the Russians would have had time to form square and fire at the threatening cavalry). This dislocated the Russian assault and bought time for the defenders, while the rest of Helfreich’s Corps formed square until the Krakusi retired. The Poles used another special event to bring in fire from the Grand Battery to their left rear. Phase 1 therefore gave the advantage to the defenders.

In phase 2 the Russian assault got going again. A counter battery exchange in the centre went badly for the Poles and the Coalition artillery then whittled down the Vistula Regiment in the Polish centre as 14th Corps closed, supported by the Loubny Hussars. The French Reserve brigade arrived on the right and this, together with the Polish garrison of Markkleeberg, went forward to relieve pressure on the centre. Two Polish battalions chewed up a Prussian Landwehr battalion near the village and the Coalition left was now looking shaky. In response the Coalition played a special event to change the arrival location of their reserves to the Markkleeberg sector, which helped stabilise their left. In the final phase, the Coalition managed to shoot the Polish Division commander by playing a special event. The Russians then closed with the Polish centre and duffed it up enough to win the victory.

I love these rules! They do remind me of Longstreet, my (so far?) favourite rules for any period, which are also card-moderated and have a similar mixture of simple mechanisms and really challenging choices. Like Longstreet, SoN makes events possible that just don’t happen in many wargames, such as surprise attacks, missing ADCs, incoming damage from off-table batteries and stray bullets taking down senior officers. The sense of narrative and of history is really strong, which shouldn’t be a surprise from the author of Battlegroup.


All involved in this game want to play again and we all took away some thoughts on how better to play the cards next time.