Rules Review - General d'Armee

Next in my series of Rules Reviews is General d'Armee by David Brown.
For more detail on my approach to reviewing rules please see my Rules Review Index Page.

Command Level: Divisional Commander and above
Basic Tactical Unit: Infantry battalion, two or more squadrons of cavalry, or artillery battery.
Figures per unit: Works with any, units are just "small, regular, large", though note ground scale and consider that a battalion in line should take up roughly 150-200 yards (so maybe 10-20 cm in 15mm, 20-30cm in 28mm).
Ground Scale: 1mm to 1 yard/metre in 15mm, proportionally more in 28mm.
Time Scale: 10 to 20 minutes a turn

Organisation: 4/5

General d'Armee is a well laid out set of rules, in logical sections. That said, there's a bit much white space for my taste, and font could definitely do with being bigger in the charts. Pictures of individually based figures with no clear connection to the rules are scattered throughout, though mainly in the margins as a bit of Napoleonic colour. There are a few minor errors or clarity issues in places but a FAQ is available to help with these. The Quick Reference Sheets are also well designed, though at four pages in length one might debate the term "quick".

Positively there is also a forum on which the author himself regularly responds, as do other players with a couple in particular being very helpful. In addition there is a very good set of tutorial gameplay videos which puts these rules ahead of most competitors in that regard (though the Too Fat Lardies really need to sort their videos into playlists!)

Mechanics: 3/5 

I've seen the mechanics of General d'Armee have been described as quite "crunchy", meaning there are  a good number of procedures and rules to work through. At the same time if one compares it to General d'Brigade (a predecessor aimed more at the Brigade Level of Command as the name suggests), it is clear that much thought has gone into minimising the list of modifiers and streamlining systems so larger games can be completed more quickly.

The Brigade skirmish screen idea is one nicely done addition supporting this goal. In General d'Armee, you do have individual battalions, but the Brigade is the basic tactical unit for purposes of command and general effectiveness. Each Brigade has a skirmish screen consisting of a number of bases (generally one per battalion), representing the light companies from its battalions fulfilling this role. Thus there is no micro-management of the actions of individual light companies, but skirmishing is still an important part of the game. 

Some of the mechanics feel quite "old fashioned" (meaning 80's/90's rule complexity rather than the even earlier formative period in wargaming history). For example, typical firing involves a modified 2D6 roll on a chart, plus a bonus casualty dice or two in some situations, then sometimes another dice roll to see if a "half casualty" result is actually a casualty - so a bit clunky.  Skirmishers, garrisons and melee just use casualty dice, and I would have prefered volley and artillery fire to use a similar mechanism rather than a chart.

Looking at the forums, the charges section and all the potential rules around this appears to be the biggest source of confusion, as it can be somewhat convoluted. The FAQ contains further examples of charge procedures to help clarify the intention of the rules, and the videos mentioned above should also help with this.

When it comes to reaction tests there are a range of outcomes to get your head around that can also be confusing. For example, the three "R" words with similar names and meaning - "retire, retreat, rout", with fairly extensive rules applying to each, and I can't help but think I'd prefer something simpler here. Aspects of this also seem counter-inutitive, for example a retreating unit retreats once then halts, but is still classed as "retreating" until it rallies, even though it is not supposed to be withdrawing (moving) any further.

These various complexities of the rules produce more graduated outcomes compared to some other rulesets. Whether this extra detail is worth the time and process of working through the mechanics will be up to player preference of course.

Simulation: 5/5

Overall General d'Armee fits well with at least my own reading of Napoleonic history. The odds ratios and actions of forces feel about right and I feel confident to refight historical battles with them.  It's been argued that there are not enough "national differences", but I'm inclined to agree with the author that these have often been overstated, especially as armies became more homogenous later in the era. I'm also persuaded by his argument that some factors in Napoleonic wargames rules have persisted more for reason of Napoleonic wargaming tradition and assumptions (e.g. bonuses for higher ground or enfilading), rather than for reasons of substantive Napoleonic history, while other issues have been neglected. Skirmishers have due importance paid to them in General d'Armee, and the Brigade Skirmish line is nice idea to reflect their utility without complicated rules.  Similarly "massed column" rules discourage the solid wall of columns units you see in some rulesets - they work better if they are chequerboarded historically to have some deployment space.

Given the strength point system is said to reflect attrition in terms of morale, fatigue, and general disruption, in addition to casualties, it is perhaps odd that good quality units are no more resistant to this attrition loss from enemy fire than poorer ones. The only exception is rare elite units which have three more attrition points. Otherwise good units lose attrition points to fire as quickly as poor ones, in contrast to a systems where this loss is influenced by morale of the unit under attack. Moderating this slightly is the fact that certain results on a firing table will also result in a "discipline test" which is affected slightly more by quality (+1 or -1 on a 2D6 roll for veteran vs raw troops for example), which can result in units retreating or being removed. The General d'Armee attrition system seems like a holdover from earlier rules where you track casualties which were actually "casualties", and then had morale separate to this. I also feel that the certainty with which units are auto-eliminated as attrition is reduced might be perhaps a little too predictable in General d'Armee, though I personally prefer it to say the Blackpowder system which feels too random.

Another issue to be aware of in General d'Armee is it is rather easy for infantry to be overrun by cavalry unless you are hypervigilant for this possibility. The discipline test to form square as a reaction is quite harsh compared to many other rulesets, even when cavalry is quite some distance away. My understanding is that infantry were rather relentlessly drilled to form square quickly as a priority if threatened by cavalry. Instances of non-disordered infantry being caught out of square by cavalry is not a common occurrence in battle accounts I have read. French infantry in attack column could form square in under a minute according to Nafziger, yet in the rules you have approximately 40% chance of failing to do so against cavalry that would likely take two to three times as long to reach them on optimum ground. You have an approximately 60% chance of failing if you are in line or have reached your first demoralisation level (4 attrition points lost), and it gets worse from there. If you fail to form square you are also unformed and in a world of trouble against cavalry, and then breakthrough moves can easily tear through multiple units that will not get to react. I can understand that forming square is harder in the fog of battle, but one could say the same about organising a cavalry charge. All this is deliberate though, the author has commented that he really wanted cavalry to be more dangerous and unpredictable than they are in some Napoleonic rules, and they are certainly that!

Given it is so challenging to form square as a reaction test, during their turn players would be wise to check cavalry charge ranges, and form their units into square if in range rather than relying on reaction tests. Or just stay in attack column against lighter cavalry types, as this also offers protection and is less risky than trying to form square as a reaction to these. Forming square should likely not be as easy and non-influenced by circumstance as it is in rules like Blackpowder. However in General Armee you really need to be micromanaging this detail, which I'd prefer to be left more regularly to an automated reaction test in a game purportedly focused upon Divisional or Corp level command. As with everything in wargaming this is personal preference. 

Another criticism I've seen directed at General d'Armee is that the randomness to skill ratio can skew towards the randomness. For example firing a volley can hurt your own unit (as they lose "fire discipline", inflict no casualties and have to spend a turn reordering), or it might strip half the attrition points from a enemy unit (5-6 casualties) and inflict a rout test in a single turn. The chance of these extremes occuring is 1/4 for a veteran unit, with more graduated casualty outcomes being inflicted between those extremes.  The charge roll is also a nerve racking situation where even being significantly better quality than your opponent only gives you a +2 on a 2D6 rolloff to see who might hold to the charge or panic and become unformed (difference of 3 or more),  or even rout (difference of 6 or more).  Friendly units nearby let you reroll one of the D6 dice to reduce this variance, but it's still a high risk venture. The fate of an entire Brigade rests on a single dice roll after rout of a battalion, though an ADC allocation at least provides a reroll of this. My thought is that these outcomes are not unhistorical, though from a game perspective one might dislike the frequency of such butterfly effects of disaster.  However,  I can also see a case for the argument that Napoleonic warfare was more regularly slowburning and attritional in nature as Clausewitz described it, relative to the unpredictable firecracker effects many rulesets produce.

Anyway, despite some caveats or questions here, you'll note I still gave this category a 5/5, meaning I rate it highly and the results seem a very plausible interpretation of the Napoleonic period, that also takes a refreshing look at some aspects.

Friction: 4/5 

General d'Armee uses a simple but effective mechanic to generate command friction. Each Brigade must roll a 3+ on a D6 to activate otherwise it is "hesitant" and cannot advance. You can reroll these command roles by allocating from a limited number of ADC's available each turn, representing the influence of the commander and his chain of command. There is also the option to use special Brigade orders - like bombarding with artillery, ordering a quick advance, rallying the Brigade, and so on. These special orders add some nice character to the game.

The system doesn't scale well to lower numbers of Brigades, and it is best played with 5-6 minimum in order to have sufficient ADC's to use special orders. It's also not clear what the role of Divisional Commanders is in larger games, except I imagine they are abstracted into the command effects in Corp level games. It has been argued that the rules should perhaps be called General d'Division given the scale it is aimed at, though you could play a corp with more time, or players. Additional optional rules for higher level Corp or Army Commanders above the Divisional Commander are provided. 

Speed of Play: 3/5

The number of attrition steps (12 for a standard unit), movement rates (6" for line, 9" for column in 28mm), turns representing only 10-20 minutes, mechanics (e.g. reaction fire, reaction, melee, and reinforcement steps in a charge), and fussing about with counter clutter, means General D'Armee will take longer to play than some other rules.  On the forums the author has suggested taking a few attrition points off units if you want to speed things up. With the intuitively laid out tables and modifiers I would not characterise it as "slow", but there are definitely faster options at this same level of representation.

Clutter Avoidance: 2/5

General d'Armee requires a fair number of counters. 12 hits need to be recorded for most units (damage dials are good for this), and then there's a host of order and status counters. At least there is no need for order writing or record keeping beyond this. A four page quick reference chart is used, and it is in quite fine print. This quick reference sheet is well laid out though and the game can tick over just by referring to this most of the time.

Pickup Play Support: 2/5

There are points values in the rules, and I have made this Army List Creator to assist with use of these. Unfortunately there are no rules for setting up a game, terrain, nor victory or scenario conditions.  Lack of any system for generating pick-up battles is something that lets this ruleset down in comparison to popular wargames in other periods, though this is a not infrequent limitation of other Napoleonic rules at the time of this review.

Historical Scenario Support: 2/5

There is a single book of six scenarios for the 1815 period at the time of this review, and one Peninsula book, though these limited scenarios tend to be portions of battles rather than more comprehensive listings. These are also theatres already oversupplied with information by Anglophile enthusiasts. Earlier scenario booklets for General D'Brigade rules are also available and these are quite usable and have a similar format, and so this rating would be a 3/5 with those included. 

Overall: 4/5

General d'Armee gives a good game of Napoleonics and feel for the Napoleonic period. The tabletop counter clutter, slower mechanics and consequent time needed for a larger game prevent me playing it more regularly. However, I am happy to play it with experienced rather than casual players in smaller games, and I prefer it to many other sets of Napoleonic rules.

Battle of Jedlinsk 1809 - Battlereports

While the massive actions of the Napoleonic wars hold much appeal, there were many more smaller actions. These can often be as interesting as the larger wargames and are also far more manageable to collect forces for and play!

One of these battles was Jedlinsk in 1809, which was the only serious defeat of Poland by Austria in the 1809 war. For wargaming purposes, the two forces in this battle have a good mix of arms, though the Austrians have a definite advantage. The area of the battle is also reasonably constrained with the Austrians attacking down a valley towards a river crossing. It makes it a good subject to test out different rulesets and tactics, even if the battle is not particularly balanced.

I tried this battle out several times in solo games as I had spare time across a few evenings, with both 321 Fast Play Napoleonic rules, and General D'Armee rules. Read on to see how this went!

Scenario

I used the Jedlinsk scenario from Michael Hopper's excellent "The Roads to Vienna" book (see here), with some minor amendments. The main change was reducing the area of the battle down from an 8x6 or 6x6 foot table to a 6x4 foot table. Apart from just not wanting to set up a larger table, I also had several scenario specific reasons for doing this. Firstly, I removed the option to attack around the valley to the Polish right flank (the Polish left flank is secured by the Radomka river). This was to try and give the Poles more of a fighting chance versus the Austrians who will have to just batter their way through the Polish defence in depth up the valley, which I believe is what the Austrians ended up doing historically. Secondly, I judged that if the Poles are pushed out of Jedlinsk (on their base edge in my setup) they will have lost anyway as then Austrian reinforcements from a flank attack could come over the bridge, as was the original but frustrated Austrian plan (the Poles held the bridge successfully from this attack across the river).

I divided both sides forces into 3 Brigades, as the Michael Hopper book doesn't specify how the respective Divisions were divided in this battle, and details are perhaps not known in any case. But I imagine something like the following was not unlikely.

Polish - CinC Zajaczek (428 points)

• Brigade 1: 4 Recruit Line, 1 Regular Foot Artillery Battery, 1 Regular Skirmisher
• Brigade 2: 4 Recruit Line, 1 Regular Foot Artillery Battery, 1 Regular Skirmisher
• Brigade 3: 3 Recruit Uhlans

Austrian - CinC Mondet (598 points)

• Brigade 1: 2 Large Regular line, 1 Regular Light (Grenz), 1 Recruit Line, 2 Regular Heavy Batteries, 1 Regular Skirmisher 
• Brigade 2: 4 Large Recruit Line, 1 Foot Battery
• Brigade 3: 3 Regular Light Cavalry (2 Hussars, 1 Chevauleger)

Rather obviously, neither of these armies is first rate quality! The best troops are the artillery, and the Austrian regular infantry and cavalry. Recruits are motivated but only partially trained recruits on the part of the the Poles, and unenthusiastic conscripts of non-Austrian ethnicity and sympathies on the part of the Austrians. I did consider making the Austrian troops 'Raw' which would have dropped total points of their force to 520, but that is probably too harsh. Raw rating in my rules also seems to correspond to the equivalent of 'Raw' rating in the Hopper book - i.e untrained, militia, civilians etc, which is worse than these troops should be.

The Polish defenders are thus significantly underpointed, almost 3-2, (598-428 in my rules and likely similar in others). The Austrians have superiority in artillery in particular, and cavalry quality, as well as a slight numerical advantage. The Hopper book recommends giving the Poles an extra bonus representing their patriotic fervour which was evident throughout the war. I chose the option to have them reroll attacks or break tests that would result in a unit breaking. This might mean their force is closer to 500 points.

Jelinsk - 321 rules refight

321 Fastplay Napoleonic Rules for the first refight. Here's the battlefield, with village areas labelled. There is a large hill in the centre, the  impassable Radomka river to the left with the bridge to Jedlinsk. The hedges up the road represent a narrow stream and ditch which counts as rough terrain to cross.

The Austrian Regular infantry attack towards the Polish left and village of Brod.

Poles advance a unit into Brod to defend it.

Austrian artillery advancing in the centre.

And on the Austrian right their cavalry leads the way.

Austrians attack Brod but are thrown back after causing heavy losses to the Poles. The Poles relieve the defenders with a fresh unit.

On the Polish right, their infantry forms square as the Austrian cavalry advances past them, ignoring their attempts to learn musketry...

After some initial reluctance and holding, the Polish Cavalry launches itself forwards to meet the Austrians...

...but is driven back in confusion.

The Austrian Hussars are also exhausted after charging on though, and fall back without being able to finish off any Uhlan unit.

The Polish artillery cause some minor difficulties for the Austrians, but the Austrian guns manage to reach their position and unlimber.

As the Austrian heavy guns open up one of the Polish batteries is silenced. Three other Polish units take some disorder as anxiety creeps through the ranks...

The Austrian artillery ready to start wrecking things.

A significant success for the Poles however, as the last fresh unit of Polish Uhlans manages to break an an Austrian Hussar unit...

...and throw back the second Austrian Hussars as well!

The white tide keeps coming. An Austrian mass crashes into and over the Polish square, though taking heavy casualties themselves.

The Poles are falling back in confusion, just a skirmish screen and the defenders at Brod still returning fire. The remaining Polish battery has been forced to withdraw, and bravely sets up in a new position.

The Austrians attack Brod for about the fourth time, forced to use their small unit of Recruits in this attempt. The recruits are up to the task versus the weakened defenders. The garrison breaks, causing two more disordered Polish units to do the same.

Lastly, the Chevaulegers break the heroic Polish Uhlans, and the Polish force collapses. All over end of turn 5.

Jelinsk - General D'Armee rules refight 

Well that didn't go well for the Poles. Next was a refight with the General D'Armee Rules. Force lists as above. The Polish were recruits but I gave them the standard 12 rather than 10 hit points to represent their improved morale compared to the Austrian recruits, and I also treated all their Discipline Tests and Brigade Falter Tests as if they were Average. (Note there is an optional 'enthusiastic recruit' grade in the General D'Armee rulebook on page 97 but I didn't think this was good enough in this instance!)

Things start off in excellent fashion for the Poles this time,  with a double six for the opening artillery fire doing three casualties and unforming an approaching Austrian limbered heavy battery.

As the Austrians draw closer damage becomes rather more modest though...

Similar dispositions.

The Cavalry move to oppose each other, and the Polish right flank infantry form square.

The Austrian flank brigades are both hesitant turn 3. The artillery starts unlimbering, with one heavy battery being a turn delayed after the first turn trouble it experienced.

The Polish Uhlans charge the hesitating Austrian Cavalry, figuring odds won't get any better than this. First Uhlan unit rolls a double 1 versus 8 for the Austrians...

Reroll due to support is a 6 though (down to 5 because Recruit), and so a melee occurs, with the Austrians driving back the Uhlans with heavy casualties on both sides after a two round reinforced melee. (Question? Do Uhlans get lances in second round in GDA? And do reinforcing units from the rear get this? Couldn't find anything saying they do not while playing, but for this game assumed they would not, same as my own rules).

The other Uhlan unit routs the Palatinal Hussars and follows up into the Austrian infantry, which holds and forces the Uhlans back in retreat.

The Palatinal Hussars are not in a good way though, routing behind the gun line and dispersing next turn! (In the actual battle, a corporal of this regiment jumped his horse into a Polish square, leading to the demise of himself and his horse, but the breach enabled the square to be captured. Not the sort of reckless tactic to rely upon...)

On the Polish left flank, the Poles have stubbornly thrown back two charges with musketry, but the large Austrian unit finally smashes through and takes the village of Brod.

Austrian cavalry's turn to charge and they drive the Polish Uhlans back.

And Austrian infantry also routs the Polish line.

The Polish militia in Plaskow throws back the oncoming Austrian hordes, temporarily... (French National Guard figures getting another workout, and I imagine this is also what most of the Poles in this battle would have actually looked like!!)

Here's a pic of these Polish militia I took near start of battle, every man and his dog must defend Poland!

As in the first game, a Polish battery is silenced again. The faltering right flank infantry retreats and abandons Plaskow.

The Austrians have taken not inconsiderable casualties but the Poles have had the worst of it.

The Chevaulegers still fresh, gallop forward and finish off the Uhlans.

On the left flank a last desperate Polish charge tries to retake Brod and panic the Austrian Brigade, hoping for a miracle... but instead lurches to a halt.  Turn 7 and the Polish position is hopeless. Game over with similar result...

Conclusion

I replayed the scenario another two times using the 321 rules, both times with similar results to the first attempts - the Poles breaking in slightly different but equally painful ways. In one game the Poles managed to fight the Austrian cavalry to a halt (breaking/dispersing two units for a loss of only one of their own), and almost broke the Austrian Brigade with the four large Recruit units, but then the Austrian artillery put an end to things again.

A very tough fight for the Poles, and not surprising given the historical situation. Their commander Zajaczek would have been wise to avoid battle I think. To give them a chance, increasing the Polish "fervour" even further somehow (depending on rules you are using), or making some of the Austrian units even more reluctant would seem necessary. Of course it isn't necessary to make a game balanced in this way to have it worth playing, just getting a sense of the historical situation is interesting enough for myself anyway.

Encounter Battle - General d'Armee Game

Rather long time since last update on this blog, but here's a Napoleonic Battle Report. A General d'Armee game at the wargames club today. 2000 points French vs British.

My French Force was:

• 1st Brigade: 2 French Line, 1 Foot Battery
• 2nd Brigade: 2 French Line, 1 Veteran Light
• 3rd Brigade: 3 French Line, 1 Veteran Light
• 4th Brigade: 2 Veteran Cuirassiers, 1 Horse Battery

Mike used his well painted British force, as follows:

• 1st Brigade: 2 British Line, 1 Foot Battery
• 2nd Brigade: 2 British Line, 1 Veteran Rifles
• 3rd Brigade: 2 British Line, 1 Elite Guards
• 4th Brigade: 1 Veteran Dragoons, 1 Veteran Hussars, 1 Royal Horse Battery

Encounter Scenario

We played an encounter battle based on this nice idea posted on the GDA forum.

In summary both sides roll a D6 to see who starts. Taking turns, each side then picks one brigade and places the Brigadier where they wish that Brigade to enter the table. The Brigade is available on a D6 roll of 3-6, and immediately moves one move onto the table if so. If a 1-2 is rolled the Brigade must instead enter at that point from reserves.  (All ADC's from brigades are available from the start though, as otherwise it would be very difficult to get things on in time).

As can be seen below, the French start with just their cavalry, while the British start with two infantry Brigades.

The French advance and unlimber and some first artillery fire is exchanged.

British reply.

French then manage to bring on two infantry brigades, while the British wait for their reinforcements.

British Artillery and Highlanders await developments.

The French advance strongly on both flanks using 'Forwards' orders.

The British left flank infantry brigade finally arrives - too late to stop the French occupying the buildings in front of them though.

On the left the first premature French column attacks are thrown back by the British lines. And a second column attack is thrown back in rout. The French Brigade rallies but a routing batalion is lost.

The Cuirassiers move over to support the faltering attack on the French left flank.

The British Cavalry brigade finally arrives.

Picton waves his umbrella grumpily as they reinforce the right flank, while the Royal Horse Artillery deploys to the left of the foot artillery.

British attack column comes on in the same old style vs the French line... (wait what?)

 ...and wrecks the French line which disperses.

The Cuirassiers seek vengeance, charging the British column which fails to form square and becomes unformed, but still manages to hold as the Cuirassiers charge home. A melee ensues.

GDA Melee Rules Example: All infantry and cavalry units have five melee dice. The Brits lose 1 dice for being unformed so roll just 4 dice. Cuirassiers have +2 dice for being Heavy Cavalry, +1 dice for being higher morale grade than enemy in this instance, and +1 dice for Elan. 

So 4 dice (Brits) to 9 dice (French) each needing 4, 5 or 6 on a D6 to cause a hit. The British get 2 hits while the  French roll poorly and get just 3 hits.  A win by 1 hit to the Cuirassiers which is enough to send the British unit retreating back, but disappointingly also just 1 hit off the Cuirassiers simply running the Brits down as they deserve! (Infantry beaten by 2 or more hits by Cavalry disperse and are removed from the battle).

The first Curaissiers fall back and their comrades run down some skirmishers before being blasted by two batteries, taking 8 hits. 

The French Horse Artillery disperse under counter-battery fire. Things are looking grim for the French as multiple brigades falter.

Three French units disperse this turn, including another from the left flank.

...and another from the right flank. This right flank falls due to my mistake in forgetting that you are supposed to halve casualties against garrisons of a Built Up Area! More than just a -1 to hit. Oops, found this in checking rules after the game, that will teach me to remember! 

Lucky day for these British.

Casualties are still heavy for British though. Coldstream Guards have taken 10/15 hits. Highlanders 11/12 hits. (Casualty markers here: shako = 1 hit,  backpacks =4 hits). 

British right flank has also taken a beating. Infantry units from left to right have taken 10, 2, 8 (rifles), and 7 out of 12 hits each respectively.  Three of the five French battalions on this flank have been lost entirely though so the French are considerably worse off!

French skirmishers fire a few last shots before departing.

Time to withdraw and reconsider the treachery of perfidious Albion!

Conclusion

Some premature charges by the infantry on the left lost this game for the French. I had weight of numbers and should have just waited for more attrition from skirmishers before sending in the columns at least! That and my failure to get rules correct for defensive bonus of the buildings on my right flank. Oh well next time!  I think 2000 points is about the minimum for game of GDA, but even this limited number of figures still gives a fun game! Mike and I are doing a display game for an antique weapons club next month so I'll do another report from that.

Thanks for reading! In other news, I bought a tonne more Napoleonic figures just before the Perry price rise on April 2nd, and some of them are currently on the painting table. Prior to that I also painted up an Ancients Republican Roman army, so some pictures of that will likely also feature shortly.