Tom H
Australia
South Oz
TALLY HO!
-
INTRODUCTION - setting the scene
I've been playing miniature wargames from the late 70s, having started with little plastic Airfix minis and Donald Featherstone rules from my local library. After playing for so long I've been hot and cold a number of times. The last time I was this excited about rules was when DBM appeared in the 90s and produced a revolution in the popularity of ancient wargames. For me this set of rules is a breath of fresh air to Napoleonic gaming.
Napoleonics wargames are a bit hit and miss, with some people perferring fast play, others detail, others command and control. It is rare to get 2 Napoleonic gamers to agree and this means that there is rarely one accepted rules set. I've played Shako, Naps Battles, In the Grand Manner, Grande Armee and a range of other rules and all have pluses and minuses, but for me this set is a winner.
The rules have been written by Sam Mustafa, who is an Associate Prof in History at Ramapo College, who also wrote the very successful Grand Armee set of rules. He has specialised in German and Napoleonic history.
PRESENTATION - What you get
The rules book is a very pretty 136 page full colour hard cover book which unfortunately has recently sold out. The rules are available in pdf form from www.sammustafa.com/honour/.
The rules are full of full colour photos of minis and battles to get you into the mood. They are written very clearly in the various phases of a turn - Reaction, combat, activity and status. In truth the rules could have been condensed quite a bit as there is a lot of space, big font, etc and the rules themselves are pretty simple and clear, but hey they look great.
THE RULES - What is in them
The rules themselves are pretty standard IGO-UGO format. They have movement distances, various tactical formations (column, attack column,line, square, etc), army lists, optional rules, scenarios, FAQs and quick reference sheets.
They simulate tactical combat with small units, ie brigades. They are intended as the 1st step in the Honour system with planned expansions such as Blucher (large scale Naps) and Stonewall (ACW). Basing will be standard, and standard basing from other systems can be used, as long as it is consistent. My troops are based for Naps Battles and I haven't had any problems, apart from the need to cut the cav bases in half, which isn't as dramatic as it sounds.[
The thing that makes the rules quite "smart" (and may stop you liking them) is the turn sequence. The first phase is reaction (basically shooting, reacting to enemy charges, etc), then combat (ie hand to hand fighting), activity phase (movement and recovery from disruption) and finally the status phase (all the admin stuff).
Having the reaction phase 1st is interesting as the fire is a reaction to your opponent's movement and charges, as well as fall backs, countercharges, etc. Sort of an opportunity event by what your opponent has done. To me this makes sense and flows well without making things complicated. Other people I know don;t like this as they feel they move and then get thumped and can't fight back. Shooting is pretty simple with each firing unit rolling a six sided die for each base in the unit that can shoot (typically 4) and hitting on a 4+ (with mods). There is a little table that converts hits into disruptions, eg 2-4 hits makes 1 disruption. When a unit reaches 4 disruptions they evaporate, ie they have reached a state where they have suffered so many losses and disorganisation that they cease to exist as a unit and run off.
The combat phase is pretty simple too with fighting units having one die for each base in the unit and scoring a hit on a 5+ (with mods). The defender and attackers count their number of hits and compare them. If you win a combat decisively (double or more hits on you enemy) then the opposing unit is broken and evaporates. If they have not won decisively then the loser falls back and the attacker advances with participating units taking a disruption hit. So what happens in combat is that units either basically explode if you've got a good advantage, or slowly build up disruption until they reach the number of bases when they break.
The game rewards Napoleonic tactics like combined arms, threatening with cavalry, concetration of force, etc. Infantry needs to form square or may suffer seriously from cavalry charges.
The movement phase is prety standard with different movement rates with each formation. Changing formation is interesting a different troop classes change formation less easily if near enemy troops, in command, etc. Recovery is where you try and recover disruption. There are disadvantages to recovery if you move or are near enemy troops.
The status phase covers removal of markers, reinforcements and checking army morale to see if you've won or lost.
Command uses a system of commander and sub-commanders. If units are within the command range of the army commander, or their sub-commander they can move and attack freely. If out of command then they cannot charge or counter charge and have a range of penalties applied to morale and combat. This stops the various brigades from running all over the place and generally sticking together. Simple but it works.
The rules also simulate engineers, fortifications, skirmishers and unit clases (ie elites, etc).
THE GAME - how do they play
Lasalle plays very smoothly and quickly. The mechanics have obviously been well tried and tested and work. I found the rules to simulate tactical combat well and I found lots of occurences where "historical" situations happened. I felt that the splitting of the turn simulated an opportunity fire situation well and actually made you think about moves, charges, etc. I know some people who don't like it as it does feel very unusual. If you like highly detailed simulations where you mark off the number of rounds shot, casualties, etc then these aren't probably for you either.
In our games I initially thought the rules were a bit simplisitic and coarse grained. I didn't feel that there was enough differentiation between troops types, elan, morale, formation,etc. BUT as I played more I found that a lot of this is actually well embedded and integrated into the system. My poor conscripts actually fought like conscripts and my elite hussars fought like elite hussars, square did help against cavalry, my arty did make bigs holes with canister in enemy columns, etc. Nice to see some thought and hard work on building this into the system without making it too chromy and complex. For me this is the hard part of making a really good rules set and Sam has excelled. do not be put off by the apparent simplicity.
I personally really liked the game and would recommend it to Nappie players as it plays quickly and is very accessible, while still giving good historical flavour. The game also allows pick up and play and comp games for Napoleonics which have sorely been lacking. For me the best parts are the robustness of the rules, the speed of play and the relatively good level of simulation for a game without being bogged down in details.
The only real shortcoming for me is that Lasalle is OOP (hint hint for a reprint!).
Keep up the good work Sam. 
PS - the forum is very active and Sam will respond to any questions and queries very rapidly. There is also a scenario wiki that is full of good juicy scenarios.
PPS - Lasalle was nominated for the 2010 Origins award for best minis rules and won the 2010 HGMS Best historical wargames rules award.
-
|
|
Posted Thu May 12, 2011 12:37 pm