(Cross-posted BGG Comment)

My first excursion into the Incredible Courage system by GSI (I own Austerlitz, Waterloo and Ligny too).

We played a four-player F2F session today. We were all new to the system and only yours truly had read the rules. Despite this, we were settled into the game surprisingly speedily and the turns flowed well and felt as though they went quickly. Though 4 game-turns in around 6-hours appears to contradict this, we were all new to the game and we're never the quickest of player - too much banter. What did take a lot of time was the set-up. One of the players and I had spent around 3-hours the previous evening setting it up - hard to understand why it took so long - but it did.

The map is the usual gorgeous Rick Barber fare. We used the Black Cat Studios version of the map rather than the version that came with the game but I believe they are near identical - there is a slight hex-orientation difference I think but this caused us no issues. The counters are not up to the same standard from a production values perspective. They are die punched and whilst 'professional' their appearance is towards the DTP end of that half of the spectrum. At first glance they appear fiddly too wit small text graphics, but there was a general consensus that (whilst this could be improved) it wasn't the issue in play we had feared. The one area that would really benefit from some graphical enhancement/augmentation is the command structure - this can be difficult to ascertain - especially in the case of the Allies with their initially well dispersed units.

Whilst we're talking about components the rules, charts & tables etc are all of acceptable or better quality. Some of the tracks could probably be redesigned to fit on a sheet half their current size but thankfully the game, when set-up for play, doesn't have the footprint that the game's voluminous content initially gives you cause to fear.

The rules are well organised and laid-out and, despite introducing a number of unique concepts, are easy to follow and (generally) it is easy to find that rule you knew you read somewhere. There is no index (an item one of the players felt conspicuous by it absence) but the table of content is normally sufficient to help you find the rules section you need.

The 'company-level' scale of the game is unusual (unique for tactical Napoleonics?) and we all feared it would be very fiddly - this didn't prove to be the case and I think we all agreed it worked (surprisingly) well - at least for this battle.

'Casualties' are primarily in the form of lost 'Levels of Organisation' - similar to cohesion hits in other games. This was another aspect that when first encountered in the rules leads one to think this could be fussy but isn't in practice and actually feels 'realistic' in play.

For me the rules are a near perfect 'weight' and provide a nicely flowing game. Its not perfect (though new counters and some smaller tracks would see it not far off). Based on this QB experience (albeit we're still in the early part of the game/battle) this could well become my favourite tactical Napoleonic system.



The above shows the game set up and ready to play - note the footprint - not too bad.



The above is the end of Turn 4 - the post-its contain orders; a convenient (if untidy) method of our own devising.

Andy

Wavre final map is in. I have a bunch of work to prep the map for the game and insert the map into the scenario cards and update them. The time for release nears. No commitment yet on a date certain, but I will post more updates.

Regards, Chris

We continue our QB this Saturday :smile:

Meanwhile the artist was last seen wandering the neighborhood babbling about his cracked fingertips and trying NOT to see thousands of little trees...... :worried:

Andy,

I am looking forward to it.

Regards, Chris

Me too :smile:

We continued our game today and progressed from 14:40 to 15:00; completing the first hour of fighting.

Another very enjoyable session with attrition on the French left and devastating combined action on the right.

Above is the situation at 14:40, with the developments over the next 20 minutes plotted out.



On the left, with the Guard cavalry sitting uncommitted, the 9th Infantry Division repeatedly hits its head against the wall that is the Bois du Bossu. Gradually the allies are being driven back.

In the centre the 6 Infantry Division races towards Gemincourt and commences the task of ejecting the skirmishers ensconced there. Initially they are repulsed - but it can only be a matter of time...

And on the right the 5th Infantry Division and the 2nd cavalry Division pincer the hapless Allied troops on the Quatre Bras to Thyle road and devastate them - with only a disordered company surviving to runaway and tell the tale.

This is an overview of the 15:00 situation.

I recently discovered this game system and am quite intrigued by the scale and the rules I have read. However, I own quite a few La Bat games and am wondering what this game would add to the gaming experience. I have read all the reviews that are available etc but am still kind of left wondering: What things do you manage to simulate that are missing in La Bat? What new insights will I get into Napoleonic warfare?

Johan - The scale is Company/Platon, so a major difference from La Bat in that respect. I'll allow Andy or Chris to fill in the details about the other changes.

Andy - looks like Blucher won't be getting any mail or help any time soon! Just noticed that you have one of the very few 'first version' Quatre Bras maps, using the Grognard grid and with the Main Bruxelles Road going straight up and down the map. The later published version angles things a bit, to line up with the Ligny maps. When Chris had me first lay it out we were going to connect the two battlefields in a slightly different manner, but the new way worked much better and produced a more regular rectangle.

The new map, and all the subsequent ones in the series, are also done on my 'split-spine' grid.

Hi Rick,

I have the Grognard maps aligned as you describe - the one I'm using here is the Black Cat map I bought from yourself - it has the advantage of being a 2-part (only) map. And the alignment change has no impact on play.

Johan, though I've played La Bat and though I have a keen interest in the Napoleonic era., I'm not expert enough in either to tell you if the IC game gives any insights into the period that La Bat is lacking. I actually doubt it. But, I do find IC more playable.

Andy

Johan,

Let me say this about the Incredible Courage game system. And if you would like additional information please feel free to ask.

1) The Company/Squadron scale allows you to place your forces in a much more realistic manner when it comes to places where a Battalion counter won't work. Yet still allows you to have Infantry Battalions/Cavalry Regiments when you want them.

2) There is a Command System that replicates the movement of orders around the battlefield as it actually needed to be done, by Dispatch Riders. And these orders are relatively simple. Each Division Leader gets a mission (attack, defend, screen, etc) and a location (where do I defend, or attack, etc). Orders can be confused upon arrival, or even lost. And since they are ridden to the subordinate they take time to get there.

3) The Variable Firepower rules demonstrate how formation effects the ability of a unit to engage the enemy, and especially shows that every unit sometimes fights at its potential, some worse than its potential, and sometimes better than its potential. It adds a good flavor of the Fog of War to the battles.

4) The Level of Order of units is critical to game play and this game system has an excellent feel of ebb and flow in it. Units can lose outright companies when they take massive firepower hits, such as from artillery, or the Guard. And yet shows you how morale was so important. Making a melee might get you the target hex. But you end up losing a couple of levels of order in the process, which was very typical. As written about many times the unit that advances after a victory like this is very vulnerable to counter-attack. You will get that feeling in this game system.

5) There are some rules that La Batt has that I did not desire, or feel the need, to simulate. Cannonball Ricochet is a good example. There are others. I simply looked for what I thought was a less complicated, yet hearty, way to get the job done. And when you fight the Telnitz battle as the French and are using a true to scale map of 100m/hex, you will be thankful indeed you have the ability to spread out more. Battalions just don't feel the same at that level and for an action like that.

Regards, Chris

You can certainly play La Bat on the Grognard maps, as the 'nominal' scale for La Bat has always been 100 meters per hex (although, having done a lot of them, I can say that said 'standard' has been more honored in the breach over the years!) For example, the La Bat Quatre Bras maps that I did for Ed at COA twenty years back actually work out to something like 140/hex, as does their Ligny maps from that era.

In fairness, back then Ed simply told me to take the maps from Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon, and fit Quatre Bras onto one full sheet, Ligny onto four. Those period maps didn't actually have a scale given, and so I just did as asked. It wasn't until doing these new ones for Chris, at an EXACT 100/hex, and basing them on modern topos that I simply didn't have available 'back in the day,' that I figured out the difference in scale.

To follow on what Chris just said about Telnitz, playing La Bat on these new Quatre Bras maps will give the Anglo-Allied player a (realistically) harder task in stretching his thin red (and orange) line to cover the ground at the correct scale! :wink:

And wait until we take a variant of this system to Gettysburg..........

Thank you for the answers! Just a few questions that come to mind right now, I guess I will have to buy one of the games to collect some more

- I saw in the rules that sometimes companies can be sacrificed to preserve LoO. What is that meant to simulate?

- Infantry fire power: From the rules, it strikes me as rather strong and thus possibly very attractive weapon when attacking a position while I have been repeatedly told that in Napoleonic times, units rarely got into shooting matches. Is it overly encouraged in this game system?

- Regarding the scale: Does the company level allow for any other historical tactics beyond making lines longer and thinner compared to the battalion scale? Looking at diagrams of battle formations during the Napoleonic wars, they always struck me as very elaborate compared to what I see on a La Bat battlefield. Is there more incentive to imitate them in this system? (or are they nonsense in the first place? I am not an expert on the era)

Johan,

I am heading of town until this evening. When I return tonight I will post answers to your thoughtful questions.

Regards, Chris

Johan,

The answers to your questions are below, hopefully in bold.

- I saw in the rules that sometimes companies can be sacrificed to preserve LoO. What is that meant to simulate? This rule is present for the commander who needs to take a piece of terrain and has plenty of troops, but is low on levels of order. This commander pushes his troops into the fire, thus taking higher physical casualties, in order to take the terrain. Thus preserving his order for the inevitable counter-attack that will occur.

- Infantry fire power: From the rules, it strikes me as rather strong and thus possibly very attractive weapon when attacking a position while I have been repeatedly told that in Napoleonic times, units rarely got into shooting matches. Is it overly encouraged in this game system? It is not overly encouraged. Fire combat has its place, in order to reduce the enemies will to stand when melee'd. But as happened quite often once units started firing at each other they continued. In the end fire in the Incredible Courage game system is consistent with what I have read in many historical accounts. You will find that the British infantry, in Line formation, were truly devastating to the enemy they fired at. This fire caused many a melee attack to falter and the game system puts this front and center.

- Regarding the scale: Does the company level allow for any other historical tactics beyond making lines longer and thinner compared to the battalion scale? Looking at diagrams of battle formations during the Napoleonic wars, they always struck me as very elaborate compared to what I see on a La Bat battlefield. Is there more incentive to imitate them in this system? (or are they nonsense in the first place? I am not an expert on the era) While you don't see them reading the master rules for the system, each game in the 100 Days Quad has specific doctrinal rules for each nationality. With differing sizes of companies (75 British and 150 Nassau for instance), the British Battalion, in 2 ranks, gets 3 companies worth of fire combat, while the Nassauers' have 3 ranks and get only 1 company worth of fire combat. They were notable for their steadiness in combat. In other words the British have a 3 company frontage and the allies only a 1 company frontage. In addition, British infantry start with 6 LoO instead of the normal 5. Militia with 4. And when you deploy as Battalions you get a 1 LoO bump up for being more together under stress. One additional item is that you could make Order Mixed out of your battalions' companies. While some might say this was not the norm, neither was making square at the company level. But I have asked Napoleonic historian James Arnold about such things and his response was that all levels of troops were ordered to make square. So the rule is present to provide you more flexibility in deploying your troops for a battle. Having some companies/battalions in Line and the flank units in Column can make someones day great, and someone else's, hell.

Regards, Chris

Thanks, that is very clear. I am still trying to understand what precisely the LoO represents. From reading the rules, I got the impression it is similar to cohesion hits in GBOH which, if you hit the limit, lead your units to rout. However, if a commander can choose to not let his troops lapse into disorder by sacrificing some, that appears to indicate that the withdrawal when LoO hits 1 does not represent a headlong flight but rather an ordered retreat necessary to avoid the units total destruction given a hopeless tactical situation. Could you elaborate a bit what I should imagine a company (or batallion) to look like at LoO 5, 4, 3, 2, 1?

Johan,

A Battalion at LoO 6 is fully combat ready and full morale. The same unit at LoO 1 is near collapse. In the middle (such as LoO 3) the unit is fragile, yet still ready for battle. A unit with a Disorder marker on it is running to the rear.

You want to heave your LoO 5+ units into the battle right away. The LoO 2s and below you want to shield in order to keep them alive and let them recover their order.

A typical engagement will see a see saw effect as the higher LoO units attack, then get a bit reduced, attack more, and then be counter-attacked. The goal of the enemy player is to try and get 2 or more LoO hits on a unit with LoO 2 or less. That will cause losses in companies and the strength of the overall force begins to be reduced.

Regards, Chris

I really like the way LoO hits encourage you to pull unmits out of an attack to recover rather than employing the 'hammer on regardless' you often see in games.

It's a bit more 'fine grained' than the Cohesion Hits in my Summer Storm, but the general idea is the same.

Thanks again for the answer. I am just trying to understand what sacrificing companies to preserve the order LoO of the stack represents. Assuming we have a stack of 4 companies at LoO 2, i.e. in disarray, with low morale and close to breaking, what does, following an enemy attack, "sacrificing a company to neutralise LoO hits" represent in terms of battlefield reality compared to going to LoO 1 with all units and routing backwards. You mentioned earlier that it represents the commander pushing his units into the fire instead of giving ground, but wouldnt, in reality, having low order and morale make precisely this impossible? Or do I have to think of it as the commander, seeing the incoming attack, holding some of the troops back to preserve their order and throwing the rest into a hopeless battle so that the latter's LoO (effectively) goes to 0 while the former, not being involved in the fighting, can keep it at 2?

Well I guess I may have just figured it out myself there. It reminds me of Kevin Zucker's design notes to one of his games in which he noted that Napoleonic units tended to fight at constant strength, as they always kept only a small component of a unit engaged, but that their collapse came in a big bang when there were no good order reserves left.

I could not find extensive design notes on your system anywhere, but I imagine they could be quite useful to fully appreciate your thinking. For my part, I will get one of your games to see for myself. :-)