The "reduction" is based on increments in the hex, so if any one hex exceeds the limit for a line that hex it is treated as a column. It's La Bataille, so it has to be excessive: first penalty for "too many men" is to treat the target as having the defense of a column, second penalty for "too many men" is increment the die roll. Unless you're assaulting immediately, don't bunch your men up!

Yes I saw you had concentrated that battalion into one hex. When I wrote the comment it was covering two gexes, but you adjusted the placement

Skirmishers are pretty abstract in the system. How often in "real world" would every single man in a battalion deploy as "skirmishers" at the same time? But that's what the game "requires": flip that battalion to "skirmish mode" and throw it out in front of the division. The French had "light" companies in every "Line" battalion, so every formation could "skirmish". And French "Light" battalions operated basically the same as a "Line" battalion, so why make them special? Even medium and heavy cavalry are sometimes described as "skirmishing", just not in the way this system represents. Allowing "realistic" skirmishers would be a huge number of additional counters. For my part, I'll sacrifice some (a lot) of realism to keep things "fun". Real world there was a lot of decapitation and impalement going on: I want none of that, so I'll take unrealistic every time!

I’ve mostly played Quatre Bras and the French have separate light and grenadier companies.

@@robertschoolfield1869 Curious: I don't have any French infantry companies in my copies of the game! British light companies, but no French.

Players have grafted "orders" schemes (derived from other game systems) onto La Bataille more than once. Every attempt I've made to cobble something together always ends with unsatisfying results: it feels like a distraction from the "grand tactical" nature of the system and I toss it aside.

For me I find random activations without focus pretty unsatisfying. I would as soon play by the old rules.

Probably the same "same old stuff" as you've found! I suppose if this had been more than an amateur fascination I would have kept better track of "sources". I was reading a lot on the period at the time, so some of it came from books but I'm sure I used the Nafziger material as well. Too long ago now...

Both of the French units targeted by the cavalry can (and did) perform a defensive fire attack against the Prussian squadrons: poor dice rolls so no effect on the charging cavalry.

Numeric "increment loss" counters are placed underneath the unit

@@jeffcapuano3380 thanks

I think the Corunna special rules mark the first appearance of "command" in the system (released before the Regs XXII) and those rules specifically prohibit what we now call "kedging". It's interesting comparing what "they" did for command in Corunna, how much of it appears in the initial Regs XXII, and the differing experience of play with those 2 perspectives ; well, interesting to me anyway...

Sorry; it's hard to talk and chew gum at the same time! Whatever I said ("1.21 Giga watts!") was incorrect. A unit can freely retreat through enemy ZoI as a result of any kind of morale check failure. A unit cannot retreat before combat through an enemy ZoI. A unit only takes casualties when retreating through an enemy ZoI as a result of a melee. A unit only surrenders when called for on the melee chart or if forced to retreat and they are completely surrounded by enemy units and/or impassable terrain. There are a bunch of words regarding "valid routes of retreat" but generally units can flee as long as there are unoccupied hexes they can move into/through. For instance, Cavalry getting blown behind enemy lines doesn't immediately surrender; they can "rout" back to their side (eventually); dangerous but possible. I don't know what those mechanics are telling me about the soldier's experience on a Napoleonic battlefield; I think they are just telling me this is a game and those effects capture the spirit of things, even if it seems (to me) a little inconsistent.

@@jeffcapuano3380 Thanks. For clearing it up for me.

Planning in an operational game is a good thing, isn't it? Counting movement points and supply tokens is a bit tedious as a mechanic, but it is an important part of "planning" in OCS.

As well meaning as such an effort would be, it would end in misery. At this point there are at least FOUR different "living" rule sets for the system in circulation. Despite the large amount of overlap in their common features, there are important differences that have a pronounced influence on "how to play". So, pick a rule set, do tutorials for it, and get yelled at for doing it "wrong"? Or do each tutorial 4 times? I've thought about doing the equivalent of "chess challenges": set up a tactical situation and demonstrate how to solve it. But, the solution depends on the rules in use and that leads to acrimony and I don't want to deal with it! Sigh...

Sometimes I consider the "individuals" behind the little cardboard counters we push around and how the different rules reflect/affect them. Consider the French Marshal Soult: he is well served by the 5th Ed rules, since they encourage leaders to "lead from the back" and that was his kinda thing. Premier sez "charge into the fray", and that wasn't him at all. Marshal Ney on the other hand: he's a Premier guy through and through. Maybe all leaders should be evaluated for "compatibility" with one set of rules or another. If you happen to play a rule set that is unsuited to that historical person you must apply some kind of detrimental "modifier". In Premier, Soult would have a -36 melee modifier; in 5th ed Ney would have a command radius of 2 hexes. You get the idea. Then, just before play you randomly choose which rule set to use: that way the players are forced to adapt on the spot, just like a real commander! Well, not really. But, every time I ponder the subject of C&C I'm left thinking this isn't Kriegspiel and maybe good enough is enough.

Uh, sure. But I couldn't very well know any of that without examining the game in detail. That is the point: experiencing the game in detail! And, I spent many months experiencing the game, which is truly the point: playing the game.

drive.google.com/file/d/1qpNOqa7TnuSYoic8BOZGNarAKee2FWea/view?usp=sharing

Thank you