Bataille Empire Austrians v Italians

Gordon and I played our first game of the much-anticipated "Bataille Empire" rules (by the author of ADLG) last night. I used 1813-14 Austrians while Gordon chose the 1809 Italian list.

BE has a much more comprehensive set-up than ADLG and we ended up with an 'encounter' battle in which both sides started with one Division on table and the other two arriving on turns 2 and 3. The terrain seemed a bit crowded and both sides set up on the same side of the table, the Austrians leading with their advanced guard while the Italians chose their Guard to lead the battle:

BE has an order system, unfortunately for the Italians their 'hold' order didn't allow them to advance to the objective hill in the middle of the table so the Austrians (on "engage") stormed forwards with their cavalry division arriving in support:

The Italian commander tries and fails to change the Guard's orders so they are stuck in place. The Austrians take the hill and open fire on the Italian Guards:

The last lot of reinforcements are now on table, the Austrian advance guard looks vulnerable but has been inflicting damage on the Italian Guard who are not standing up well to Austrian fire:

One Italian Guard unit retreats under fire while the second is wavering. The Italian cavalry can't get into contact as their infantry are in the way:

The Austrian Grenzers and Jaegers keep up their fire and are winning the firefight:

One Italian Guard unit breaks and the Italian's French allies come under fire:

The Italian Dragoons finally charge the Grenzers. Despite only narrowly losing the combat the Grenzers flee. The Dragoons pursue into the Jaegers but the steadfast Jaegers throw them back:

The Austrian Hussars charge a disordered square of French infantry and wipe it out. Both sides agree to call it a day at this point with the Austrians in a good position:

So, what did I think about BE? Firstly, it is nothing like ADLG (apparently it is based on Principles of War).

The rules are not well-written with a number of issues either not covered or hard to find and, to me, overly complex (for example there are three different types of fields in the terrain list: open, enclosed by hedges and enclosed by walls).

There is a LOT of book-keeping with orders, cohesion losses, attrition losses, disorder markers and action markers to keep track of plus a rather complicated activation system depending on a Division's orders combined with the possibility of opportunity fire and charges from the non-active player. The movement distances don't really seem to suit the table size and the terrain really clutters the battlefield (though we may not have used the right sized terrain).

As regards how it works it would seem that any formation other than Line seems a bit pointless for the infantry, the cavalry is very powerful against the infantry especially if the infantry can be disordered by support fire from an artillery battery and it is hard to rally anyone.

We spent a lot of time poring over the rules and it certainly isn't something you can pick up quickly (unlike ADLG, Blucher or Fire and Fury for example). I suspect there will be an awful lot of amendments and clarifications.

Rather like FoGN there may be a good game in there somewhere but personally I prefer the more abstract rule sets like Blucher or Fire and Fury where you concentrate on the big picture not the minor details.

Given the popularity of ADLG at my club and the enthusiasm with which BE was purchased by club members it will be interesting to see how many people actually take it up.

I tend to find with new rules or a new period after the first game I'm either keen to play again and read the rules to understand things I wasn't clear about or I get the feeling that the rules/period are not for me. In the case of BE I suspect it will be the latter especially as even Gordon, who is a rules-demon and is great at picking up and understanding rule sets, struggled badly with them!