"'Esprit de Corps', any independent reviews or opinions?" Topic

The new 1790-1860 rules 'Esprit de Corps' has featured prominently in the last several issues of Miniatures Wargames, and will be used for the Napoleonic competition at Colours 2005.

Any independent comments on these rules from people with 1st hand knowledge? I haven't been able to find any so far…

Cheers,
Snebjørn

I have now set up and tried running five or six small solo games to learn and understand these rules. Sadly, my conclusion is that they just aren't for me.

The turn sequence just won't seem to fall into place, there are too many calculations, tests, and factors for my taste, and despite some really good ideas here and there, the overall impression is a slow, unelegant, over-detailed set of rules that's 20 years out of date.

If my regular gaming opponents insisted on EdC I could probably learn to live with it, but my situation is quite different: if I wanted to play these, I would have to convince other players and teach them, and my life is just too short for that.

On top of that, EdC doesn't really seem to be taking off in the general wargaming community, at least that's my observation, and that removes the final reason I might want to play them.

I know this all sounds quite harsh, but that's how I feel about EdC right now. I really wanted to like these rules, but I have now given up.

Have to agree with Snebjorn.

I flatter myself on a reasonable degree of comprehension but I found them unreadable.

I've seen them played a few times and the basing scheme looks really dated too. Small and unimpresive units.

Snebjorn and Trajanus are both right in their critisism that the Esprit de Corps rules (EdC) are not written in the most accessable manner. In fact they are perhaps rather legalistic. This word having a negative connotation (to everyone but lawyers) I like to speak up in its defence. True it takes an effort to get into them. Also true that each word has the same meaning and consequences throughout the rules. Many other, more readably written rules, are less accurate/consistent in the way certains terms are used. Once familiar with this system, the rules are very accessable indeed, because, should a problem arise it is term sensitive and the term (and rule consequences etc) can be easily looked up.

Having said all that, what it finally comes down to, is the comprehension that the emphasis on these rule ly less in all the different details, but in the command and control system. This comes down to a higher level test, by which entire brigades, divisions or even corps can be moved or stopped as single units, thus making the rules both suitable for small and large actions. Finer manoeuvering, such as changes of formation and keeping an advancing brigade (etc) on the move, is dealt with in a subsequent brigade (etc) test.

Furthermore many reactions of troops will be automatic/mandatory, when it goes without saying that the would react like that (like forming squares within charge reach of cavalry). Should you not want them to do that, they have to be ordered not to by means of (again) the brigade level test.

At Colours 2006 the Napoleonic competition was played with these rules. As a novelty the games were brigade level and took about 1.5 hrs (little more in some instances, because the players enjoyed themselves). The competition was run on the Saturday over three rounds. You cannot do that with rules that do not play fast. Thing to do is keep focussed on the key element: command and control.

I understand from the author that a starters summary is drafted and should be available in due course on the EdC Yahoo group.

Vincent