At the conclusion of our 1813 campaign, there was clearly a degree of dissatisfaction with how things had unfolded. The campaign had been decidedly one-sided, with the French winning all six games. It was understandable that, from the perspective of the losing side, this had not been a particularly enjoyable experience. The obvious question therefore became: what had gone wrong?
Several possible explanations were suggested. Was there something fundamentally flawed in the GdA rules themselves? Were the scenarios poorly designed? Or was the issue more a matter of imbalance in player experience and familiarity with the rules?
Graham and I gave this a great deal of thought. As the two players most invested in the system — both of us having large armies based specifically for GdA — we were naturally motivated to find a solution. We also felt that, between us, we probably had the greatest depth of experience in Napoleonic wargaming within the group. Graham has been involved in historical wargaming for more than fifty years, while I have around twenty years of experience and have worked through at least five different tactical Napoleonic rulesets during that time. I myself have been playing General d’Armée since its original publication in 2018.
At most, our club has around ten members interested in divisional-level Napoleonic gaming. Roughly half participate only occasionally, while the other half are far more dedicated to the period and the rules. During the 1813 campaign we had five active players, although only three of us played in all six games. There is no question that GdA2 has a learning curve, and the fact that some players were much less familiar with the rules occasionally slowed play considerably. I also noticed throughout the campaign that certain players possess an innate ability to absorb and master a new ruleset quickly — and I would not place myself in that category.
So the question became: what should we do next?
After considerable discussion, Graham and I came to the conclusion that the scenarios contained within the three campaign books are actually very well written. However, they also tend to be somewhat “vanilla” in design, having likely been balanced primarily to ensure even gameplay. In doing so, we felt they may have unintentionally drifted away from a truly accurate representation of the historical situations they were attempting to portray.
With that in mind, we began searching for a battle that offered a very different challenge. Eventually we settled on the Battle of San Millán/Osma. This engagement featured markedly asymmetric forces, particularly in terms of troop quality, and was fought across exceptionally complex terrain.
A Description of the Battle
The Battle of San Millán-Osma 8 June 1813 was a sharp Allied advance-guard action fought during the campaign leading directly to the decisive Battle of Battle of Vitoria. It took place in northern Spain around the villages of San Millán and Osma as the army of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington pushed eastward against the retreating French under Honoré Charles Reille and Bertrand Clausel.
Wellington’s army was advancing in several columns through difficult mountainous terrain in an attempt to outflank the French and cut their communications. On 18 June, Allied forces struck two separated French positions:
- At San Millán, the Light Division under Charles Alten attacked elements of Clausel’s corps. The British light infantry and riflemen aggressively pushed the French out of the village after hard fighting in narrow streets and broken ground. The French withdrew after suffering significant casualties and confusion.
- At Osma, to the northeast, part of Thomas Graham’s column engaged French troops covering the road network. Fighting here was less intense but added pressure on the French flank and rear.
The Order of Battle
Allied Forces
San Millán Column
Commanded by Charles Alten
Light Division
- 1st Brigade – Col. Kempt
- 43rd Foot
- 52nd Foot
- 95th Rifles (elements)
- 2nd Brigade – Col. Vandeleur
- 1st Cacadores
- 3rd Cacadores
- British light infantry battalions
- Light Division artillery attachment
Approximate strength: 5,000–6,000 men.
Osma Column
Commanded by Thomas Graham
Part of 1st Division
- Guards Brigade battalions
- German Legion battalions (elements)
Cavalry screen
- Allied light cavalry detachments
Approximate engaged strength: 3,000–4,000 men.
French Forces
Overall local command under Bertrand Clausel and subordinate divisional commanders.
At San Millán
Elements of Clausel’s Left Wing / Army of Portugal
- Maucune’s Division (elements)
- French line infantry battalions
- Light infantry detachments
- Supporting artillery
Approximate strength engaged: 4,000–5,000 men.
At Osma
Rearguard elements under Reille’s wing
- French line infantry battalions
- Light cavalry detachments
- Horse artillery
Approximate strength engaged: 2,000–3,000 men.
Scenario Design
First up was the terrain, as the play test was on a 6x4' table we came up with this basic map.
 |
| The 2 Allied Columns enter from the north while the French forces enter from the south. |
Then to the OB
 |
| The battalions are all colour coded according to ranking, it is pretty obvious that the Allies had superior quality units. The Brigadiers are colour coded according to their starting position as well as arrival turn |
The Playtest
Unfortunately the photos are not in order and I did not take a overview shot of the starting positions.
 |
| The French left flank at San Millàn |
 |
| The allied right flank mid game |
 |
| Overview of battle near the end of 8 turns from the French right flank |
 |
| The advancing French on their right flank early in the game |
Comments
I will break this up into 3 parts; Terrain configuration, Order of Battle and Victory Conditions
Terrain
This game was played on a 6' x 4' table, although it felt a little cramped at times so an 7 or 8' x 4' table might prove more suitable. The mountain areas were treated as impassable terrain. The Allied left flank could perhaps be given slightly more room. That said, from the standpoint of historical simulation, the Allied forces were in fact advancing through narrow valleys, so the constricted deployment does reflect the historical situation reasonably well.
One issue that became apparent during the game was that the two Built-Up Areas were too large. These have since been reduced to more manageable 6" square sections. We are also considering spreading the mountain pieces out slightly in future games to allow skirmishers to move through them, while still keeping the terrain impassable to formed troops. This will probably require printing a few additional mountain sections, which means more dry brushing lies ahead.
Order of Battle
Overall, the Order of Battle seems satisfactory in terms of troop quality and numbers. However, we will probably remove Gauthier’s brigade, as our research could not conclusively determine whether it actually participated in the battle. Aside from this, a considerable amount of time was spent researching the Order of Battle from multiple sources, and I believe the resulting force composition is reasonably accurate numerically. This gives 5 ADC's per side.
Naturally, there is always room for debate regarding the troop quality ratings assigned to individual units, but the ratings we selected appear sensible and balanced. The scenario also seems well suited to a four-player game, with each participant commanding a separate column.
Victory Conditions
One of the criticisms raised at the conclusion of our 1813 campaign was that the games tended to run too long. There is no question that General d’Armee is not an “evening game,” although some members of the group seem unwilling to accept this reality. In my opinion, if players are looking for a quick Napoleonic experience, they would be better served with a skirmish-level ruleset such as Sharp Practice, Muskets and Bayonets, or something similar.
What truly slows games down, however, is unfamiliarity with the rules. Graham and I managed to complete eight turns of this scenario in approximately three hours, without playing the scouting pre-game, which did not seem necessary for what was intended to be a fairly accurate historical simulation. Very little time was spent consulting the rulebook. If I recall correctly, the opposing forces began roughly 24" apart, with skirmishers exchanging fire by Turn 2 and formed troops reaching musket range by Turn 3.
With this in mind, I believe a 12-turn game is appropriate for the scenario. Five to six hours should be enough to complete it comfortably, including a break for refreshments.
The question then becomes how to determine victory. Personally, I have never considered winning to be the most important aspect of gaming, as I generally prefer scenarios where the experience and historical narrative matter more than the final result. Nevertheless, it is entirely reasonable to establish some form of conclusion and measure of success.
Victory can be assessed in two ways: through attrition and through the achievement of objectives. Attritional victory points are already defined within the ruleset — 1 VP for each Falter caused and 1 VP for every two units forced to withdraw. This seems perfectly reasonable. The objectives, however, should ideally reflect the historical circumstances of the battle. After considerable discussion, we settled on the following as a good starting point:
French Objectives
- 1 VP if Montfort exits towards Espejo.
- 1 VP if Pinoteau is not demoralised after 12 turns.
- 2 VPs for occupying Osma.
Allied Objectives
- 1 VP for occupying San Millán.
- 1 VP for exiting Stopford to Espejo.
- 2 VPs for exiting Kempt to Espejo.
In the end, we will simply have to see how it plays out on the table!
