"March Attack versus Le Feu Sacre "Hybrid Rules"" Topic

Both March Attack and Le Feu Sacre seem to fit the same niche: Allowing big battles but still using battalions as the basic infantry unit. I am interested in these rules because, after reading reviews and watching game-play videos, I have come to realize that, while I like both pure Tactical level and pure Grand Tactical level games, I really want to play a hybrid of the two. Admittedly the main reason is aesthetic.

I really like the look of lots of battalions of infantry and battle groups of cavalry represented on the table, which you just don't get with pure G-T games like V&B, Grande Armee, or Blucher which use brigade "block" units. (Unless you're just fighting a really big battle!)

As far as other "sort of" hybrid games go: I have played Napoleon's Battles (okay, but too slow and crunchy) and have read Age of Eagles, (which seems like a nice set of rules) but I just don't like having brigades looking and acting like battalions. I have also read Field of Glory: Napoleonic, but I don't like the basing system, and it still "feels" like a Tactical set of rules to me, though perhaps on the larger end of the Tactical scale.

Rules like MA and LFS, on the other hand give both the aesthetic I am looking for, as well as an increased "granularity" in the relationship between units of troops and battlefield terrain. They also give the player more options when it comes to positioning and facing of units, relative to pure G-T rules. All the while they still provide a relatively fast-playing game and don't require a ton of miniatures to play. I assume these are largely the same reasons their authors wrote MA and LFS.

For those who have played them (or at least read them): Which of these two games do you prefer and why? Of course I like aspects of both of them! Are there other games that fit the same niche that you like even more?

Thanks in advance, Hellchylde.

Well, (ducking for cover) the granddaddy of that niche would be Empire which I cut my teeth on, also Legacy of Glory (that I also like) and now their successor (sorta combining the two) Revolution and Empire (which I haven't played).

That said, I've played Le Feu Sacre 2nd ed (have 3rd not played) and mostly liked it – with any rules a few quibbles. Have read but not played March attack, looks interesting.
Hope that's marginally helpful.
Phil

I own both rulesets and have read them several times, but alas have never played either.

I love the MA combat system, but I do not like the way skirmishers are represented (I like to see them on the field, only if 1 stand). The other caveat to MA is the silly order system. Too many holes for players to exploit, and VERY open to interpretation. Yes, you CAN walk around the entire battlefield on support orders. I really wish they would have done an activation system style. And yes, you can implement your own but that is the Author's job I paid him for. Overall however, a very playable and neat ruleset.

LFS is also a quality set of rules. I'm actually surprised they don't get more attention. I think the main off-putting mechanic is the lack of ranged infantry fire. Yes, I understand the reason and I appreciate the combat table includes firefights (probably most realistic of all). I like it but I don't think other player's do. I really enjoy the combat result of a recipient of an assault to break before the enemy even makes it to them. That reeks of "realism". Also, the intercepts and other nice mechanics make this a favorite of mine.

Even though I haven't played either, I was seriously contemplating giving one of the two a go like yourself. You can't lose with either of these rulesets.

I enjoy the heck outta LFS. Can't say a word about March Attack since this is the first I've heard of it.

Valmy92,
You know I had completely forgot about Empire. I actually had it! Empire 4 I believe, in the green box. Read through it a couple times. This was back around 1990. Knew right away that my gaming group would not be able to come to grips with it. ;) Actually played a game of it once, many years later. Pretty sure, from what I remembered, that the guy hosting the game was not using all the rules… and was doing it wrong. Didn't say anything at the time. His house, his minis, his game. It was almost comical the way the battle unfolded. Not even sure what happened to my copy! How many older wargamers owned or read those rules… and then never really used them? Gotta be a lot!

I also just realized last night that I actually have LFS3 on PDF! I thought I had bought it (in print) some while back, but could not find it anywhere. Then my memory decided to work: Did I have that on PDF? Yep! Middle age really sucks sometimes!

I will check out Legacy of Glory and Revolution & Empire. The latter sounds familiar, so I must have come across it somewhere online. Thanks for the suggestions.

MA and LFS will both fit your needs.
Personally after playing both, LFS seemed better:
-Lots yahoo support
-Give friction of war in Cmnd n Control with the card activation and orders systems.
I thought their combat system was more eligant and appropriate for the lvl of play.
Something did fit write with MA's.

IF PLAYING MULTI players, each with command of a corp or column ( group of brigades-ad hoc) then Empire , LOG or RnE as well as Sans El Resultant (SER) gives a better play in regards to friction of command/who moves when.
For shorter game time needs, SER is a good way to go.

MG

I've not read MA but have LFS and have played it solo. I just really, really like it and can't see me looking at another set of rules. Over the years I've tried other things but nothing was really what I wanted.

As written the unit figure/man is around 1:45/1:50. I changed this to 1:30/1:33 to get larger units with a little more table top presence.

It's not an expensive rule set to buy so definitely worth a look.