Foreword

Warning! You started to read some amateur napoleonic niche rules, wich are created thanks to discontentment with usual looks/views of the wargame tables.
The author actually are read only few rules and therefore here we may have deal with "invention of bicycle".
You have opportunity to abandon the further reading, proceeding is acceptable only at your own risk and responsibility.

It's taked years to write down this rules and thanks to constant testing, fitting, simplyfing and polishing, the final result are visually different from first version as day from night. At the very beginning I started with two versions of game - Standard and deLuxe. At first the main version was "Standard", for excellent AB 15(18)mm figures, where 1Base=1Unit and all managing on paper, but in the end "deLuxe" version stands as main with 4Bases=1Unit, smaller figures and all management with marker figures on table. Some principles, like Zone of Control, were thrown overboard, but the substantive main principles stays unchangeable.

So what I don't liked in mainstream and what I changed..

Battle scale
I don't like skirmish, where the smallest unit will be one man, platoon or batallion.
Too many geometry, managery and parameters. Missing the Big Picture, can be play only small parts of entirety.

Also I don't like Grand Tactical, where the smallest unit will be brigade or even division.
Too generic. Lost the beauty of taylors wars and charm of miniclashes. One throw of dice will be determine the result dozens of skirmish games.

I want all at once, "to have cake and to eat it"
Emperor level general management of Grand Battles which fit on dining table,
Corps level middle magagement inside this,
and batallion level semi-automatic minibattles which cumulatively decide the fate of bigger units.

All this with reasonable time expenditure, with realistic battleview and with sufficient variability and individuality for every element in game.

Therefore the main Game Unit will consist two batallions of infantry or two regiments of cavalry or two companies of artillery.
This eliminates the need for small tactics, geometry and national maneuvre speeds. Also drastically reduces the necessary size of table surface.

Visual Battleview
I don't like wargame, where opposite armies stand like straight walls on the edges of table.
I don't like gametable, where artificially are added retangles with landscape elements - hills, woods, pastures.
I don't like the missing of real distances and change of scale simply by renaming the units.
I want to play with real distances on real "nature", on map with contours or on 3D table, with naturally curved battlefront and with enough space on flanks and rear for moving reserves.

That game are at the same time teaching instrument and test for rightness of battlemap drawing historians.
As addition the game must be playable in cramped conditions in home, on dinner table (4' x 6') (120 x 180 cm), not necessarily on big club tables.

I don't like game tables wich are overloaded with masses of figures and where sizes of buildings and other elements compare with sizes of figures.
This creates pictures of 1:1 skirmish games, platoons contra platoons.
I want to see my batallions, brigades and divisions with correct wide and depth, that these may be placed on real map.
Which inevitable cause much smaller buildings and landscape elements than figures.

I don't like possible arguing about distances or geometry on table.
I want, that usual causes of such arguing are unimportant to game and therefore will be nip in the bud.

I don't like the Bases(Stands), where is space between figures.
Real formations were tight, shoulder to shoulder, and like this the bases must looks like.

I don't like bases, where figures stand in two ranks.
Which results with complaints of players, that figures (bayonets) bends and snapped, when they move bases, grabing by figures.
As solution these stands are maked with thick bases to grab instead of figures. These arising retangular heights I like even less.

In addition we lose all beautiful paintwork, if we put figures on second row, where nobody can see these.
Also figures on two rows looks like column, so we need many or wider bases to show these as line.
Wich increases necessary space of game table at least four time.

I prefer bases which are low and not visible on table. Where three unmounted or two mounted troopers stand in one line with the same lenght of front.
Smallest Unit consist with four such bases. Plus markers, who create the visual depth for Unit.
Four such bases in line determine the 200 meters/yards etalon on game table - 1 BD (Basic Distance).
So as smaller figures/bases are than bigger battles we may play on small tables.

Of cource everybody have his own taste and all other existing sizes of base and figures are useful, just the necessary space on gametable may increase drastically and gigantic battles may not fit anymore.
Also it is still possible to play with Units with one or two bases, even with cardboard markers instead of figures, and manage on paper.

Command resource and dynamics
I don't like "bim-bam-thank-you-mam" type dynamics in wargame, decision-result type systems, where at the beginning of every turn there are absolutely new situation on game table and Units move across the table with one-two turns.
I want slow movement of troops on table and failures in Chain of Command. That delay of orders wasn't critical, but well-timed orders offers initiative.
That the only quick results will be offered by clashes of smallest Units. And even this through full Minibattles.
That outcome of this Minibattles will be determined more by Units moral strength than by possibility to hurt enemy.
That elements of Chain of Command (generals on table) will be vary and individual, offering different schools from old regimes to new postrevolutional managerial staff.

National peculiaritys
I don't like rules, which imposed modifiers of National peculiarity.
All this peculiarities are arised from specific training, experiences or traditions and don't need any special treatment.
All my Units and Generals have at least 3 Basic Values (cavalry, thanks to horses, more), wich in combination will represent any kind of "National peculiarity".

I don't like prescriptions, that this or other troops must be fighting only in some precepted formation.
According to drill, experience and era, every Unit may take any formation which player likes.
Harmony between Formations and Units basic values makes this simply effective or ineffective.

Reserves
I don't like the systems, where reserves practically don't play any role and preferable are to push all troops forward at once.
I want, that reserves play crucial role. That fresh troops are definitely more efective than strained.
That actively fighting Units lifespan was moderately half an hour i.e. 3 turns.

Weather
I want, that weather impact actively on battlefield, to visibility and permeability.