"napoleonic rules for smaller scale actions" Topic

In napoleonic campaign diaries you often read the following:
the French General X had to make a reconnaissance in the direction ocolonel Y with 2 squadrons of light cavalry, one gun, a light battalion, some combined light companies and the ..th line regiment of 2 batallions.
He encounterd an austrian advance guard consisted of a battalion of the Banat Grenzers, 4 squadrons of Palatinal Hussars, a light gun and a battalion of line infantry.
Can somebody give me a suggestion with which Napoleonic rules this encounter can be replayed???

Weeellll…

Chef de Bataillon covers that level. Unfortunately, the rules are hideously slow playing. I love the idea of them, but the mechanics are cumbersome. Unfortunately, they are the only rules I know that are designed for that scale action.

You could use Elan Deluxe (which is free at DeepFriedHappyMice.com ) or try General de Brigade. GdB is at 1:20 so you'd have a nice manageable game that way.

Good question, as I find that level of combat fascinating. A lot depends on the level of detail and complexity you are willing to go in to. I agree that Chef de Batallion is not, shall we say, user friendly. A friend once remarked that it was evidently written by a guy whose main job was writing maintenance manuals for a 747. But it IS comprehensive.

A couple of other possibilites;

The old Complete Brigadier rules from the '80s seem ideal for this kind of game. The player has to give orders for each batallion and squadron while bearing in mind that each action costs stamina points and ammo is limited. Units are organized on a 1:20 ratio. I like he rules, but the fixed firing tables are not to everyone's taste (and not to mine- I modified them so that there is more chance involved). I think the rules are still available.

I have never tried it, and it again it may not be to everyone's taste, but I thought that the Sword and the Flame rules used for colonials could be modified to suit this kind of Napoleonic action.

General de Brigade could provide a good game at this level too, but I suspect the game would be over really quickly!

Actually, once you get playing Chef de Battalion, it plays pretty well. A huge section of the rules are the army lists and the multitude of formations that units can use. It also takes a few reading to get some of the concepts to the point that you can understand them. It is also still one of the few games where terrain is almost more important than combat! Terrain affects your march rate, ability to change formation, command, etc…, that choosing the correct attack path becomes an art.

It also one of the few games I've ever played where I had a French battalion in six companies attacking a four company Russian battalion that saw several wild swings. I came on in attack column and changed into line, then tried to firefight the Russian battalion. I then tried a charge and was repulsed. I fell back, rallied, then came on again. I changed into a different formation, moved to the Russian's flank, changed into line and prepared to charge. My order to charge took too long and the Russians blasted me, so I fell back and rallied again. The game has so many choices in just running a battalion and the Russian commander had decided to stay in place and fight, so his fatigue and hits were piling up. I had forsaken several firing attempts and it paid off as I was less disorganized than he was. I charged again and ran him off the table.

So, one battalion vs. one battalion took about 3 hours and a lot of rules searching, but I've found no other game that can replicate Napoleonic combat at that level. It's a shame that no one has put out a more user friendly version. It also answers the question about why the French were so devastating between 1805 and 1809. When you can choose from any one of 20+ formations and your opponents only have a handful, it is a massive advantage.

General de Brigade is a good set of rules, but it really isn't designed for that few units. Complete Brigadier might work well, though I'd second that they need a bit of modification

aegiscg47,

I completely agree. I also wish someone would come up with a more streamlined version. The scale of the actions and the details it portrays is very much something I'm interested in

The old GDW "System 7" and the miniatures version "Fire & Steel", Played many actions of this type. They still show up on EBay.

Try 'En Avant' by veteran gamer Jim Wallman.

This is a low level, dice-free system designed for brigade-sized forces.
Free download via the Chestnut Lodge Wargames Group site, or direct from Jim's own wargames site: jimwallman.org.uk

Stephen

The old WRG 16xx-18xx rules work fine for smaller actions, I rarely used to play them with more than half a dozen battalions a side.

Chef does have a ton of negatives going for it, but the end result is pretty good. I defy anyone to show me another rules set that forces a player to think about what order your companies are in when you approach a path across a forest. You may have to change into another formation to get your companies in the right order so that they can then change into a single column to proceed down the path! The endless choices about rallying, pushing forward, which formation to use, terrain utilization, etc…, was refreshing and really taught gamers a valuable lesson about Napoleonic tactics at the tactical level.

Gentlemen:

Thanks for the comments.

What "aegiscg47" wrote is very valid, and I am looking forward to returning to these rules to re-write and eliminate many of what I have ALWAYS believed are some of the negative aspects created by the co-designer that insisted certain things be included, but then never bothered to play the game to know how the things he insisted be included impacted everything else, including easy of execution. But that is not an excuse, just a fact. My name was on these, I play them (as do others), so I accept responsiblity. However, it is no secret to anyone who knows me that I have always regreted having "caved in" to demands that my better judgement told me at the time was not good for the flow of the game. But that's history.

Do the Chef de bataillon rules work? Certainly. Have the rules been mischaracterized by some on this board? Yes. Do you have to "study" the rules, meaning do you have to learn the basics of drill of what an actual chef de bataillon would have to learn in order to run your battalion and/or regiment (if you are controlling multiple battalions) to the best of its capability? Absolutely. Do you have a have an eye for terrain, for flanks, and much more? You bet. And these are just a few of the factors why many gamers do not have the time to devote to them in order for the rules to repay.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

SCOTT BOWDEN

A rewrite of Chef?!

Any idea of a time frame?

I would love to do early revolution in this scale

Mr. Bowden,

Do you have a schedule for the re-write of Chef de Bataillon?

Thanks,

Bill.

I'm working on a Napoleonic variant of BAR rules (Batailles de l'Ancien Regime), which uses a 1:10 figure to man ratio and is very, very user friendly. My French battalions have 72 figures (3 ranks) while the 1806 Prussians have 60 figures.

For smaller unit sizes (20 to 36 figures) I've been using Rusty's Rules for a long time, as well as my own rules for smaller battalions. I recently played In The Grand Manner and believe that these would also work for a smaller number of battalions and squadrons in a Napoleonic game.

Aegis: what are the 20 different formations? I can only think of 4 or 5 at most, off the top of my head.

There is no reason why Napoleonic rules have to be complicated.

Column of Companies – full, half, closed interval
Column of Divisions – full, half, closed interval
Attack Column – full, half, closed interval
Line
1792 Square
Hollow Square

Those are the ones that I can remember without having the rules in front of me.

No, rules don't need to be complicated, but at this level, I believe they do need to be detailed. The effects of disorder, how units get from one formation into another, terrain… all these should be dealt with less abstractly than higher level games. A fence in Empire is a -1" move penalty, a fence in Chef is a significant terrain feature and grounds for decision making.

Berlichtingen's points are good here. There are an amazing number of formations, but the important thing is what the company order is in those formations. For example, if you're in attack column you may not be able to change into several other formations because your companies are in the wrong order, i.e., your soldiers don't know how to go from formation #3 to #7 without going to #10 first. This certainly adds an entirely new level to decision making!

His other point about terrain is also right on. Terrain, even a small vineyard with a wall, can have a HUGE impact on your formation, disorder, issuing formation changes, etc…, so a number of terrain markers are laid out as well which add to the uncertainty as you don't know how bad the terrain is until you get there.

If Scotty is still out there, here's a few suggestions for a second version:
1) Break the rules into two books, with one for the rules and the second for the army lists/formations/charts.
2) Clarify the orders and intentions section better.
3) Go the programmed learning method where you start out with an infantry battalion, then add artillery, then finally cavalry.
4) A well done example of play where one battalion is engaging another that explains what is going on. This has been very successful in a number of recent board wargames I have.
I definitely think there is interest in this type oof game and I would gladly plop down $50 USD for a well presented, informative rulebook.

Gentlemen:

And don't forget for the French of the early period the column of half battalions full, half, closed as well as the column of half-companies full, half, closed, among others.

Currently have two book projects…one is finishing up now and the other in process, not to be done for a while. But the one finishing now allows the time to start the rules rewrite in August/Sept. And, just as "aegiscg47" suggested, already plan on incorporating every one of his well-considered suggestions in the new version. And will ask for further suggestions as it takes shape, for which I thank you guys in advance for your help, consideration and good will.

Regards,

SCOTT BOWDEN

Anyone know if there are any extra copies floating around for sale? I tried E-bay but no luck…

Same interest here – I lost my copy in a flood a while back.

Scotty, just make sure you keep the same basing system! Nothing will off gamers more than if they have to rebase! All kidding aside, the other cool thing about Chef is that a 720 man battalion in 1:5 scale looks great on the tabletop!

Brownbear – Depending on how much complexity you want, why not try the original rules from Lawford & Young's "Charge!" or Grant's "The Wargame" and add your own modifications for a "Nappy feel". Whilst designed for 18th Century linear warfare, it is worth bearing in mind that most formations during the Nap Wars were merely made up of one or more lines of troops in three or two ranks. Given the small number of units involved, you can try AF's 1:10, or even go down to 1:5 as with Chef de Battaillon. Alternatively, try "Brother Against Brother" and make it slightly less bloody; the looser formations can reflect the fact that you are using predominantly light troops.

You might try contacting Todd Fisher at Emperor's Press in Chicago for copies of Chef de Bataillon.

Oh, yes, Brownbear…

The new book, NAPOLEON'S FINEST, has descriptions of dozens of encounters such as you described in your opening.

Therefore, if you are not already aware of this title, please check it out at:

militaryhistorypress.com

Everyone,

Also wanted to mention that when this Chef rewrite kicks off, I will announce where to join the Yahoo discussion group that will support the effort.

Finally, no basing changes….heavens, no.

Thanks to all for taking the time to post your much-valued, respected opinions and suggestions.

Regards,

SCOTT BOWDEN

In the age old tradition of such threads, I would suggest Port & Cigars using the basic unit as company instead of battalion.
link
link

Why not try the Brigade Game in Paddy Griffith's Napoleonic Wargaming for Fun [Ward Lock 1980]?
Alternatively, you could use the original 1824 Prussian kriegsspiel rules by von Reisswitz [IMHO the only writer of wargame rules who actually served in the Napoleonic Wars!]to control a tabletop game with figures, instead of a closed map game.

I will second "Napoleon's Finest" as both an excellent source for information as well as inspiration for scenarios. The map diagrams for Auerstadt alone make this book worth the cost. Gudin's defense of Hassenhausen and Morand's subsequent envelopment of the Prussian right flank make for good scenarios with smaller forces.

where can I buy chef de battalion?

Listed as available at…
onmilitarymatters.com

Thanks for all the answers. I think the level of combat I mentioned occured far more often (ratio 500 to 1 ??) then the big battles for which most rules are written.
Of course, all the elite troops (guard, cuirassier, reserve artillery etc) cannot be used but a lot of light infantry/cavalry can (plus all the grenzers, jägers etc.) Afaik a rewarding wargame can be the result.

Regarding rules: as chef de battallion mostly had a bad wargame press (sorry Scot) I never bought it; maybe a chance for a 2nd edition?
I was thinking about adapting Charles Grant's Napoleonic rules or "charge" rules (as indeed suggested) until something new comes on the market. As I have Paddy Griffith's book it's also on my list of rules to try.

Scot, I didn't know about the mentioned book; will try to locate it as I like this kind of stuff.

"Have the rules been mischaracterized by some on this board? Yes. "

I don't think anyone has done so here. The consensus seems to be that the rules are detailed, and are extremely comprehensive. But the fact remains, as others-and you yourself- say, CdB takes a lot of time to digest and master. That is not bad in itself but the fact remains they may not be for everyone. And, like many rulesets out there, they COULD benefit from being cleaned up in order to make them easier on the average digestive tract.

I bought a set of the rules and like them- they are certainly different- but I do not have access to regular, experienced gamers who are dedicated to that detailed a level of gaming. If a gamer does have the luxury of the time and/or a regular gaming group who are able willing to go through the learning curve, all well and good; if not, that is something that needs to be considered when choosing a ruleset.

Stavka's points are well taken, and as he notes, the biggest problem is probably not the rules themselves, but the likelihood of finding someone your immediate area w/the same interestt.

I have them, and found them to be very instructive (CdB w/Nosworthy make a nice study), but I'm wondering if computer-aided wouldn't make them more palatable given the level of complexity.

jeff

Aloha, Stavka and others:

I know several of us that play and enjoy Chef de bataillon.

I believe I can accurately recall many past discussions on this board concerning tese rules that whenever the name come up, Sam Mustafa as nothing but ugly, and in my opinion utterly inane, remarks to make about them. So, I agree with Scott that there are some on this board who mischaracterize the Chef rules. They are complex and take study, but using them is rewarding.

Me ke aloha,

MJ

I own them also but have never played them either. To me they just looked way too complicated for me to bother to try to work out the mechanics. I would say this would of been a problem for many potential players of Chef. We had our own entrenched system at the time anyhow so learning them was not a priority and eventually they found their way into the pile with all the others.

I will say one thing about them though, they were beautifully done and presented. This alone caught my eye the day I bought them so I guess the authors gained from my momentary weakness and curiosity.

Regards,
Shane

"I think the level of combat I mentioned occured far more often (ratio 500 to 1 ??) then the big battles for which most rules are written."

Brownbear, you would be correct. If you can, get a copy of The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book by Digby Smith.
link
I am guessing that he didn't cover every single action of the wars, but he sure tried if not. Many, many sub division level actions. The vast majority of the actions detailed are smaller than most rule sets are designed for

Shane,

You ARE correct…they appear way too complicated for many folks to attemp;t---one of many things to be changed in the re-write.

Thanks for sharing your much-respected opinion.

Regards,

SCOTT

"So, I agree with Scott that there are some on this board who mischaracterize the Chef rules. "

Ah, I see. I was thinking of this thread, not of the whole board.

Does anybody ever played the brigade level game in Paddy Griffith's book Napoleonic wargaming for fun??

Did this rewrite ever get anywhere?

Did this rewrite ever get anywhere?

Yes, I'd be interested in "low-level" command like this.

the other cool thing about Chef is that a 720 man battalion in 1:5 scale looks great on the tabletop!

dang! I'd have to buy a WHOLE lot more ABs, that's twice the number of my Rifles.

Think I might stick to the 3mm, though.

I add a second suggestion for Paddy's Brigade Level game

Well I own a copy of Chef de battalion, and loved the idea of them. But I and a friend who also bought them were completely defeated by the effort to try and make them work on the table, in spite of many readings and re-readings. It seemed as if nobody had actually played them as written. So I read Scott Bowden's comment here with interest – and I have to say it explains much!

Paddy's brigade rules look to be a very interesting basis for a game at this level, but I suspect a lot of gaps would need filling in.

One aspect neither set caters for is deployments by the third rank, a critical element of Prussian practice and widely used by both Austrians and French too. Since the Prussians are now one of my main interests, this is something of an issue for me!

G'Day Gents

If I may assist in what is and is not considered a tactical body:

All formations within le tableau de l'infanterie which fall within the four groups, in accordance to masses (to include the Russians basically):

1) Administrative formation
2) Indispensable to a Mass
3) Mass (collective body of troops)
4) Tactical formation

1) Administrative formation

Bataillon
Compagnie
Demi-brigade
Escouade
Regiment
Section

2) Indispensable to a Mass (collective body of troops)

Bataille
Bataillon
Corps d'etat-major
Corps d'intendance
Compagnie
Demi-brigade
Manipule
Regiment
Bataillon

3) Mass (collective body of troops)

Bande
Bataillon
Cohorte de garde nationale
Compagnie
Demi-brigade
Etat-major
Legion
Regiment
Tirailleurs

4) Tactical formation

Aile
Armee
Bataille
Bataillon
Brigade d'armee
Corps de bataille
Demi-bataillon
Division epagogique
Division strateumatique
File
Manche
Peloton
Section
Subdivision
Tirailleur

*Sub category – Indispensable to a tactical mass under certain circumstances, which then makes it a tactical formation.

Compagnie: (example) detached grenadiers and voltiguers or tirailleurs en compagnie-division

Regiment: (example) when Regiments with 4 or more battalions became Brigades, or a regiment with battalions on line and battalions in close column on the flanks

**Tactical Units of a Battalion (fractured)

Demi-bataillon

***Tactical unit for subdivisions (fractured)

Le peloton
La division (aile)
La section

Best Regards
Art