"Carnage & Glory - Large Games" Topic

In the past few years I've played 2 games of Carnage and Glory at Historicon. I like the rules, but the games weren't too fun. They bogged down, it took forever to complete turns and therefore not much happened. Both games had a lot of lead to push around. Have I been unlucky or does C&G just not work for big games?

Steve

A lot of rules that work fine for the average sized game do not work for large games.

It depends on the players you are with. If everyone knows the rules, and can switch off on the computer things go fairly quickly. Of course the more players, also the slower things will be with people talking, and dithering, etc. I personally love C&G, and would heartily recommend them.

Forest

My experience with large games (2,000 plus miniatures on 30ft tables), having run quite a few of them over the years, is that they run slow no matter what rules you are using. Large games usually involve more players, which creates more decision making, which takes more time.

My annual Leuthen Day games back in the 1990s were all day affairs, as are the more recent Old School Wargaming Big Battalion game that I have run in each of the past two years. The Old School games have run fairly quickly due to the easy to learn and use BAR rules.

I've never known a computer-moderated game to run faster than a traditional game, as long as the traditional game has a good referee and most players know the rules.

As for C&G it is more dependent on the Game Master. I have seen where three mega tables were run (Austerlitz) in a fairly fast time. But all three guys running the computer knew the system by heart. I know one or two guys who can run the system at those three conventions and it goes fast as well.
VR
James Mattes

I love C&G in fact wew have a VERY large game going right now. we get together and play for a few hours and leave it set up till the next time. I can not say it runs faster than a traditional game but the rules are more concise and when the games end I feel we have really gotten a resolution. For many years we played Empire 5 and we ended when time ran out and the games would be only a few game hours old with no clear cut victor. C&G is not like that. Right now we are running a Prussian / Saxon vs French 1806 game. We have had two 4 -5 hour sessions and have completed 20 turns. Its been a really good game with all the forces coming on to the table in a random order. The Cav fights have been bloody and in favor of the Prussians but the Old Guard is begining to push on our left flank quite forcefully!

I will beg to differ here. I just ran a large C&G II Napoleonic wargame at a recent convention. It was part of an 1807 campaign we are involved in.

Two Russian Divisions and three Russian cavalry brigades were moving through a town and two French corps with other supporting units attacked them. This battle thus was "large" in that at least three corps worth of force was present.

Terrain was set up by 10:00 a.m. Battle developed as of 10:30 a.m. Wargame came to a conclusion by 7:00 p.m. with Russians withdrawing and fighting a rearguard action. Four commanders were present (two for each side), but one had to leave for two hours and one French commander handled both corps for awhile.

I've run other large wargames using computer moderated and can state (evidence if the form of witnesses to corroborate) that they all came to a conclusion.

I noted in a previous thread of a couple of months ago the many organizational things that we do to achieve these results and don't care to type all of them over again. If the operator of the software knows the software well and has experience (major factor), you are organized and have organizational aids (such as a large dry-erase board on a tripod which is used to record units firing at each other so that the operator doesn't have to get up and can remain at the laptop, large copies of the main charts on a presentation board on a tripod so everyone can see it, etc.), and you have a checklist and have indexed the rules book, you can and will complete large wargames using C&G II.

I noted in the other threads how all miniatures involved are organized prior to the battle by the "referee" in storage boxes with drawers (numbered on the outside of the drawers to match the unit and officer ID numbers used in C&G II). When a unit is visible it can be located and placed quickly. I also noted using thin sheets of thin, clear plastistruct stands ("sabots" as Der Alte Fritz would say), cut for various types of units (and labeled with unit ID numbers) to make movement easier.

I made unique measuring sticks with alternating colored squares for quick "at a glance" measurements, but also used grid strips (cut from grid sheets made of flexible plastic in 1/4" squares) for infantry firing range that can be used and left near infantry stands so you don't have to grab the measuring sticks every time. Also, C&G II remembers that range if the units firing at each other do not move or change targets.

I could type up six more paragraphs of organizational things that we do, but my point is that there are no regular (i.e. non-computer) rules that I've used or observed at Conventions that can come to a faster conclusion the size of wargames that we do. I must note that we use battalions as the basic maneuver unit and C&G II tracks individual casualties, fatigue, ammunition, and more. That is, more tactical articulation and more detail accounted for than brigades-as-the-basic-maneuver-element wargames.

There are no dice to roll and there is no rules-lawyering. The computer handles all combat, fatigue, disorder, etc. Each person focuses on commanding his units (you cannot argue with a computer). An operator knowledgeable with the software and accompanying rules can quickly decide about any issues that arise (and if you are a member of the C&G II Yahoo Group you can learn from the many questions and suggestions and thus be fully prepared for any unusual situations).

I've run the Napoleonic and American Civil War versions of C&G II with large battles and we always come to a conclusion. Sometimes a commander will decide to withdraw instead of slugging it out for no reason (in campaigns it is often wiser to do so).

I am not related to nor have any financial interest in C&G II.

Running a large wargame battle requires experience, knowledge, and organization. For those who claim it cannot be done--I want you as my opponent across the battlefield. I would rather command against someone who thinks something cannot be accomplished than someone who thinks it can.

P.S. Our campaign involves eight commanders. We're using a campaign system that I developed as part of a graduate school project some years ago and which has been refined over the years. Some of our commanders are two or three hours away, but orders and reports are handled via email. We can even have a battle if they are not present by using digital technology from a remote location (they are not present to push some units, but they are commanding nonetheless). Eleven campaign days have taken place in 33 real days (and there were a couple of breaks, such as for Mother's Day).

My point is "yes it can be done." You have to want to do it, figure out how to best organize (and always look for ways to improve things/alleviate problems). My goal of having all terrain placed in one hour or less has also been realized (and I'm not talking about felt and lychen sprinking).

If you are not willing to learn the software well and organize then you will likely achieve successful conclusions.

Und Herr Spargel, I might add that commanders in a wargame of C&G II do not have to know the rules. They only have to know what a line, column, or square is and other basic facts about armies of the time.

When people focus on commanding and not arguing or learning rules it is amazing what you can accomplish. Stufying history instead of studying rules--amazing concept!

That should read above "if you are willing to learn . . . then you will achieve successful conclusions."

My fingers are fatigued and thus must rest.

That may be but your point is well made.

Computer moderated or not pre-game organization is the key to keeping big games reach a conclusion in a decent amount of time.

Grenadier1,

I heard about your game this evening and it sounds like Little Buddy is getting the better of big Don by using historical tactics with his cavalry. Let me know how the game comes out.

Steve,

I agree with most of what's been said. After the author, Nigel Marsh, I think I have probably put on the most CG games at conventions. I think Carnage and Glory is actually the best rules to use for these "big" games for the following reasons. First, the ability of Carnage and Glory to intergrate complicated factors such as fatigue, changes in unit morale and calculating army morale is difficult in a normal game using a traditional rules set, but almost impossible in a large game.

More importantly, big games by their very definition include a large contingent of players, some of whom may have very little knowledge of the rules. The CG system allows for rapid integration of new players since all they really have to worry about are move and fire distances and what they want their units to do, not endless tables, etc.

Your expereince with CG and the slowing of play is valid in some cases, but if properly organized the game can move very quickly…sometimes too quickly for some players used to a more leisurely pace. With experienced players I can run CG in real time, 15 minutes per turn.

All this will be put to the test at Historicon in July when I will be joined by three other CG GM's to run the battle of Mockern, 1813. We'll play over a 6'x24' table and involve up to 25 players. We plan on running two seperate games, one on Friday and one on Saturday. In order to allow the game to run its course, 18-20 turns, we really need to have the process organized. I'd encourage you to play and be the judge as to how well we do.

db