"SHAKO II" Topic

Bill, I was rather looking forward to playtesting Shako II, but if you're that desperate to use it as a pillow, I'll happily trade you my copy for that date with CZJ. Email me offboard to arrange the details…

Cancel my dim request for that link now guys. Even I have managed to work my way through the torrid complexities of Google. :)

I agree with Jeremy – my post was intended to reaffirm how enjoyable Shako II was/is without slamming other sets of rules. For me it was a fantastic experience to participate in a Dave Waxtel/Maplewood hosted game. I looked at quite a few Napoleonic games while at Historicon and a couple buddies of mine tried some of them, including C&G, Napoleon's Battles and 2 other less popular systems. One of my friends even played two Napoleon's Battles games. Nothing impressed me or my friends like the Shako II experience. The other systems can win all the awards they want from the judges, but that doesn't change my impression of Dave's games, nor has it changed my friends' opinions that Shako II is the way to go. I was more focused on SYW and Marlburian period rules so I can't profess to have spent more than 6 hours watching other Napoleonic systems at Historicon.

I will concede that the Age of Eagles system was well thought out, and the scenarios I watched were researched and thought out too. C&G failed to do this. I would like to have another look at an Age of Eagles game with 16 or more players and see how well it flows. If I see that quantity of players, at least a third new to the system, playing a full large scale battle in 4-5 hours, with active participation by all the players then I will praise AOE too, even if I stick with Shako because I prefer battalion level unit identity instead of brigade level! There appeared to be nothing wrong with AOE and it certainly has its niche. It's efficient. As for C&G, I'd need to see the aforementioned criteria and a few other things fixed before you'd get me to reconsider my vote. It has a long way to go.

Respectfully,

Machine

Machine, the problem is that is not what you said. By proclaiming that S2 "blew away" the competition and "raised the bar" on Napoleonics, you unilateral proclaimed it the best game, period. Then you questioned the judges competence by indicating they didn't consider the fun factor, implying if they had S2 would have won hands down.

This is a bit more than simple support for your rules.

At the end of the day if you and your friends enjoy what your gaming, you have the best rules going. This means that for an awful lot of folks S2 is the best there is, but for a whole bunch of others its C&G and for others still its General de Brigade and for even more its Grande Armee. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that and its in no way a judgment on the quality of the product. Its really a matter of personal preference.

And my post had nothing to do with AOE, though the game was specifically produced to avoid having to have 16 people to play a big battle. Since you asked, my games each saw two players per side each commanding a corps of 25,000 + men. We finished 19 of 22 30-minute turns, ending the game with a decisive French victory. Each 30 minute turn took an average of 26.4 minutes to complete, and one of the four was a newbie.

Yet if you like deploying battalions into column, line and square or choosing between roundshot and canister, the fact the game was realistic, easy to play and fast won't make one iota's worth of difference. To you its a lousy game and for you the perception is quite accurate.

This is as it should be.

Pompey Maximus
ageofeagles.com

Question re stands per unit: Is it important to have X stands per unit (i.e. 3 or 4)? All my stuff is based on 2 stand per unit, and I am just wondering if that'll work ok with the rules…

Milton

I just bought the rule set and started reading them. The figure basing looks pretty open. Both sides need the same basing. I plan on using 5mm figures with two stands for each unit. I think it should work.

Two stands would work in so far as there is no figure removal, just having a way of noting accumulated casualties until the appropriate MR (Morale Rating) is reached, then the unit evaporates. (My units get followed by a micro dice on a landscaped penny with the appropriate figure uppermost)

You'd need to be clear about your on-table convention for representing squares

Dice on a landscaped penny brilliant -Thank you Jeremy!
Do you create a square slot for the dice to sit in?

Thanks

The die gets glued directly onto the portuculis side of the penny (an nice even base) and I build up the outside with basetex etc. It only needs the figure on the top showing.

Originally I just used dice but they can get knocked over. You just need to have a method of keeping the different values accessible but sorted.

Using something as fiddly as 0.5cm micro dice I didn't think of building up the landscaping around a removable die. I suppose that could be another approach

It's more discrete than caps or curtain rings and is period/situation neutral enough to use in a number of rules/circumstances. If I'm playing a Principles of War game they come in handy for marking the difficulty value of terrain after it is first diced for.

We use pennies with small railway boxes/crates (1,2 or 3) on them as markers. Works perfect

IMO; $50.00 USD for another Arty C. POS is asking too much, better be 300+ pages and HB, I dont care for his work in ancients or napoleonics, his Command and Control systems are always way too rigid leaving great generals like Caesar & Hannibal or Napoleon constrained to player run debacles with no way of the General changing an overal plan quickly.

Lafayette wrote:
his Command and Control systems are always way too rigid leaving great generals like Caesar & Hannibal or Napoleon constrained to player run debacles with no way of the General changing an overal plan quickly.
--------------------
I think his command and control systems do an excellent job of reflecting just how hard it is to change an overall plan.
It's only wargamers who have the luxury of changing plans in mid battle; real generals don't.
I don't recall Caesar, Hannibal and Napoleon changing overall plans – they just came up with very good plans in the first place.
So I think this criticism is misplaced.

Actually, Napoleon is tagged as the world's greatest "intuitive" general by the US Army War College. Remember his statement, "First we give battle, then we see how it goes." Evidently Napoleon's planning process was to have little planning at all and to trust in his own skill and that of his staff to exploit mistakes when they occurred.

The other two gents, I have little expertise on, but I think Lafayette's comments are way too harsh.

Regards, Bill Gray
ageofeagles.com

Sorry I am late to this discussion but I agree with both of Bill's points.

First, gamers tend to play those rules which in their minds represent the Napoleonic or ACW or whatever experience. This is a hobby after all and enjoyment is an important factor. As Bill did I would point out that S2 and AOE are two entirely different scales and because of this they provide two different battlefield perspectives. One very much more tactical than the others.

Second, Austerlitz, which was a masterpiece, aside most of Napoleon's battles were as Bill represents, engagements in which various parts, corps, of one or both armies arrive after battle is joined. The undependable timing of the arrival of those reinforcements dictated that plans be flexible. Indeed this is the essence of Napoleon's strategic system, the battalion carre, pin the enemy and bring in reinforcements.

As someone once said, "No plan survives contact with the enemy." Thus, as Napoleon said, "First we give battle, then we see how it goes."

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

My point is this, at Gaugamella, Alexander would not be able to perform his famous Cavalry maneuvers within the context of Arty's rules for Armati any edition, as follows;

a) The CinC has a line drawn for battle, that he must follow (in this case Alexander & Companions with skirmishers on a flanking maneuver).
b) The Rest of the army is to push ahead into the Persians.

Armati has it were the army is to follow the CinC all the way, how can the Flanking Maneuver occure without all the Pike following as well? IT CAN'T!

This is fine for brigade generals, but not Army or CinC's.

Still, nobody has denied that Shako II is not worth $50.00 USD asking price either, how many pages is it, if its anything like the 1st edition, it is a total ripoff then!

I won't comment about Lafayette's critique (other than the bold assertion POS was mere criticism lacking support), but regarding Napoleon's planning it is a mistake to infer, as one historical author did, that "he blundered" glory/victory. If you study the detailed correspondence of a Napoleonic campaign you will quickly realize that Napoleon considered details as minute as whether a wagonload of tools arrived at a particular location that he precieved as important. He put much more energy into command than his counterparts (including rising during the night to sift through the latest reports). He may have used intuition, but his maneuvers were not "lucky shots" by any stretch of the imagination. Of course, Moltke's famous saying paraphrased as "no plan survives contact with the enemy" is often misinterpreted. I know wargamers who would argue "why plan when no plan survives contact with the enemy?" Moltke assuredly planned carefully. Napoleon did not "wing it." He counted on his strategic movements to give him advantage when battle occurred (and he did count on his commanders, staff, and troops to drive home the victory). Study the Ulm, Austerlitz, Jena, and Polish campaigns carefully (with a good map by your side) and compare the enemy's planning and decisions to Napoleon's and you will begin to appreciate his skill. A captured missive during the Polish campaign resulted in the Russian commander's realization that he was in dire danger and thus the battle of Eylau occurred. One quirk of fate spelled the difference between another potentially major strategic victory and a bloody battle.

Most wargames are "refights" of historical battles (perhaps with some tweaking) and thus not predicated by strategic movements. If you focus on the "fighting" vs. the strategic movements leading up to a battle (including reconnaissance, logistics, fog of war/friction of war factors, etc.) you will not appreciate his "planning." If he had a strategic advantage going into battle (and confidence in his commanders/soldiers)--he could of course "wing some" decisions, but these types of decisions were not as risky as they appear.

Not a comment on the Shako rules, but rather on the issue of command and control I do think there is a reactive tendency for some wargamers to assume that by placing tremendous restrictions on flexibility they are achieving greater "historical accuracy." Clearly the ability to move anything anywhere anytime on the table gives the wargamer greater control than the historical general. But I firmly believe the pseudo-academic reaction to overly restrictive systems produces just as unrealistic a situation.

You don't need to look at the relatively more sophisticated military organization of Napoleon. Even the battles of the 17th century display far more "on the spot" decision making and plan changing on the part of generals. It was very common for a general on one wing to respond to the situation on the other.

Certainly there are examples of battles where there was a lack of this flexibility but I think these were situations where command was lax or where things just didn't work out. However, to assume inescapable rigidity and inability to change plans on the battlefield I think is a real misread of history.

civildisobedience,

Not a comment on the Shako rules, but rather on the issue of command and control I do think there is a reactive tendency for some wargamers to assume that by placing tremendous restrictions on flexibility they are achieving greater "historical accuracy." Clearly the ability to move anything anywhere anytime on the table gives the wargamer greater control than the historical general. But I firmly believe the pseudo-academic reaction to overly restrictive systems produces just as unrealistic a situation.

Well that's quite expansive. I think it depends on the system and game design.

However, in reality, movement options were more restrictive than generally allow for and this can be combined with various parts of a game to get round some inevitable table top problems.

I know you said you're not referring to Shako 2 but…..

There are some things in that appear (I have to say appear, I've never spoken to the author) deliberately restrictive but do allow troops to be ‘on table' in away that prevents units reacting to them, as if they were hidden. There by getting round hidden movement and the rows that go with it, while giving a more ‘historic feel' at the same time.

Which I have to say, I see as an advantage.

civildisobedience,

I haven't played Shako or Shako 2 so I am definitely not commenting on those, but in reaction to what you said …

I concur.

Several people are likely to jump out and yell: What the heck?!?!?!? You play those?!?!?!? But all the same, have you ever tried Legacy of Glory? A lot of restrictions present on players in other games are not present, such as command radius, variety of orders that can be issued, etc. However, the realistic question of will a subordinate receive the order? Will they act on it? Will they delay or ignore it?

LoG is essentially a command simulation game. The player has a lot of order options to choose from, which themselves are fairly broad. You choose the type of order to issue and send it off. Then you determine, based on a die roll and some modifiers, when you order will activate, i.e. how many turns from now will it happen? That is the primary concern of the player – when will my order be received and when will my subordinate act on it?

Combat ends up being something the player doesn't really control but rather receives results of what occurred. You still make some die rolls and mark hits, but the emphasis is that you are not manipulating the battalions personally, you are sending the large division of battalions against the enemy line via X route, under Y order.

Cheers,

The Bandit

[LoG is essentially a command simulation game. The player has a lot of order options to choose from, which themselves are fairly broad… Combat ends up being something the player doesn't really control but rather receives results of what occurred. <<<

The problem with all those games was that combat WAS something that the player wanted to have control over, and usually did. Just like movement. And shooting. And everything else. Gamers being gamers, they're not going to ignore things like a potential +1 bonus for adjusting here or there.

So all those "command games" simply ended up being "tactical games" like everyone else, but with an added very complex superstructure of command/orders on top, which slowed them down even more, and which the players spent 90% of their time trying to figure out how to bend and fudge and maximize, so as to do what they want to do in any given turn, to get various local advantages.

I have Shako and enjoy it. Being retired I have to pay close attention to money, and Shako II is right on the edge. So what changed that would make me buy Shako II? I prefer to play SYW with Shako. Is there anything in Shako II to let me do that?

Agreed, the issue is the gamer being poor. I personally don't want to fight over the +1, I want to make the command decisions. When I want to fight over the +1, I'll play a game where I am a brigade commander, not a corps commander.

Cheers,

The Bandit

My impression is that there are multiple threads herein.

1. Shako, and more so Shako 2, allow players to fulfil multiple roles on the Napoleonic battlefield. In a multi-player game, most players command either brigades or divisions and focus on the +1 etc. Yes command control and grand tactical orders exist for each side, but these orders are initiated by another player in larger games. The Corps or army commander issues the orders for all players on his side. Shako rules allow you to have your cake and eat it too. In the case where a smaller battle is being played the army commander is the brigade or divisional commander. One of the appealing aspects of Shako is its command control system, which can be frustrating when another player on my side is issuing orders for my division (or brigade). I have localized control of units but I don't have the flexibility to react to everything I see from the helicopter point of view.

Mikhail – the Shako 2 system is far superior to Shako 1 on many points – streamlined mechanics even if the new rules version is significantly larger in size. My recommendation to you is to not buy Shako 2. Many of the improvements could be used for SYW games also, but there are two issues that you need to know about.

a) the new rules exclude any reference to SYW specific doctrines
b) the new rules are much larger in size and the cost is higher – there have been a number of threads which have touched on the cost not being justified for the changes and increased text – I won't go into the details of what others have spoken. My point though is that if you like Shako, are satisfied with the rules and being retired you are more cognizant of your hobby fund allocation – stick with what you have. If you have the opportunity to attend a convention where Shako 2 is being hosted, try it a few times. I love it so my opinion is biased in favor. Others will support me or tell you why you shouldn't. Decide for yourself if you want the improved rules. The other alternative is go to the Yahoo site for Shako, join and learn for yourself what the upgrades and nuances are about.

Thanks for the info Machine. Do you know what they streamlined?

Mikhail,

It would take too long to describe every nuance that has been added to Shako 2 or streamlined so I will try to summarize the highlights herein.

1. All reference to large battle rules and SYW have been removed – potential addendum on the yahoo site or a separate package – I don't know what Arty Conliffe and Dave Waxtel are thinking, if anything regarding these pieces.

2. The order rules have been ratified. The original rules had some loopholes as to what players could or couldn't do. The new text, more erudite, is intended to clarify the mechanics for ease of understanding.

3. Divisions (which can be divisions, brigades, detachments etc. – a term that is not necessarily associated with the military organizational traditional reference) don't retreat. If they fail morale as a formation, they stay put but units are more brittle, fighting, shooting and rallying with a -1 modifier.

4. A handful of new optional rules have been added, killed commanders being one example.

5. Units that fall back from losing a melee used to have two turns to rally less than their MR or they broke after failing the second time. Now they get one chance at the end of the turn they lose a melee without sustaining too many kills. The unit rolls less than or equal MR which is approximately 8% worse than rolling twice over two turns. I like this rule change more than any other as I don't have to track units testing over two consecutive turns. The unit breaks or it survives – clean and quick to determine.

On this note and the previous point on formations, the table to rally a division is slightly modified so divisions can break a bit quicker. It's not severe but the minor adjustments to this table, combined with unit tests and some other factors makes the game a bit quicker – less book keeping and more emphasis on planning for reserves being committed to fill gaps or exploit enemy gaps.

The underlying mechanics of firing, melee, charge etc. are all pretty much the same. There are a number of subtle corrections or additions to rules such as the Point Blank volley where units that have been stationary for a turn and are REG or better can, for most nationalities, add +1 to the firing dice to simulate a prepared firing line.

I'm fanatical about Shako 2, but I love the SYW and Marlburian period. I don't feel that the new Shako 2 considered these periods, which is why I suggested you hold off buying a copy till you've tried the system at some conventions. I've heard that Shako 2 was originally developed with SYW in mind but this is an Internet rumor I could not substantiate. The Yahoo site for Shako would be the best place to pose the question on what, if anything, is being planned for Shake 2 addendum.

6. French, Spanish and German quick play sheets have been developed for some of the Europeans who know the core mechanics and really need the quick play sheet more than anything.

7. I believe the campaign rules that Chris Leach developed years ago are being reviewed now.

8. Shako 2 has one scenario book published already (Rise of Eagles – covers the 1805 campaign). Shako 2 also includes a scenario for Quatre Bras, and a draft version of Waterloo was added to the Yahoo site. Dave Waxtel and some of his compatriots ran a series of Spanish vs. French scenarios at Historicon 2008 – these haven't been published yet. The author of these scenarios is Michael Hopper. He can be contacted at Michael.Hopper AT gov.mb.ca.

9. There are a number of things being produced by Chris Leach and Dave Waxtel. I've heard that the errata is still being reviewed, as is a list of other optional rules that didn't make the book.

That's all for now – a bit verbose, but that'll give you some highlights.

<<<<5. Units that fall back from losing a melee used to have two turns to rally less than their MR or they broke after failing the second time. Now they get one chance at the end of the turn they lose a melee without sustaining too many kills.>>>>

I can't find this in the rules. Do you have a reference for it. All I can find under Rallying Units is you continue to suffer the consequences of the fall back until rallied. On the other hand, having re-read the rule I believe we were playing it wrong. We were using the current MR. The rule seems to say you rally using the original MR.

Again, thanks for the information. I imagine I will keep using the original rules for SYW.

Mikhail – Poor explanation on my part.

Shako 1 states that a unit stays in Fall Back until rallied. I haven't got Shako 1 handy, but I recall that you only get 2 turns to rally from Fall Back. After the second attempt the unit is Broken if it fails. Having said this, perhaps I'm thinking of the unofficial Advanced Shako rules, but my gut feel is that Shako 1 was intended to limit how long a unit stayed in Fall Back.

Shako 2 – a unit loses a melee and goes into Fall Back status – withdrawing its appropriate movement distance. It attempts to rally at the end of the turn, albeit with a slightly increased chance of rallying. If it succeeds in rallying, it turns around and is good to go. Cavalry that rally from Fall Back still have the issue of being Blown until they recover. Infantry can re-enter the battle on the immediate next turn. IF the unit fails to rally from Fall Back, it is Broken. There is no additional book keeping to keep track of Fall Back units over multiple turns and whether they fight disordered, provide flank or rear support etc.

Well, I had just played a game on Saturday after nearly a year off from Shako and incorrectly used the MR minus casualties as the roll to recover from Fall Back. I had two battalions standing with their backs to the enemy for much of the game. I thought I had remembered the rule correctly but obviously hadn't. Then when you said you only had two chances to rally or be broken I wondered if I had screwed up again. But you are right, it is in the Advance Shako rules. I've downloaded them and need to print them out to see what I need to use. I also see that they have taken a march from Volley and Bayonet and you stagger any unit within 3" when you fall back thru them. Allowing interpenetration when retreating seems to really rankle some folks so I think I'll add that rule in. Thanks for pointing them out to me.

No problem – the Shako 2 rules have all kinds of other improvements such as ADCs not reaching their destination, getting killed/delayed etc. Unfortunately, although Marlburian and SYW battles are of great interest to me, my knowledge of the two periods is weak compared to what I've read on the Napoleonic period. From what I have read on the SYW and Marlburian period (and I have lots on the SYW) I'm not convinced that Shako 2 rules give you the extras that are SYW specific to warrant the purchase. I've got to play some of Michael Hopper's SYW battles for Shako and then I'll have a better idea as to whether Shako 2 makes a big difference for SYW actions.

Is Shako 2 appropriate for playing the 1796-8 campaigns in Italy?

Cheers
Paul

Snowcat:

Funny you would mention this. I am building armies for the 1796-1799 campaigns and was looking at Shako 2. I think Shako 2 is ideal as the battles were small enough and can be covered by the rules.

Higher level rules like Napoleon's Battles and Age of Eagles can be used but the battle size is at the lower limit of these rules. Any battles at this level would be short 2-4 person affairs at most.

I agree. Shako can be used effectively for any small battle 1792 – 1815 with little difficulty, and you might want to check into Marengo as a starting point.

The only caveat, and the only weakness I have found in the rules themselves, is that you are going to have to put in a bit of extra research yourself. IMHO the unit data charts and army lists are . . . I guess incomplete would be a good term . . . and the Revolution is not covered well at all.

Get that done, however, and you should have a spanking good time.

Regards, Bill Gray
ageofeagles.com

I will have to agree with Bill. I am plodding through my own books to put OOBs together as they are not covered at all in Shako 2 or its supplement.

However, these are small battles that Shako 2 would do well with once set up.

"- Graphics presentation. Drop dead gorgeous, second to nobody, this game rocks. Hell, I'd rather snuggle up to SII on a cold night than Catherine Zeta-Jones. Its that damn good."

Bill, that rulebook had better inflate and make noises when I touch it.

I played Shako II once and there were some elements of the game that I noticed were similar to my own home-grown set, which to me means the designer and I must think alike in some areas. I should buy it and see what it offers.

Is it easy to wipe clean?

Thanks for that.

I recommend 'The Road To Rivoli' by Boycott-Brown as a main read on the Italian Campaign and for OOBs. But you actually can't go past the 9th issue of Napoleon magazine (of all things), as it tabulates all the component demi-brigades and regiments that served in the Italian campaign, including battles and service summaries.

PS I'd take Zeta-Jones. :)