"Looking for Information Regarding WRG Rules 1685-1845" Topic

Anybody tied the other WRG Napoleonic Rules "Corp d'Armee" published in 1989?

I only got to play them a couple of times and found them a lot of fun – and they seem to have had some input from the late David Chandler.

Reason enough to have nothing to do with them then…

K

A bit harsh!

I didn't move and fire in the same move, it was trying to convince others they couldn't where the debate began..went on for years..

Indeed connard..20+years of them, running comps using them, sorting out the pages of local ammendments that obscured rather than clarified.. using skirmishers, rallying were the twio great misunderstoop, final charge moves all these things, were there but seriously difficult to understand, and the use of the term "advance" to mean two separate and crucial concepts..the sort of rule where you your 1809 Baverians are beaten by being outshot by Jacobite Highlanders artilley cheezy or what? A set of rule that brought out, and still brings out, the very worst in gamers,
There was a game at our club with them recently, , laughable sort of game , piroueting cavalry , units fighting to the last man, armies fighting on with 4 figures left on the table , a virtually non existant command structure, a morale system that makes "clunky" look like the nose of the concorde..a turn sequence , to use that word, convoluted … no possibility of any Grand tactical move..no break point , national characteristics that are a joke.. a set of rules as 70s as hairy navels , platform shoes and flared trousers..good bloody riddance..

Isnt this thread so indicative of reactions to Napoleonic rulesets?
Comments on the WRG set range from "divinely inspired" to "work of Satan" and everything in between.
I think if there was to ever be but a single set approved by all, it would mean Aliens had taken over our brains.

The "Lord of the Rules", the one ruleset to rule them all, is still being held by some mangy runt in a damp cave somewhere. Until it shows up we'll make do with what we have and like it!

everybody, including me thinks of themselves as a Napoleonic expert thus everyone has an opinion on how it should be….

Eventually, there will be one set of rules per player out there and we will have to all go play solo

I crack me up sometimes ;-p

Cardinal

I can only see one sentence in the rules as printed that could lead a rules lawyer to suggest that artillery could move and fire:

Page 28 paragrapg 6 says: 'Manhandled and elephant artillery are always ready for action, though they still cannot fire and move in the same bound. However, this does not apply if animals are helping move pieces at manhandled speed.'

Was this the source of the dispute?

- Allan

Allan,

Thank you for that brief reminder with the quoted text. Brought the memories flooding back – of arguments and disrupted games, and a few years avoiding Napoleonics all together!

Frankly, they just didn't suit what we wanted out of a game. None of us were really competition gamers – we were (and still are) in it for the re-fights, either at the battle level, lining up the participants to see who would win this time, or in a grander scale, re-playing the campaigns itself. And sadly these rules failed to provide us with a decent set that we wanted to rely on, to get us consistent game-play for all those games.

And oddly enough, I keep a copy on my bookshelves – as a reminder on how important it is to get a rule system that my friends trust and enjoy, and as an example of how not to write rules. So, total respect to all of you out there who do use these, it astounded me when I read thru this thread, as I only know one person (not in my gaming circle) who would think about re-visiting these rules for a game. It's already been said, by Raducci, a perfect example of the wide range of opinions….

I gave up competition gaming many years ago for much the same reasons you cite (but with a different ruleset). I've used the WRG set, with Napoleonic-specific mods, for games involving 70 to 80 battalions a side and appropriate numbers of cavalry and artillery with hardly a murmur of dispute. Having said that, I have found that a good-hearted shrug of the shoulders and giving your fellow gamer the benefit of the doubt keeps the game moving and retains the convivial atmosphere.

It is only a game, after all ;-)

Allan,

Sounds like the right way to approach these things, and similar to our style too. And I'm impressed you can get decent games done with so many units – it was one of the drawbacks we identified that too many units seemed to also make it too unstable when we tried playing them. But – that was many many moons ago… and there's been many other rules since too. Guess we just have a desire hard to satiate – so I'll take the Kylie option mentioned earlier :o)

Good luck with your games sir!

Again, the WRG "Bang You're Dead" rules seem to work best with about a brigade per player.

And a gaming group arguing over rules is NOT a problem with the ruleset – it's a problem with the people in the room.

@ Allan.
With a mature and adult attitude like yours to wargaming, you must be a very pleasant opponent.
I do wish you were within driving distance.

Raducci

Gaming should be a great escape. I can recall games being held up for an hour or more many, many years ago arguing over tiny details. What a waste of time! So much easier to pass over a minor advantage and get on with it.

Clay has the right idea – it's the players not the rules that make for an enjoyable gaming experience.

- Allan

Still enjoy playing these rules. you can get an Australian version free at

link

There are a few ammendments from the original.

There was an army list book but it covered SYW armies,it did have some interesting rule ammendments in the back.

Cancon still has a WRG comp that appears to be growing which is a good thing.

Still I can understand the cardinals frustrations having been on the receiving end of some odd umpiring decisions based on the unusual version of English sometimes used in the rules.

Still play them still like them.

M

Well said, Frostydog.

I think they`re a reasonably good set of rules that cater for a wide variety of situations.

I hosted a SYW campaign at the beginning of this month using these rules. Despite having eight players fighting 9 battles over two days, we had not a single rule dispute, only one 'grey area' situation that was resolved on a compromised but realistic basis and only one battle result which looked odd. The forces involved were from 6 to 14 battalions a side which is probably about the right size for the rules. To me, that says the rules work.

Admittedly some things can erk but the rules are robust enough to allow modification where necessary. However, for my campaign the only modifications were to prohibit infantry from charging cavalry and to make it harder for small detachments of infantry garrisoning buildings in towns to charge out of them.

Incidentally, the SYW amendments do have a brigade reaction test if you want to use it if 'fighting to the last man' annoys you.

I`m not saying that they are better than other available rule sets- just that I fing them workable and still enjoyable within certain parameters and still worth a try.

Perhaps my reply will be rather late, but this is a link to a video which provided information on the rules. Video
After over 50 years I still see these rules being used at a local wargaming club. I should post some pictures one day.

I moderate a groups.io forum devoted to this ruleset ported from the old Yahoo site:
groups.io/g/WRG1685to1845
There is a downloadable set of the rules and a set of Napoleonic specific playsheets available.
Kind regards
Allan

Bob O'Brien wrote a brief supplement to enable simultaneous movement rather than alternate movement.
Kind regards
Allan