"Legacy of Glory Playtest" Topic

A few of us got together last weekend to play a first game of Legacy of Glory. This was more of a playtest to get comfortable with the flow of the rules rather than a real scenario. We threw a few 1807 French divisions at some Russians using prepared assaults to see how the rules worked. For what it's worth, the French managed to push back the two Russian infantry divisions, but their front waves took terrible abuse from the Russian heavy artillery and would likely be pushed back by the second lines if the Russians could get the counter assault going.

We stumbled a bit, but overall managed to get through things more or less in real time. We were happy with the ebb and flow of the battle and things in general seemed to feel 'right.' I am sure we missed a number of things and mangled a number of others, but overall as time passed we got more comfortable with the basics of the rules.

There is definitely a learning curve to this rules system and I look forward to revisiting it again in the near future.

PS: If anyone cares to see more blathering, I've written a blog post as well.

link

You know,

Once upon a time I bought a book called Practical Wargaming by Wessencraft.

link

IIRC, the author argued that the Napoleonic Period was the best to game because wars after the Napoleonic period were too big and too disbursed to game very well -- and essentially nothing could beat Napoleonics for pageantry.

At the time I bought his arguments line hook and sinker. Here we are 40 years later and look at the mess that has developed.

I don't want to pick on Legacy of Glory too much but it is typical of what is going on in this area. Do the entire battle if humanly possible but also delve into all those little tactics and nuances associated with the period.

I actually wrote a set of Napoleonic Rules -- and I won't play my own rules! I mention this only to state that I know better than most, the traps for the unwary here.

I wasn't too wowed with LoG after a couple games.

Just the same, if you play this some more, I'd sure like to know how you guys are liking these rules and what you like about them. Post another AAR!

mjc

That's why there are rules like Grande Armee…….

mjc:

Horses for courses I guess. Some folks are fine with running a higher-level game with more abstracted elements while others want more. This is the one period where I'm willing to do the heavy lifting to enjoy such a game. An ancients game with this level of detail would bore me to tears.

The first set of Napoleonics rules I played for any length of time was Empire III, so that affected my thinking on what makes for a good game in this period… whether this was a positive or negative effect is open for discussion. :-)

The appeal of the rules in my case is that the player-commander has to worry about individual battalions, but only as more-or-less interchangeable widgets, and once battle is joined, you are more worried about trying to gauge if it's worth it to reinforce the attack or pull back and reorganize. You simply don't have the ability to run each battalion as a separate unit like some other 1:60 rules sets.

I'll post another AAR after the next time we meet.

Wow!! Where to start … !? …….. nope, just cant face it!

Best I can say is different strokes for different folks, good luck, I hope it works well for you, I really do.

Well, I'm bias as all get out because it was my idea to give LoG a try but what struck me during our play test was that no one haggled over battalions and minor units. We stayed away from most all the little tactics and nuances. The only practical way to micro manage is to issue tactical directives to a wave. An attached corps commander could in theory issue directives to every battalion to control their actions (think Ney at Jena) but if he is doing that then he is no longer in control of his corps and won't be useful should any higher level commands be required (also think Ney at Jena).

Anyways, I think so long as players respect the spirit of the rules and stick to controlling their divisions and not the lower sub units, it should play well.

Regardless, we had a great time and the combat resolution remained fast once we knew what we were doing.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I have fond memories of playing Legacy of Glory and wish that I could play it again but none of my peers appreciated it.

It is a game where you are fighting your own army and the enemy is only a complication.

Bandit,

I think that you have hit the proverbial nail on its head. These rules are great at encouraging players to think and act as senior commanders rather than as an odd combination of those and battalion/regimental/battery commanders.

They are a wonderfully designed system.

Colin

3 turns in 3.5 hours! That's slow! Gotta take a pass on that!

One of the problems with the game is that while in each turn there's a reasonable number of actions and tests that need doing, there are very few decision points. Oversimplifying it, you might decide at the beginning of turn 1 that you want to launch an attack with your right wing and hold with your left. What you are playing for the next few turns is the results of that decision.

No, 1.5 turns in 3.5 hours :-p of course a game turn equals 2 hours of represented time ;-)

malcolmmccallum – that is pretty accurate but that was actually what we liked, we didn't see it as a problem, as you said earlier your own army is difficult to command – if it were easy to get an army to do something and they responded immediately, it would be wholly unrealistic.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Another thing that we found problematic, when using 15mm, was that the table space required was counter-intuitive. My normal experience with wargames is that they fight wide. Legacy of Glory cares much more about depth. We needed at least two feet behind every army and 2-3 feet between them.

It is probably more correct but again marks it as simulation more than game despite how fun a simulation it can be.

Malcolm,

For me, that is part of the attraction of LoG; they force you to use your forces and the ground in a manner that would have made sense to a Napoleonic commander. If we wander too far away from that type of "simulation", we might as well be playing chess with Napoleonic figures.

Colin

Malcolm,

Yes.

Colin,

Also yes. ;)

Cheers,

The Bandit

It actually sounds like a good set.. especially for multi player games where you have sub commanders.

Might have missed it, but is each Battalion multi element?

Cheers

TW

Yes…figures are based three to a base, with each battalion of foot having between 9 & 18 figures averaging out around 12.

I think the basing is the same or similar to Le Feu Sacre and Piquet.

I spent a week or so playing LoG one night.

TheWord,

Most LoG gamers use Empire-style mounting, but figure mounting isn't critical to the game. Divisional frontage is important, but battalion/figure frontage isn't (unless grossly out of scale to ground scale).

Thus, single-element battalions could ne used, but you would need markers to show whether the units are in column or line, and you would need to maintain spacing between battalions to show the divisional frontage.

JCBMinis, I hear your pain! :) These certainly are not the "throw away all your other rules sets, this one replaces them all!" set of Napoleonics rules. They are designed to appeal to a certain esthetic, and even I (who has been working with MattDLM on the new version for over ten years) play other rules sets when they better fit the gaming objective and the desires of the other players.

The objective is "fun" and everyone defines that differently.

Doug

While I picked up these rules right after they came out, I only played them once and back into the box they went.

Now it could just be playing the rules for the first time but that was the fastest game of Napoleonics I have ever played.

It was two Corps per side One French Corps and my Saxon Corp against one Austrian Corp and one Prussian Corp.

Well the Austrian Corp just marched across the table and broke the French Corp on it first Assault.

I only had like 60 dead & wounded from my Saxon's.

Mithmee,

How deep of a table did you play on? Something we found was that pushing back a GTF really kills a game if a GTF has no where to fall back to because they fall off the table. Depth seems to become an issue very quickly. If the GTF has room to fall back to then the likelihood it can regroup and counter or at least hold against further pressure is high.

Cheers,

The Bandit

1.5 Grand-Tactical turns is *9* TAC turns. Game sounds an awful lot like Striker (yes, the old Traveller battles game), so that's not too bad a time cycle. After all, Warmachine's Steamroller 4 format is timed 10 minute turns, and I'm used to 15-20 minute turns playing 40k or Flames of War. It may be a little weird to issue orders every 6 turns, but it sounds like the pace and scale of game I'm looking for. Especially if speed of play is real-time or faster.

I really appreciate the kind remarks about our first effort in design; we did the bulk of the game when my brother was in high school and I was in college (and it shows in several places) and produced it a few years later. Publishing then was an entirely different challenge -- picture dot matrix charts for playtesting -- different parameters, economies of scale, and desktop publishing didn't really exist yet. In some ways, the entire experience filled out my education in ways that academia didn't.

Solomon, however, based on your mean comments, no more MHP books for you. Head to the back of the line.

All kidding aside, we have been working on the replacement rules for some time. I don't think any of LoG's strengths are lost, but the design is faster. Publishing Bressonnet, and frequent discussions with Scott Bowden, really has provided numerous insights. Also working with Arne Rostad, kriegspieling every minute of Jena-Auerstadt, really hammered home the time-distance-firepower-movement-command ratios. We had a lot of it right in LoG,I am pleased to say, but now have facts where before we had suppositions.

And again, after the skin thickens, constructive criticisms are invaluable. I've listened, I get it. The challenge is for our team to produce a great model of Napoleonic warfare that is a blast to play, and easier to teach and learn.

We have been and will do everything we can to achieve that, including changing the name and taking a clean, fresh look at everything.

Grumbler has been at the forefront of the new effort, I might add…so, as the team moves forward, I hope he will be able to relate his take on the project. Not being on the original smaller design team gives him a better perspective on the progress of a new system. However, his comments about LoGI not being the end all design do call him into serious question regarding loyalty.

I am also gratified that a community has galvanized around this project, tons of playtesting will be done, and we have a great group of co-designers and consultants. The historical research we have been doing informs the design.
I think I would have just about killed to have Bressonnet when, in 1998, we were developing LoG.

Maybe we won't be the ones to pull it off, but the next big steps in game design – the reinvigorating breakthroughs -- are coming. We're going to bury the realism versus playability conundrum, the endless fun beer and pretzel game versus the boring simulation argument. The "third way" generation of designs will be exciting to watch and I hope we can sustain open, respectful, yet passionate conversations.

Matt teases us with this future revelations!

For my part, LoG just worked right the first time. The game is NOT an easy throw-down…there is a learning curve. It takes a commitment from all players to learn both the game system, high level concepts AND something about warfare in the Napoleonic era.

You must love Napoleonics to play LoG.

The rules play in 'real time'. So a six hour battle can be played in six hours. That's THREE turns, by the way! Also, this game is for multi-corps battles. I wouldn't try it with anything less.

The comments about not worrying about battalions is correct. Think of each battalion as a single figure, and that the basic unit of the game is the DIVISION. It just happens to be a squad of 12 guys who can form column, line and square. A hit here and there is no big deal, and losing a couple doesn't really matter to the division. I found as a player that I was more concerned with the declining morale level of the division than I was with what happened to my battalions.

The command and control system is amazing. To me that's the most important game concept for a set of Naps rules to get right. The best parts of the game have always been the furious scribbling of new orders and trying to respond to (or PREDICT) events that occur in the battle. It's just incomparable to other rules.

Legacy of Glory is not for small scale games or the inexperienced. My group has played the first version of LoGII and honestly I don't think it fixed anything that was broken. The first version is just fine to me.

Good luck Matt! Show us what you have that's new! (I need to repaint those Austrians….)

Grande Armee add command rules to a rip off of Volley and Bayonet.Rob

Rob,

Come again. I didn't get it.

Matt

Clay,

It would be ironic if, after all this, you preferred LoG 1.

I do really appreciate your evaluation though and your Aspern re-fight. Aspern was the demo game we ran at Cold wars and Historicon back in the Harrisburg days. We had lots of fun. Looking at your photos brings back memories.

We still use smoke balls to mark fire, don't worry.

We had to make a few adjustments to Log I (add an extra chart of combat result definitions, for one, and put a cap on skirmish points), but I loved the game.

Clay,

I completely agree with your assessment. My impression of the original LoG is that nothing was really broken, though a lot was hard to understand in the text.

They do not *read easy* as one might say, but the game works wonderfully once understood.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I for one am looking forward to the new rules.

Matt,
Nice to meet you at Historicon!

Rob B.

Bandit,

The table was around 5x8 feet, which was far smaller than ideal.

But even given that what happen on the table should not have happen.

The 2nd Allied Corps (I.E. the one that I was facing) only got off a few artillery shots which caused the few casualites that I did receive.

We spent more time setting up the game then playing.

There's a small (well, at least 2 people) group here in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area looking to play LoG on a regular basis. Any others who are interested, PM me or reply to this thread!

LOG1 for now, but I for one would be interested in seeing what the new version brings along. Complexity is fine where it helps bring out the details of Napoleonic battle. I would prefer to streamline the process as much as possible to both make the games go a little smoother/faster and to make it somewhat easier to bring new people on board. Most gamers these days will be put off by a long 'burn-in' period to learn a new rules set.

Ok Matt…Clay's co-opted me to repaint all the Austrians we had for the Aspern-Essling game. Not really, but I'll end up doing that anyway. LoG is my Napoleonic game of choice, has been so for years and am ready to jump in again head-first!

I used my copy of those Mustafa rules for mulching in my compost pile out back. That's all they were worth. A total waste of money in comparison to LoG.

I don't know very much about Grande Armee, and don't want to start a flame war. None of the brigade games out there come close to meeting my standards for historicity, but that can't be any surprise to those who know me. The brigade level games do meet my approval for marketing and attracting gamers to our favorite period.

We are looking for serious playtesters to make sure that what are are seeing in the new version is real; namely, a more elegant system, more intuitive processes, an increase in realism, and faster resolution. The coolness factor is critical -- will playtesters find the game a blast to play, like we are in our development games. I don't think that any concessions were made for simplicity's sake. Hell, we've been working on this at various points in time for over fifteen years. It better be a big improvement, and consumers have a right to expect a massively superior battle model as well as a superior game design. Otherwise, why publish it?

My biggest problems with LoG I were:

1) We used acronyms instead of simpler direct names. We have one acronym left, GTF, for grand tactical formation. That's it. Things like FML (formational morale level) are now simply called "cohesion." So, we've essentially eliminated the need for acronyms.

2) We (of the wet behind the ears designers) were told in 1990 that if we had more than three pages of charts, no one would buy it. So we made the charts extremely
condensed. Probably a mistake. This version has charts that take up 4 times as much space, but are really user friendly, entertaining, and comprehensive; no searching for rules or information.
Consistency in layout and process also helps. Everything is 2d10 generating a number from 2-20. No percentiles, no six sided.

3) The number of orders and specifications were overwhelming to the beginner. We designed the game afraid of what rules lawyers would do with it, so we over-legislated to outlaw "bogusness." This caused a much steeper learning curve. This time we are writing the rules for reasonable people, and can legislate against abuse on the internet yahoo group or web page.

4) The original skirmish process was often tedious, and subject to abuse. The new skirmish system is simpler, much more realistic, and a lot more fun to execute.

5) The command control process meets the same objectives as the original, but eliminates command points. It allows a great deal more accuracy in representing Old Order command structures, so that there is a distinct difference in flavor. While LoGI did great with New Order armies, I think it was too narrowly designed. You'll see.

6) While the game played in real time or faster with experienced players, the learning curve to get there was too high for same gamers.

7) The wave assessment, one of LoG 1's most innovative concepts, had some room for improvement when it came to handling Old Order and British armies. Now the assessment system has an even more integral relationship to doctrine, tactics, and grand-tactical deployments. It's also less difficult, as the modifiers have been simplified.

Matt

Well Matt the two of us in St. Paul / Minneapolis are interested (we're also interested in others who are interested so by all means please get in touch). I'll drop you a line off list if that is the right way to go about it.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Do you guys know Phil Feller? He's in Minneapolis and looking to play. Good guy too.

Have not run across Phil that I am aware of. Likewise, I'll continue this conversation directly.

If you're interested in a complete newcomer's playtesting, I know some historical gamers that are interested in trying out these rules (as am I).

If so, drop me a line at scott(dot)kenny(at)gmail(dot)com

Thanks Scott. In the current shape, the rules are not ready for beginners.

When that time comes, you're welcome to help us. I'd appreciate it.

Scott/Lion,

If you're interested in getting familiar with the basic concepts behind LOG, the first edition is still for sale at a reasonable price at several places on the web.

There is a learning curve to this game like other detailed sets, so the sooner and more often you read the rules, the better the concepts will sink in.

Ok, thanks guys. Guess it's time to go chase down a first edition copy and get used to the ideas.

The offer to playtest is still open, and I used to be an admin guy in the Navy, so I'm also willing to look at proofreading and layout, too.

I believe The Last Grenadier in CA has copies still. If you call them up they will mail you a copy.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Thanks, Bandit

It's also offered for sale at Old Glory:

link

and through this link:

link

The Old Glory offer is probably the best deal you can get from what I've seen.

Matt, I had your rules years ago but sold them on Ebay because everybody was into Napoleon's Battles where I lived at the time and nobody wanted to try LOG. The basic idea of it always intrigued me but the opportunity to play them just never came about. For the past 7 years, I've been gaming regularly with Mark Anderson's group in Ill. He, myself, and several of the other guys have been wrestling with finding the Napoleonic game that plays large but shows that battalion level look with some detail. Mark's been messing about with Empire II modified.

I think we might be a pretty good group of candidates to test LOG2. I think philosophically it's always been close to what I've been looking for. You know Mark. He's no stranger to serious Napoleonics. I think this is something he'd tackle aggressively; like he does everything else. Good or bad; you'd get plenty of feedback from us.

Curt B

Curt,

I had the opportunity to play several games with Mark & crew both at RockCon and once at Mark's place. He's a great host and his Napoleonic collection is (or was… been a few years now) excellent.

Bart

Bart,

I think he unloaded a bunch of stuff over the years. In the past year,though, he has started pulling it back together and has a fair amount of stuff for 1809. Mark doesn't mess around. When he sets himself to a task it gets done. He's one of those extremely focused and disciplined gamers who actually completes projects regularly. About 90 percent of the gamers I know, myself included, only scratch the service of what he finishes.

Curt

FYI, if someone is looking for a set of the rules, there's a brand-new set going on eBay right now for a good starting price. No financial interest in this, etc., etc.

Bart

Gosh, Legacy of Glory, are they still going after all these years! I remember struggling through these almost 20 years ago. They were certainly an advance in their day, certainly an improvement on Empires, and had some nice concepts.

I did feel that you were every rank in the army though, from loading the guns, forming column or square, or organising the Reserve for an assault. I dont think we ever got anywhere near 1 move per hour. 2 moves per day more like it. It was like getting a Phd in Wargaming.

Napoleons Battles came out in the nick of time for me, with similar good ideas but in a very playable format. Volley and Bayonet served me well at the top level of command.

Now of course, we are totally spoilt for rule choice, with Age of Eagles one of the best sets you can buy for Corps or army level in 15mm+, Grande Armee for Army Level with 6mm/10mm figures, and General de Brigade for Divisional level play.

LoG had less of the micro-management issues that sets like Empire did. You *can* start messing with each individual unit's formation, but the command limitations are such that you'll burn all of your time telling a few battalions what to do instead of commanding your corps. Each battalion/regiment is represented, but the rules encourage you to use them as brigades or divisions.

LoG1 works best with each player commanding a corps or less. I could see it really slowing down if one tries to move more than that. The new edition is supposed to retain the original innovations from the first edition while streamlining the play sequence to make it more user-friendly.

You are correct that we have many choices for rules today, and every person will have their favorite set(s) depending on what level of combat they wish to depict.

I personally moved from the Empire series of rules into Napoleon's Battles. For a time I really enjoyed being able to do the larger battles of the period and run multiple corps with ease. Eventually I decided I wanted to worry about many of the more tactical decisions that the higher-level games like NB, V&B, Grande Armee, etc. abstracted out.

LoG strikes the right level of detail for me since each unit is depicted, but you as the nominal corps CO will have an easier time of things if you move your troops in bridage or divisional formations. There are times where you will need to tell a battalion or regiment what to do to respond to a specific threat/opportunity, but for the most part if you try to micro-manage an assault, you will have less or no control over units in other GTFs (grand-tactical formations… usually brigades or divisions).

We managed to get in about 1.5 grand-battle turns (about 3 hours of simulated time) in 3.5 hours. Pretty good for the first time out IMO.

The key, to follow up on what Bart said, is to treat divisions (or large brigades depending on what army you are running, 1806-1807 Prussians for instance) as *units*. You do not issue orders to battalions, you issue orders to whole divisions.

Also as he mentioned, you certainly can issue tactical directives to individual battalions or regiments but you end up doing a lot of work and giving a lot of initiative to the enemy. Exactly like Ney at Jena. Ney took control of his advanced guard and road off into the fight, the bulk of his two divisions continued with their orders to march to X location and deploy. Once there, those two divisions *just sat there* because Ney wasn't issuing them more orders, he was micro managing the advanced guard. If you want fall into that trap – you certainly can, but much like the historical generals … we do not have to.

The key difference I see between Empire and LoG is that Empire requires one to play at each command level, LoG makes you pay to play at each command level.

Cheers,

The Bandit