Arteis | 08 Jun 2009 11:36 p.m. PST |
There's a very useful review of the new Foundry 'Napoleon' rules on the website of my fellow Kapiti Fusilier, von Peter: link |
de Ligne | 09 Jun 2009 1:43 a.m. PST |
|
NoLongerAMember | 09 Jun 2009 2:20 a.m. PST |
Hang on, they use command cards for each units orders that are placed and revealed, but they don't show light troops because of the clutter factor? Does not compute
|
JJS001 | 09 Jun 2009 2:25 a.m. PST |
How much for the 232 page, full colour, hardback book? |
raylev3 | 09 Jun 2009 2:29 a.m. PST |
Agreed
gives a good feel for the rules and what makes up the book. |
mad mac | 09 Jun 2009 3:44 a.m. PST |
Hmm no light troops shown because of the clutter factor – OK I can work with that, but I agree with FreddBloggs, and it's not just the order cards, its the counters/markers as well. The photo looks like casualties were being resolved by playing tiddly-winks, although I am sure this would not be insurmountable, and wouldn't stop me getting the rules and having a go. |
nsolomon99 | 09 Jun 2009 3:47 a.m. PST |
|
NigelM | 09 Jun 2009 4:20 a.m. PST |
This is what the review actually says about skirmishers; 'Skirmisher Fire resolution As it says though there are some caveats as to when firing is possible. Organic light infantry companies from line units, light infantry battalions and rifle detachments are all catered for. Skirmish fire is considered simultaneous.
The oddity here is that the organic light infantry companies of line units are not represented on the table by figures but are assumed to be there. The rationale is that they just clutter the table too much. If this doesn't suit your taste of aesthetics then there is nothing to stop you putting your voltigeurs etc on the table top.' So it's only light companies of line units not represented by skirmisher models so Rifle/Light/Jager etc battallions are represented. If you look in the game pictures there are some skirmishers. I guess if individual light companies are shown they wouldn't be any room left for the counters etc. ;-) |
NoLongerAMember | 09 Jun 2009 4:34 a.m. PST |
NigelM, it wasn't the skirmishers being there or not, but the rationale that it adds to table clutter, when they use a clutter based command system. If you are fighting at Divisional level, no skirmishers need modeling as on the scale they are too small so can be considered part of there parent unit. |
Cerdic | 09 Jun 2009 4:58 a.m. PST |
The order card system looks interesting. I'm always willing to try an alternative to I GO/U GO. |
NigelM | 09 Jun 2009 5:43 a.m. PST |
FreddBloggs, I am aware you were referring to the contradiction between removing light troops because of clutter then adding in all the counters etc. The impression given by your post is that there are no skirmishers at all but von Peter's review states that it is only light companies of line battalions that are abstracted out. Of course I don't have the actual rule book to check this. |
CATenWolde | 09 Jun 2009 8:15 a.m. PST |
Some of the rules sound intriguing, especially the command cards and morale rolls. I can see that some creative use of figures for markers (leaders with abbreviations of the command for the command cards, casualty figures, etc.) would be needed. However
why are they calling formations of 4 battalions a division? That is a brigade at most, and an understrength one at that, but more usually brigade. Are they "bathtubbing" the formations or just engaged in some creative nomenclature? It seems that the rules are aimed more at the GdB level of play than, say, Shako? I would be interested in a comparison with GdB. At any rate, thanks for the review! Cheers, Christopher |
Albino Squirrel | 09 Jun 2009 10:15 a.m. PST |
Thanks for posting the review. The rules definitely sound interesting. It sounds like using miniatures for game tokens would be difficult. If you use officer miniatures for the orders, with the order written on the bottom of the base, then all of them have to be exactly identical so your opponent won't know what order it is until it is revealed. And you'd need a lot of them, as there are many orders. Causualty figures might also be a problem. It looks like a unit can have a dozen or more casualty tokens. That's a lot of casualty figures. Markers with numbers on them would be less cluttered looking that one token for each casualty, so that's a possibility. But making enough casualty bases with different numbers on them would be a pain. Unless you could get ahold of those bases with rotating disks in them that some games use so you could set that to the number of casualties. And now that I think about it, if you had steel bases, you could have all the orders on magnetic strips and attach them to the bottom of whatever officer base you wanted to give the orders. That way you'd need far less officer models for giving orders, and your opponent wouldn't know which order you were giving. |
ArchiducCharles | 09 Jun 2009 10:26 a.m. PST |
- Markers with numbers on them would be less cluttered looking that one token for each casualty, so that's a possibility - d12/d20 dices should work fine I would think. Simple enough, and every gamers I know have tons of those lying around, from their D&D days. |
Albino Squirrel | 09 Jun 2009 12:22 p.m. PST |
Should work fine for you, perhaps, ArchiducCharles. As for me, I have a bad habit of accidentally picking up any dice sitting out on a gaming table. I guess it helps that the rules appear to only use D6, so I would have no reason to need to roll a D12 or D20. But I'm sure I'd manage to absent-mindedly pick them up anyway, or at least clumsily knock them over. So for me, getting some numbered tokens would be well worth the trouble. I do like the idea of casualty figures on a base with a selectable number dial built in. Clearly denotes the number of casualties while not disrupting the visuals much. But that might be difficult to implement. Does anyone know a place that sells bases with those rotating selectors in them? |
CATenWolde | 09 Jun 2009 12:40 p.m. PST |
Fielding a large number of extra officer figures or casualties would be difficult in the larger figure scales, but is very easy in 5/10mm. For casualties etc. you could use a single casualty for "singles", two casualty figures on a base for 5's and three figures for 10's, etc. I'm using figure markers for everything in my 10mm ACW project and it makes a big difference in the look of the table. A little bit of effort, but better than those unsightly piles of poker chips! |
M C MonkeyDew | 09 Jun 2009 1:12 p.m. PST |
The casualties might best be recorded on a roster
IF it is a simple matter of keeping a tally for each unit, hash marks on lined paper would work well and be easier to count up as needed as opposed to sorting through piles of chips. |
kiwipeterh | 09 Jun 2009 2:40 p.m. PST |
Re the light companies of line battalions – I've looked it up. The first paragraph from page 53, 6. Skirmish Fire Resolution, Light Infantry Companies: "Many line units of the Napoleonic period included at least one light company – a small body of men which would detach themselves in a skirmishing group in front of their parent unit. We don't generally use miniatures to represent these skirmishers as doing so can make the battlefield look very cluttered and confusing (though if you wish to represent them, you'll find rules allowing you to do so on page 80). Instead it is assumed they provide the parent unit with extra fore power." Pages 80-81 have the advanced rules for Light Infantry & Skirmishers. So accordingly you can put the light companies of line battalions on the table if you wish. Re the Command Cards and casualty counters: I'm sure that more aesthetically pleasing methods could be employed to note these. I don't think that the photos of the event should detract from the rules. Here's one solution to the casualty counters
though you may need more than one of these for some units: link And thank you to those who have said 'thank you'. Hopefully I have provided a part response to the clamouring for information. I am a one game veteran after all!! 8O) Salute von Peter himself web.mac.com/nataliendpeter |
blucher | 09 Jun 2009 2:50 p.m. PST |
I have to say this is an excellent review. I wish there was a review of every rule set like this! I think they actually sounds quite interesting. Im tempted to try them in a big battalion game with only a few units per side
|
Mithmee | 09 Jun 2009 7:43 p.m. PST |
Well I have no problem with not having Skirmishers on the table. Though I think the rules give the Lt Companies to much a chance to cause hits. I like the break down of the units into Militia, Line, Elite & Guard. But I do not like is that no figures/bases are removed. I prefer that casuality caps be used and once have been placed on an unit a base/element is removed. I had a SYW game were a new player was not placing his casuality caps on his unit that was in a built-up area. So when he was told that he needed to placed them he put them all on the battalion that was in the rear of the area, instead of placing them randomly as the rules called for. I was not a happy camper due to this so I just stormed the area and destroying most of his Bde. I also do not like the alternating UGO – IGO would much rather have this done by a random system. As for the Command Cards you could decide to have an unit run but it cannot since it failed it command check roll. Also I prefer that units check Morale when after they lose a certain amount of figures. The game is set for 1/30 an if you are running with a large Austrian Bn of 40 figures or around 1200 men you roll badly and they could be routing after losing just 30 men. Also not a big fan of Napoleonic rules that use just d6's. d10's give a larger range of results. Plus if you are within 5 inches shooting will cause loads of hits since you only need 3+ to hit. |
NoLongerAMember | 10 Jun 2009 1:25 a.m. PST |
Lack of Casualty removal has a disadvantage when facing the British Line as well, there were several instances in the Penninsular where casualties made the Regiments close up, normally to the centre and the Colours, and it left gaps between Regiments. One of the disadvantages of the 2 man line. |
50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick | 10 Jun 2009 3:20 a.m. PST |
Granted I'm just looking at the charts, but does it seem that the musketry ranges are awfully long? Twenty inches for musketry, when an infantry unit covers only about 6-8" of table? |
blucher | 10 Jun 2009 4:16 a.m. PST |
It isnt really fashionable to have figure removal these days. Fair enough you guys like it but I for one do not. While its true that sometimes frontage would be reduced by casualties this was rare. Mostly the rear ranks would fill in the gaps. Frankly Im sick of games being written with too much attention of the famous british 'two ranks'. In most cases casualties would not effect frontages so unless you have specific basing to accomodate it becomes very tricky to do. What concerns me more is the lack of disorder or blown status, especially for cavalry. |
NigelM | 10 Jun 2009 4:19 a.m. PST |
Ranges etc seem to be aimed at 25/28mm figs. I would suggest halving or converting to centimetres for smaller figs. |
Albino Squirrel | 10 Jun 2009 11:01 a.m. PST |
Shouldn't musket ranges have more to do with the ground scale than the figure scale? There's probably no specific ground scale in the game, since they want it to work for any basing. But if their suggested basing results in their line battalions being around 8"-12" long, then a musket range of 20" seems a bit too long. I'm assuming a battalion in line would take up somewhere between 100 and 200 yards, but maybe I'm wrong. |
CATenWolde | 10 Jun 2009 11:28 a.m. PST |
Yep – the average battalion occupied about 150 yards of frontage, so maximum effective musket range should be 2/3 of battalion frontage. If the above measurements are correct, then they have scaled musket range at about 300 yards
which is maximum *canister* range for artillery! Oh oh
|
50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick | 10 Jun 2009 11:30 a.m. PST |
I guess if the game is REALLY tactical, then you could dispense with artillery range altogether and just say that a cannon ball can fly across the table, any distance, unless it hits something. I don't have any problems with range or movement abstractions. But just as a practical matter, since most people will be playing on a 4' wide table, and presumably setting up within about one foot of each edge. That means that the opposing sides will be within musketry range as soon as anybody twitches! I hate it when people criticize elements of a game they've never even seen, so I'm guilty as hell for raising this point in a vacuum like this, mea culpa mea culpa
. But shouldn't canister be a somewhat longer range than musketry? They appear to have musketry ranging effectively out to 15", but canister only to 12" ? |
Mithmee | 10 Jun 2009 1:01 p.m. PST |
Well if you take a Battalion of 720 men who are form up into three ranks that would give you 240 men per rank. Now given that you would have around 24-30" (2.0-2.5') of space for each man that would give you a frontage of around 480-600 feet or 160-200 yards. Now depending on the table top game distance which is usually 20/25 yards = 1 inch than the Ranges that they are using are about right. |
50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick | 10 Jun 2009 1:29 p.m. PST |
[Well if you take a Battalion of 720 men who are form up into three ranks
] But if you assume that the skirmishers are deployed – as they assume here – then it's more like 600 men in the ranks. And that's if the unit is fresh off the parade ground. Realistically, probably more like 500 standing in the ranks after skirmishers have been deployed, so I'd guess around 120 yards of frontage. Basically the battalion frontage is probably about the same as musketry range. What's the size of an average infantry unit in these rules? Surely not 15" !? Anyway, there might be a lot more to this than is evident from the charts. I'm just wondering why musketry is so long, and longer than canister range. |
Connard Sage | 10 Jun 2009 2:17 p.m. PST |
It gets a bit more muddy Although muskets have a maximum range of 20", according to the rules (p54), they can't hit at that range in line, column or any other formation. Only light company! skirmishers can (p53) Even better, on the same page (53), rifles have a range of 24"! Equivalent to maximum 'effective range' of all artillery. I think there's some FoW style telescoping going on. The above is based on a quick read through of the rules. Bite me. |
Albino Squirrel | 10 Jun 2009 2:53 p.m. PST |
I'm not trying to criticize the rules here, or convince anyone they aren't good. I have never played them or even read the rules, and only know about them from what people have said in this thread. But I do have to decide, based on that limited information, if I want to spend the money on the rules. And I'm also trying to determine, if I get these rules and want to play them, what effort will be required in terms of gaming counters and rules adjustments to my scale and basing, etc. As I Ate More Beans Today mentioned, with a 4' wide table, two opposing armies are going to be in volley range pretty quickly. I'd probably use 6" onto the table for deployment, which would help, but still the range seems pretty far. And I don't see what you mean, Mithmee. At a ground scale of 1" = 25 yards, that means that musket range is 500 yards. That doesn't sound right at all. But again, I haven't played the game or even read the rules. Connard Sage says that even though maximum musket range is listed as 20", they can't actually hit anything at that range. So maybe things work out in other ways. Still, I like gaming in 10mm, so I'd probably be using much smaller bases than they suggest in the rules. And so I'd probably want to alter the ranges anyway, so that musket range was closer to the width of the regiments I was using on the table. I'm not sure if movement rates would need to be changed a proportional amount, but those don't seem too high to me. At any rate, there's no point starting to tinker with rules I haven't even read. Like I said, I'm just trying to get an idea of how much effort would be involved in playing this game if I did like the rules enough to give it a go. |
Mithmee | 10 Jun 2009 6:49 p.m. PST |
With the ground scale being 1" = 25 yards than you get the following: Though I do not know what the ground scale for this game is. It might be 1" = 20 yards. At 1" = 25 yards you have: 0-5" would be 0-125 yards 5-10" would be 126-250 yards 10-15" would be 251-375 yards Now Musket Ranges back then could reach out to 300 yards but the accuracy was horrible. Plus from the many sources that I have read the real effective range for Muskets was 0-100 yards. At that range units could see around a 50% chance to hit. This drops to around 30% when shooting out to 200 yards and 20% or less out to 300 yards. So this game is using d6's for shooting though d10's would have be better. The chances to hit at short range is 50% (3+), 33% (5+) at medium and 16% (6) at long. So this is in the realm of being realistic. The only problem is that it is taking the max range out to almost 400 yards if the ground scale is 1" = 25 yards. Also skirmishers are far to strong in both movement (as fast as Lt Cav) and shooting (being able to shoot out to over 400 yards). Come on we are talking about 100 men or so. Kind of reminds me of the old Battleground games from Talonsoft. I just love it how I could get 75 casualities from 25 skirmishers. I know what the writer did, he wanted nice round numbers, which is what you get with 0-5", 5-10" & 10-15". The problem is that Muskets were horrible pass 275 yards. Also there is no Volley Fire for Rifles. While this would only apply to the Britsh/KGL, there should be one since Rifles were far more accurate than the Musket. |
50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick | 10 Jun 2009 7:07 p.m. PST |
[10-15" would be 251-375 yards
Now Musket Ranges back then could reach out to 300 yards but the accuracy was horrible
. 16% (6) at long. So this is in the realm of being realistic.] A 16% chance to hit somebody with a musket at 375 yards is "realistic" ? Again, who knows what other mechanics are at work in the game to mitigate this, so I won't judge them.
But I think you might want to reconsider your ideas about smoothbore accuracy! |
Mithmee | 10 Jun 2009 8:40 p.m. PST |
When I mention being Realistic I was referring to needing to roll a 6 which is means at long range you have a 16% chance to hit. Doing this out to 375 yards is totally wrong and allowing skirmishers to shoot pass this is even worst. I would drop the whole 10-15" range completely and just go with a shooting range of 0-10" in total broken down into two ranges 0-5" and 5-10". I did not write these rules and as I stated I do not know what the ground scale that it uses. But given that they are using a 30/1 figure ratio then 20/25 yards for ground scale would be about right. Or I would use the following: Short/Effective Range: 0-4" (covers 0-100 yards) Medium Range: 4-8" (covers 101-200 yards) Long Range: 8-12" (ocvers 201-300 yards) I would also use the following table for Musket Volley Fire and use d10's. Range Short Medium Long Elite/Guard 5 7 8 Veteran 5 7 9 Regular 6 8 9 Militia 7 9 10 This would give muskets the right feel for accuracy and also gives the better troops a higher chance to hit at a distance. I would also throw in a special rule on if you throw three 1's out of the six dice you are running low on ammo. Do it three times and that unit is then out of ammo. |
Clay the Elitist | 10 Jun 2009 8:58 p.m. PST |
I appreciate the review and the author did a good job. I was really into the review and enjoying the author's comments right up until I saw the photos of the game with the command cards and tiddly winks on the table. In fact, I physically moved AWAY from my pc (it looked that ugly). Now I know that doesn't really affect the rules. I'd suggest some markers be made with just the order on them – not the complete description. And for casualties, you can use rocks glued to coins – in varying amounts. To see what I mean, you can check out my battle reports here
link |
Mithmee | 11 Jun 2009 12:10 p.m. PST |
Which is why I prefer using Casualty caps and once a unit has gotten enough to cause a removal of a base it is removed and put over in an area for casualties. As for unit removal from the tabletop it happens in one of two ways. First it is destroyed totally. Second it runs off the table due to routing. This does not mean that once it routs for the first time it is removed. No it needs to actually run off the table. I watched a Napoleon's Battle game where the Spanish Army reach it break point and suddenly the nearly 24,000 Spanish that were still on the table just vanished. I want those units running on the table top just like the Prussians did in 1806, since they will cause problems for their owner. With a roll of d6 it is far to easy to fail a morale check which should be a percentage roll using 2d10's. Most rules have no way to represent the Russian Battalions that died to the man protecting the Redoubts. They are written that once a units routs it is pick up and removed from the tabletop. Well if you had two battalions of Austrian routing that still had around 1800 men left in them those men just do not suddenly vanish. Yes they will be running back to their rear but they do not vanish. They may well end up running off the table top possiblity causing other units to become shaken or to break. |
50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick | 11 Jun 2009 12:26 p.m. PST |
[Most rules have no way to represent the Russian Battalions that died to the man protecting the Redoubts.] Wargames always exaggerate the bloodiness of battles. It's both necessary, and frankly fun, to say that units "died" or "broke." But in reality, actual numbers of men killed were pretty small as a percentage. Even in a bloodbath like Borodino, the Russians only had about 6% KIA. I doubt there ever was a whole battalion that "died to the man" in any war. I suspect a good many of them ran away, no matter what the epics tell us. One thinks of a battle like Albuera, in which the British contingent suffered 40% casualties – one of the worst examples of carnage in the Napoleonic Wars
. and yet the total number of men actually *killed* was less than 900 (about 3%). Anyway, if a player really wants to game out the process of men running away, then there are plenty of rules that allow him to do so. Personally, I think that's something better left abstracted, because I don't think players should be moving broken men on the table. It offers too many opportunities for controlling the uncontrollable. Not to mention that we have to move broken troops using their nice, rectangular formed bases, which is clearly absurd, since they'd be streaming back, scattered and spread out all over creation, no longer in any recognizable formations, and obviously no longer obeying the wargame-physics of formed troops for things like interpenetration, width and depth, etc. |
Connard Sage | 11 Jun 2009 2:29 p.m. PST |
I doubt there ever was a whole battalion that "died to the man" in any war. I suspect a good many of them ran away, no matter what the epics tell us. Ishandlwana was pretty bloody. But it probably is one of the exceptions that prove the rule. |
Mithmee | 11 Jun 2009 6:54 p.m. PST |
Yup that is correct that was actually more than one British Battalion worth of men (1329) loss there. Plus some all that I have read about the battle of Bordino the fighting for the Redoubts was quite nasty. As for losses in KIA/WIA the French lost around 28,000 out of around 130,000 or around 21.55%. The Russians lost anywhere from 38,000-44,000 out of around 120,000 or 32.08%-36.67%. For the French the initial KIA was around 6,562 in the battle and the rest were wounded. Now unless the wounds were very minor I would say that the majority of the serious to very critical wounded died after the battle. Since the medical support back then was quite poor. This would be probably higher for the Russians. Actually when we normally move those nice bases that have for our troops they are usually together in a nice Line or colunm formation. Or something like thes below examples. XXXXXX XX XX XX If they are broken they would be more like this: X X _X X So they would be broken and running away to the rear in no formation but still close together. Now either they rally or they don't and they keep running. There is nothing to control and if they did rally the rules should have them drop down one step so if they were Regular Troops they would now be treated as Militia. Having them running to the rear is far more realistic then having them suddenly vanishing from the tabletop. |
Andrew Wellard | 12 Jun 2009 1:43 a.m. PST |
The ground scale for firing seems to be 20 yards = 1 inch. Maximum range for heavy artillery is 60" = 1200 yards so about right. 300 yards for musketry would do some damage against formed bodies of troops but not much. On the other hand 24 figures (the standard infantry unit) probably does involve some bath-tubbing. Maybe they represent a regiment. But then infantry regiments were of wildly differing sizes. Mainly I bought the book as a nice picture book, which it is, and hoped to find the odd new rule idea (not sure about that) but did not actually intend to game with them. |
50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick | 12 Jun 2009 6:28 p.m. PST |
[Having them running to the rear is far more realistic then having them suddenly vanishing from the tabletop.] Except that you're controlling something that should be uncontrolled and unpredictable. Not to mention using formed bases to depict men who are scattered all over creation. Now, if your opponent moved your broken bases for you
that might get interesting! |
Mithmee | 12 Jun 2009 6:37 p.m. PST |
Or you could have them move in a random direction by rolling a die. They just need to be moving back towards your rear table edge. The main reason to leave them on the table is that they will be causing you far more problems by getting in the way of your units. |