"Foundry Napoleon review - nice book, shame about the rules" Topic

I picked this book up for £20.00 GBP (RRP is £25) at Phalanx at the weekend. I'd read one review which made the rules sound quite appealing, and the book certainly looks nice. As a relative beginner to Napoleonic wargaming the contents of the book certainly appealed to me – plenty of background information on the armies and campaigns, painting guides and pictures of the multitudes of different troop types employed by the armies. And in that respect the book doesn't disappoint, as it will be a very useful resource to me. (Although I've since discovered that Osprey have recently released "Armies of the Napoleonic Wars" which covers a lot of the same ground and probably does it better.)
However, it's a shame that the high production values of the book as a whole don't also apply to the rules, which have clearly not been proof-read or playtested. Well certainly not by any competent proof-reader or playtested by anyone independent to the rules writing team. The rules are littered with inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions, and are unplayable without a major re-write.
I'll give a brief overview of how the rules work and then highlight some of the problems. Many of these were apparent immediately to me on a first read-through of the rules, and I have noticed more problems with further reading. I have not attempted to play the rules, and probably will not.
The rules start with information about collecting armies, basing and generals. Detailed army lists (with points, and special rules for each army) are included later in the book. A unit (6 bases of infantry) represents a few battalions (I think). About 4 of these make what a division. Each general has a rating, typically about 7 or 8, depending on the army and year and adjusted by a random dice roll.
Each turn the players roll for initiative – this will determine which player activates first. Then we come onto the part of the game that appealed to me when I first read about it, and what prompted me to buy the rules. Every unit within engagement range of the enemy must be given an orders card indicating its action for the turn (for example Charge, or Retreat, or Stand and Fire). When activated each unit must roll less than the divisional generals rating on 2d6 (so typically around a 50% chance of success) in order to activate and carry out the required order. So units that are some distance from the enemy are free to manoeuvre as they like, but units closer to the enemy are more restricted. I like this way of simulating the friction and fog of war and command and control.
So it's a good idea (IMO) but it's not executed well, and has some problems.
The engagement range is the higher of the units own charge move and any enemy charge moves within range. So if a unit of Light Cavalry (charge range 16") and a unit of infantry (charge range 8") are 10" away from a unit of enemy infantry, the Light Cavalry must place an order card and roll to activate, whilst the infantry unit is free to manoeuvre as it pleases. So by having a longer move rate, the cavalry is more restricted !
Order cards are only placed when the unit is within engagement range, and otherwise the unit moves in the movement phase when it cannot move within engagement range. This means if the Light Cavalry is 17" from the enemy at the start of the turn it moves in the Movement phase and can only move 1".
There is no "Manoeuvre" order or equivalent. So once in engagement range a unit of cavalry cannot manoeuvre into a position to attack the flank of an enemy infantry unit.
The other problem is because of the relatively low chance of activating units – around 50%. Personally I think every infantry unit should be allowed to fire as a default action, but this needs to be rolled for and some armies with low rated generals (e.g. Russians) will only fire about every 3rd turn ! But the big problem arises when you want to charge with multiple units. For example, let's say three columns of infantry (attack with 2d6 each in close combat) are facing a line (attacks with 6d6). You would think the columns should stand a good chance of success. But each one has to activate separately, so the likelihood is that only one or two will actually charge and then they will face more dice from the line than they have in total and so will probably lose the combat.
Back to the turn sequence : Orders are placed, artillery fires then orders are revealed and acted on alternately, the player with initiative acting first. Then other units (ie ones outside of engagement range) may shoot, then move, then morale checks are taken. Casualties are caused to units by shooting, combat and fatigue. These build up and must be recorded. If the unit has taken casualties in the turn, it must roll below its total casualties (number of dice depends on unit type) or fail morale. One fail means it goes to "Lost Orders" when it may take a random action, another failure means it routs. Until they rout, units fight and shoot at full effect – there is no gradual deterioration in effectiveness, no weakening of the units before routing.
I'll give a few more examples of problems I've noticed :
Artillery need to roll a different number if firing into the flank – however, what constitutes firing onto the flank is not defined.
On one page it states that artillery is more effective when shooting at a unit in column (as would be expected) – however the artillery shooting table shows that it easier to hit a unit in line (4+ on each dice) than in column (5+) so artillery is actually more effective against infantry in line than in column !
In the section on orders it states that the player with initiative must move first in the movement phase, and this counters some of the advantage they had for activating first in the Tactical Orders phase. However, on the very next page (under movement) it states that the player with initiative may choose to go first or second.
There are no rules for interpenetration (passage of lines) which is something I would expect to see in this scale rules.
Skirmisher capability is included within infantry units, and supposedly detailed in the special rules for each army. However, I could only find rules for skirmishers in the French army special rules – maybe they are the only army that gets them.
Under shooting it mentions splitting shooting at multiple charging opponents – however this cannot happen due to the alternate activation system the shooters can only react to one charging unit so can only shoot at one charger.
And there are other such inconsistencies, too many to mention.
To sum up then – it's a nice book, and will probably prove very useful, but the rules, whilst having one good idea, are not playable in their present form. If you want a book full of pictures of nicely painted figures with plenty of background information on the armies then it might be worth getting. If you want the book for the rules, don't bother.

Blimey does not read well.

I think you have misread a lot of rules.

Have another read or even play a few games.

Got to say that, even though it's strongly negative, this is the most detailed nuts-and-bolts review of the game mechanics I've seen on the subject.
Cheers for posting that, Mark.

"I think you have misread a lot of rules."

Which ones ?

"Have another read or even play a few games."

The more I read it, the more problems I find. As I've said, I consider it unplayable so how can I play a few games ?

The rules for depicting skirmisher units is in the advanced section, page 80.

I'd say you still need to play a few games. It's not unusual to read a set of rules, and believe something doesn't work; but after playing it begins to make sense. Or, of course, you could find other inconsistencies.

But, bottom line, playing the game makes a world of difference. It's like reading the news about a particular country, but then going there and finding out that it's not was bad as portrayed.

"The rules for depicting skirmisher units is in the advanced section, page 80."
Yes, I know that. I was talking about the basic rules for skirmishers where each line infantry unit gets a number of skirmisher attack dice. I think French for example get 2 dice, as detailed in the French army special rules. But I couldn't find this for any other army.

"I'd say you still need to play a few games. It's not unusual to read a set of rules, and believe something doesn't work; but after playing it begins to make sense"

Yes I would in general agree with that. I wouldn't make any comments about how a game plays without playing it first. But when the rules say one thing on one page and a different thing on another, how can you even play the game ?

I think there's probably a good game in there – it just needs a complete re-write to bring it out.

"The engagement range is the higher of the units own charge move and any enemy charge moves within range. So if a unit of Light Cavalry (charge range 16") and a unit of infantry (charge range 8") are 10" away from a unit of enemy infantry, the Light Cavalry must place an order card and roll to activate, whilst the infantry unit is free to manoeuvre as it pleases. So by having a longer move rate, the cavalry is more restricted ! "

Just as an example , you have this back to front.

"Just as an example , you have this back to front."

I'm sure I don't. Of the friendly cavalry and infantry, the cavalry is in engagement range, the infantry isn't. The enemy infantry is also in engagement range – maybe that's what you mean, but I was referring to the friendly infantry.

Maybe you could explain what you think I have wrong about this example ?

Re mutual Engagement Ranges …

Last paragraph page 40:

"All units able to charge or be charged are considered to be within engagement range. On occasion, this will effectively increase a unit's own engagement range if they themselves are within range of a faster unit."

So if a light cavalry unit is 10 inches from an infantry unit both are in Engagement Range and both must place Command Cards.

As for the no Manouver card. I would just issue an Advance and Fire order and ignore the fire aspect for cavalry (there are rules for shooting cavalry but I wouldn't as it goes against my personal view on what Napoleonic cavalry generally did in a battle). I can't think of a reason why the cavalry can't wheel during their move. But I may have missed something! 8O)

It was possibly my review you read. As per the review it was posted after one game at the Foundry Open Day because there was a clamouring for information. Both myself and my 12 year old son enjoyed the game. I have not yet played another game, though this will soon change. I'm still not saying that they will be my rules of choice but I think they have enough of interest to trial them further. Different rules give me different types of games.

Salute
von Peter himself
web.mac.com/nataliendpeter

"Re mutual Engagement Ranges …

Last paragraph page 40:

"All units able to charge or be charged are considered to be within engagement range. On occasion, this will effectively increase a unit's own engagement range if they themselves are within range of a faster unit."

So if a light cavalry unit is 10 inches from an infantry unit both are in Engagement Range and both must place Command Cards."

Yes I agree with all of that, but that's not the point I was making. What I am saying is that a friendly infantry unit that is next to the light cavalry is not in engagement range. So the infantry and light cavalry are the same distance from the enemy, yet the infantry is free to manoeuvre without restriction, whilst the cavalry cannot and must roll to activate. The cavalry is more resticted because of it's longer move distance.

"It was possibly my review you read. As per the review it was posted after one game at the Foundry Open Day because there was a clamouring for information."

Yes it was, and very useful I found it. The trouble is, you were playing the game the way you were being told, rather than by reading the rules and playing it according to the rules.

Well it says "engagement range is the higher of…own…[or]..enemy charge"

Light cavalry charge 16", own [infantry] is 8" the higher is 16" so the infantry is in engagement range even though it's 10" away as the 'range' is considered to be that of the higher, in this case 16".

Effectively units exert an engagement zone of control equal to their charge reach. Any enemy that comes within that are onsidered to be engaged.

In this instance you have I'm afraid mis read – though I'm inclined to agree with your overall sentiment. I don't even think the background info is much cop, it makes Osprey look like academic research of the highest order!

If I understand MM's point, it is that 2 units on the same side next to each other (one cav and one inf) both the same distance from an enemy unit will not have the same options for 'orders' as the cav are within charge range and must attack where as the infantry are not in range and can manoeuvre right up to the enemy/away from them?

If so I think that what he is saying then is that the faster more rapid response cavalry have their options limited to move because they have a quicker move rate where as the slower infantry have more movement choices?

Michael.

aha Zippees post makes sense, not sure I like that rule but seems clear…

Yes, angelbarracks, that is correct. Although they have more options than just attacking the enemy, they are in engagement range because of their longer move. So light cavalry, who should be very mobile, will virtually always be in engagement range and so will always have to place order cards and roll to activate.

Zippee, no I haven't misread. You haven't understood the point I am making.

Ooops, my bad!! 8O)

One could argue that the cavalry could get into engagement (launch a charge) if it wished so a finer level of control is required.

BTW the number of dice you roll to action a Command Card could be 1, 2 or 3. It depends on distance of the general to the unit:

1 * 'd6' if the unit is the nearest unit to the general so this one unit is generally guaranteed to perform as required … until the division (I don't like the choice of term here) starts getting damaged

else

2 * 'd6' if the general is within 8 inches for inf or 16 inches for cav
3 * 'd6' if further away

So placement of generals matters. You probably got that as well, but others may not. 8O)

Salute
von Peter himself

"Yes, I know that. I was talking about the basic rules for skirmishers where each line infantry unit gets a number of skirmisher attack dice. I think French for example get 2 dice, as detailed in the French army special rules. But I couldn't find this for any other army."

Ah, right'o, the Prussians have 2 D6, page 93. Why Austrians can't have some of their third line represented in this way I don't know.

What about British ? Surely they should have skirmisher ability also?

"So placement of generals matters. You probably got that as well"

Yes, I did, and I agree – it means you will get one guaranteed action from each division. So if you attack with three columns, one will go in, the other two may or may not.

I have only played one game but in the game one of the players used his Light cavalry to slow down the enemy infantry (i.e. stop them marching) by getting engagement range, this allowed him to keep his infantry & artillery marching & capturing a hill.
So it can be used both ways it just depends how you use your cavalry.

With regards to maneuvering within engagement range we used the "Advance & Fire" order

Also, we found that order activation failed about 25% of the time, the CinC was used to help a couple of times.

We really enjoyed the first game

"What I am saying is that a friendly infantry unit that is next to the light cavalry is not in engagement range. So the infantry and light cavalry are the same distance from the enemy, yet the infantry is free to manoeuvre without restriction, whilst the cavalry cannot and must roll to activate. The cavalry is more resticted because of it's longer move distance."

I'm not sure that this is a bad thing. If the cavalry is "restricted" it's because it is in range to have to act or react to the enemy. His brother infantry unit is not, so he should retain his freedom to maneuver.

Of course, the enemy infantry unit is restricted because he's facing a potential threat from the enemy cavalry.

"Yes, I did, and I agree – it means you will get one guaranteed action from each division. So if you attack with three columns, one will go in, the other two may or may not."

I don't see this as much different to many other rules that will make you take a morale check for each of the three columns which could give the same result.

I have no issues with having to roll to use a Command Card. I don't demand full control of my army in a game. I think that a real battle was a chaotic thing with limited control from those higher up the food chain. Bad things happen and the fools wont always do what I want.

My current thinking on the Engagement Range mechanism is that even if it has some flaws I'm probably going to be happy to live with them given the goodness that it provides. Of course I am still a one game veteran! If experience teaches me that units fail to often I'll change it – perhaps to equal or less than the generals command rating. Hell, I can't play a set of rules without changing something!! 8O)

Salute
von Peter himself

"it means you will get one guaranteed action from each division. So if you attack with three columns, one will go in, the other two may or may not."

I don't have a problem with the concept that all my units won't do as I want…for me, that's just another way of capturing the friction of war. The idea that units may not act when and how you want is reality; they can be held up by terrain issues, poor execution, fear, etc. It makes leadership important -- as it was, and is.

"Personally I think every infantry unit should be allowed to fire as a default action, but this needs to be rolled for and some armies with low rated generals (e.g. Russians) will only fire about every 3rd turn ! "

I think the units that failed command can can volley fire ?
I think the only restriction is that they haven't moved more than a standard move ? Units that fail command just remain stationary , so should be Ok to volley fire ????

"What about British ? Surely they should have skirmisher ability also?"

I think the answer to this question lies on page 143, under the Highlanders army list entry. It says that Highlanders were unusual in the British army in that they still allowed their light companies to skirmish, while other line companies 'frowned upon' the practice, preferring to leave skirmishing to 'specialists' (I assume the author means Light Infantry Battalions).

Even with my very limited reading on the subject, this is bobbins. British light companies, I believe, formed skirmish screens just as every other nation of the period did. In fact, at Waterloo (and maybe beyond, but my knowledge is limited) they even sent the Grenadiers out on skirmish duty sometimes.

And to top it off, the Highlanders don't get a special rule to represent their skirmishers – they get a bonus in combat for their ferocious charges instead (I think this rule owes more to 'Braveheart' than 'Waterloo').

"I don't have a problem with the concept that all my units won't do as I want…for me, that's just another way of capturing the friction of war. The idea that units may not act when and how you want is reality; they can be held up by terrain issues, poor execution, fear, etc. It makes leadership important -- as it was, and is."

I agree completely. As I stated, the mechanism of having to place order cards once within engagement range was the concept I liked when I read about the rules. I just don't think it has been executed well.

If I was going to try and fix these rules, I would change it as follows :
1) you are only in engagement range when you are within the enemy charge range (so not your own)
2) You can give order cards to any units, not just ones within engagement range. So if you intend to move a unit within the engagement range, you have to give it an order card.
3) a group of units within command range of a general can be given a single order card, which they act on a a group.
4) infantry units can always fire as a default action

"Zippee, no I haven't misread. You haven't understood the point I am making."

I mis read you then.

Mostly because I don't understand why you'd see this as a problem. The enemy infantry are restricted in their manouvres due to your cavalry's influence, allowing your infantry to prepare itself in peace. Imagine that it was artillery sitting next to the cavalry – the enemy infantry have to sit under its guns [potentially at least] due to the threat the cavalry pose. Seems eminently sensible IMO.

In this instance I don't see the restriction on the cavalry (if it is a restriction and not an opportunity) as something bad – it reflects the role they are playing quite well.

"And to top it off, the Highlanders … get a bonus in combat for their ferocious charges instead
"

really?

Thanks vmuch for posting that – saves me a lot of time, I hate that sort of utterly a-historic nonesense in a specific period historic set of rules.

"I think the units that failed command can can volley fire ?"
The rules aren't very clear on this. I think the normal assumption would be that the movement and firing phases are only for units which have not been given an order card.
But you could read it as you have done, that infantry can fire in the volley phase if they failed a command in the orders phase.

Zippe said "The enemy infantry are restricted in their manouvres due to your cavalry's influence, allowing your infantry to prepare itself in peace. Imagine that it was artillery sitting next to the cavalry – the enemy infantry have to sit under its guns [potentially at least] due to the threat the cavalry pose. Seems eminently sensible IMO."

And I agree with this – the enemy infantry should be restricted because of the presence of the cavalry. But why should the cavalry be restricted ? Why shouldn't they be allowed to move away to another part of the battlefield ?

[I don't understand why you'd see this as a problem. ]

I think what he's saying is this:

Defender is a line of infantry.

Attackers have a lt. cav. unit and an infantry unit.

As the attackers approach the defender, the Lt. Cav. will get into "engagement range" first, and thus be restricted, while the infantry still won't be. Thus there is a sort of zone in which cavalry becomes less reliable, and infantry isn't.

The book to me conveys a certain level of knowledge, one where a some Napoleonic myth/gaming folklore is perpetuated?

But, maybe it is just there for a laugh, which is fair enough.

I would have loved to have seen more depth of research done for Austrian, Prussian and Russian Armies.

Could it be that the rules are not designed to produce a good game, but rather to sell figures?

Style triumphs over substance. That is normally the case with rules produced by figures manufacturers.

Hmmm that skirmish line rule on British seems odd, especially as I can cite a primary source for a Line Regiment (Gratton) where he commented that in battle they rarely saw their light company as it would be part of the Divisional Skirmish screen. One wonders also why the Irish Regiments do not get the Highlander charge rule as well (or do they?).

"Thus there is a sort of zone in which cavalry becomes less reliable, and infantry isn't."

But the cavalry did their job and made the enemy unit think twice about getting uppity for that game turn.

Also, is that not a way of representing mutual support, whereby the cavalry has locked the enemy infantry into certain reactions whilst friendly infantry close? A blunt way of representing it mind you, but that scenario feels right.

Besides It will certainly stop the usual wargame inane stupidity where all the cavalry goes gallivanting off by itself; To the edge of the board we go to flank the enemy Sir? No Sir, you will stay to support the infantry by god!

I See this balderdash all the time.

I think the game is not meant to accurately represent simulations of Napoleonic Battles, but rather as a fun and easy rules aimed mostly at pick-up games. I don't think it takes itself too seriously, either.

Having said that, I have two simple questions; have you played them and, if so, are they fun to play?

"Hmmm that skirmish line rule on British seems odd,"

Indeed, tis a most unusual claim the author makes.

I think the game is not meant to accurately represent simulations of Napoleonic Battles, but rather as a fun and easy rules aimed mostly at pick-up games. I don't think it takes itself too seriously, either.

And yet, we are quoting from a rule on page 143…

I do not understand these "You have to play it a few times" comments. Why force yourself to play something you don't like, just to "get it right".
This sounds like me sainted mother's admonition that you have to keep eating olives until you learn to like them.
My philosphy regarding rules is "If at first you don't like them, give up." Your first instincts are usually correct over whether you will like it.
I don't play wargames rules to "learn something", or "to get it right". I PLAY wargames rules for enjoyment. I play complicated rules for enjoyment, and I play simple rules for enjoyment. I don't play rules that seem like they don't know what they are talking about, or that contradict themselves. Life is too short for that.
That goes double if I think the rules make mistaken historical assumptions.
There are hundreds of Napoleonic rules out there. If I tried a set once, and did not like them, I would toss them in the "nice try, but I prefer 'Cuirassiers et Chasseurs'" pile.

"Also, is that not a way of representing mutual support, whereby the cavalry has locked the enemy infantry into certain reactions whilst friendly infantry close? A blunt way of representing it mind you, but that scenario feels right."

Yes it's fine that the cavalry has locked the enemy infantry into certain reactions. But why should the cavalry itself be locked in ? With an engagement range of 16" the light cavalry will be within this range virtually anywhere on the board, so they will always have to place command cards and roll to activate. And they can't march move, whereas infantry in the same position could. So what should be the most mobile troops on the board actually become the least mobile.

angel13 wrote;

"I think the answer to this question lies on page 143, under the Highlanders army list entry. It says that
Highlanders were unusual in the British army in that they still allowed their light companies to skirmish, while other line companies 'frowned upon' the practice, preferring to leave skirmishing to 'specialists' (I assume the author means Light Infantry Battalions)."

Where did the Foundry author get this from???

There are NUMEROUS examples in 'Waterloo Letters' of each British Brigade forming each bn's. skirmishers into an ad-hoc skirmish bn. with the express purpose of skirmishing in front of the Brigade.
The only British units that may not have done this were the 95th and the three Light Bns. who would be skirmishing anyway.

Cliff

MM I think the best course of action is to use your house rules.
Whilst there are gamers that think there are rules police out there, there is not.

If your house rules make it a fun game then you have won.

:D

John,

Yes, but won't you at least try them once? Is reading a ruleset enough to make a definitive opinion of them?

John,

Yes, but won't you at least try them once? Is reading a ruleset enough to make a definitive opinion of them?

A quick read through of WRG 7th convinced me…

Toute rθgle admet des exceptions…

"Yes, but won't you at least try them once? Is reading a ruleset enough to make a definitive opinion of them?"

The problem seems to be that there are contradictory rules in there too though – so how do you play them? It sounds like the OP has spotted several such contradictions, which means that he isn't sure how to go about playing them, never mind giving them the benefit of the doubt and seeing how they play.

"With an engagement range of 16" the light cavalry will be within this range virtually anywhere on the board, so they will always have to place command cards and roll to activate. And they can't march move, whereas infantry in the same position could. So what should be the most mobile troops on the board actually become the least mobile."

Remember the convention throughout the book, all measurement is done centre to centre from a units front rank for measuring range, charges.

from the section about issuing Command Cards -
"all units *able* to charge or be charged are considered to be within Engagement Range".

Combine the above with the measuring convention and they are hardly going to be restricted by engagement range all the time. there are just too many variables from game to game for a claim like that.

How a gamer deploys is their choice, no requirement exists to place Light Cavalry in the front line. After all, it (along with battle cavalry) were a supporting arm to the Infantry, not the other way round.

If you think the rules are worthwhile, change it so that engagement range is 12" for all cavalry.

Personally, this set has enough to intrigue an old grognard like me (most others fail) and I'm happy to change or ignore what I think is naff.

Besides, its a shiny thing and the Eagle loves shiny things!

"A quick read through of WRG 7th convinced me…"

Sorry WRG Ancient rules haven't been a quick read since the 3rd edition back in 1974. WRG Ancients are aimed at rules lawyers who will argue with you endlessly about the placement of a comma.

I enjoyed FoG for a while until I realised that was now being taken over by the same breed. So back to the Horse & Musket where we are much civilised about things.

Over the years I have concluded that you can judge a rule book by the way it's written. You may play a few games to confirm your fears. I've never had a set of rules I didnt like on first reading to play better than I thought they would.