"Are you a completely fun napoleonic wargamer ?" Topic

Paddy Griffith's Napoleonic Wargaming for Fun describes 7 ways of playing Napoleonics (for fun!).

How many have you tried ?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Don't have the book
Who is Paddy Griffith ?
What Book ?
Not a Napoleonic Wargamer
Not a Wargamer
Don't believe napoleonics should be played for fun.

It would be a better poll if you listed the seven ways.

Does one of them involve scantily clad babes and jello ?
Cuz……..that seems like it might be fun.
Especially if I get to wear a bicorn. Sideways. On my …

I find that I'm a more fun player when I drink rum or vodka. When I drink gin I become a moody, melancholic, and occasionally violent player.

So I guess the question for me is: Are vodka or gin martinis being served at the game?

;D

Fun & Napoleonic. I didn't think those two words were meant to go together? ;0)

Don't have the book

mjc

It would be a better poll if you listed the seven ways

Not really.

The seven options are : skirmish, divisional, brigade, army level, Generalship game, Map kriegsspiel, tactical exercise without troops.

But I listed options 0-7 for people who have the book to stae how many of the 7 they've tried.

Listing the 7 options individually would only cover the 7 options corresponding to selecting "I have played 1 fun way".

To cover the option of having played 2 of them would need a list like this :

skirmish & divisional
Skirmish & brigade
Skirmish &army level
.
.
.
divisional & brigade
divisonal & army level
.
.
.
army levelo & tactical exercise without troops
.
.
.
and then the options for 3 games and 4 games and 5 games and 6 games and phew the 1 option for 7 games

It'd be a long list.

Dont have the book. How bout a description and where to buy if possible. I cant say I have ever had fun playing Napoleonics. The era interests me but the rules Ive been exposed to dont.

TMP link

No i personally prefer realism to fun.

How sad for you.

I've read through the skirmish, divisional and army rules so far. The division rules look great though I don't like order writing. I'd do some sort of card movement or something to replace them. I'd also make the artillery combat more random than deterministic, more like infantry combat.

WAR IS NOT FUN, NAPOLEONICS IS WAR SO NAPOLEONICS CANNOT BE FUN!

(snicker)

Why on Earth would anybody put themselves through ANY set of Napoleonics rules unless they were enjoying themselves?
To enjoy oneself is by definition having fun.
If you deny that you are having fun, you must be a real masochist, and need professional help.

Have you tried "Mistress Mandy's Strict Napoleonic Wargaming", John?

YouTube link

I'm told that the turn flow charts are lifted straight from "Empire V".

Allen

Back to the topic: Paddy is a nice bloke, but I feel he seldom pushes the envelope quite enough. Regardless of the topic, he always seems a bit staid and conventional. I'd like to see him break out and incorporate some true innovations. Babes and Jell-O might be a bit much, but it would be interesting to see if plastic film and vegetable oil could be worked in.

Allen

I play and enjoy skirmish, which I never thought I would do, but thanks to Sharp Practise I have changed my mind.

Mostly I play and enjoy brigade v brigade to division v division level, because I like units that are big enough to form line, square and column on the table, and I like one unit to represent an infantry battalion or cavalry regiment. I am still 'shopping' for the (ahem) perfect rules for this, and have some hopes for LaSalle.

I sometimes also play games up to corp v corp level, by breaking up my division worth of four-base battalions into battalions of two or one base each.

I am not interested in rules where each base represents more than one unit, such as a brigade. At the moment anyway. I wasn't interested in skirmish a year ago.

Fun Napoleonics? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Oh, hell. Even Empire V can be fun, if you let someone else do the heavy lifting, and you just move, shoot and roll.

Nazrat, if you do not demand realism from your game system for the era of your interest, you are simply tossing dice. Tactics and others considerations need to be used to give a feel to games on any era.

A person cannot get the full benefits of a game and enjoy the era of play without some aspirations. So I feel sad for you as well.

Ah, Fun with eminent military historian Paddy Griffith ---

I recall the night Paddy and I, after much wine, played my 'Bombers over Libya game' where I rode on his (quite hefty) shoulders through his living room dropping some sort of small object onto a layout of white paper pieces, one of which was marked as a hospital.

In the full version of the game, someone would have thrown frisbees at us. Genevieve Griffith had, however, already retired, so we did without.

Later on we shot BB guns at a crude drawing of a bridge, pinned to a tree in his garden. I believe I was simulating long range artillery fire, or something. It was quite dark and our efforts were not successful. We had more wine.

That's what historical gaming is all about!

Rudy, to quote a great and wise man, "Why on Earth would anybody put themselves through ANY set of Napoleonics rules unless they were enjoying themselves?
To enjoy oneself is by definition having fun."

You apparently seem to think fun and realism must needs be separate. I can't imagine a more misguided view of gaming.

It's interesting that many folks' recollections of Dr. Griffith's games include the phrase "after much wine". That was certainly the case with every one we attended at Sandhurst. It also goes for many memories of COW, even post-Paddy.

I'm still waiting for anyone to adequately define "realism" in wargames. Been waiting since about 1975. No ORSA in the Army could ever do it. The closest I ever heard to something that made sense was, "We'll know the simulation works right when it gives us the results we want."

Allen

That sounds suspiciously like St. Anselm's Ontological Argument for God's Existence, Allen.
That and the Japanese Navy's pre-battle gaming of Midway.

And as the Japanese found out, it doesn't make for a good game.

As Justice Potter Stewart said, "I may not be able to define realism in a wargame, but I know it when I see it."

Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote, "Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late."

But why should I trust a guy named after a cat and a snack food?

"skirmish, divisional, brigade, army level, Generalship game, Map kriegsspiel, tactical exercise without troops."

I've done six of these for Napoleonics (well, alright, the TEWT was actually for a hypothetical Prussian invasion of Britain, but it was essentially Horse & Musket), so perhaps one of those multiple choice thingies would be the way to go?

Whether any of these particular types of games was 'fun', depended more on the rules in use (if any) and who I was playing with, rather than the command level being represented.

Napoleonic skirmish never appealed to me though, and these days it is all bloomin Sharpe & Harper and nothing else as far as I can see.

No nazrat, In order for it to be fun it must be realistic. I have stated this on so many previous threads. Withour realisim, to me it cannot be fun.

I am excited, I am Off to another convention. The first since the operation. Everybody take care.

Are you saying, then, that all 7 sets of Paddy Griffith's rules are particularly unrealistic ?

Genuine question, not a snark.

I didn't realise the question referred to actually playing Paddys rules, I thought it meant the general methods – map game, TEWT etc. TEWTs don't really have any rules.

No one has listed Paddy's 7 rules yet…

"No one has listed Paddy's 7 rules yet…"

20thmaine did so at 5.24pm or 23 September (see above)(I quote):
"The seven options are : skirmish, divisional, brigade, army level, Generalship game, Map kriegsspiel, tactical exercise without troops."

I haven't played any of Paddy Griffith's rules.
But I am IMO a fun wargamer.
I also like Napoleonics.
But am seeking a way to combine sentences 2 & 3 successfully. It relies upon either going solo or finding a like minded opponent.

The TEWT (tactical exercise without troops) can be fun, particularly if you meet at a nearby pub (cafe, gasthaus), walk the battlefield for a bit, then retire to the pub.

To be completely accurate, I read only five types of game in Paddy's introduction. The Generalship game is a different approach to the Army Level game. The Map Kriegspiel and TEWT are different ways to play multiple levels of game.

There are of course other ways to play multiple levels of Napoleonics, most developed after 1980:

- Matrix games (mentioned in the Foreword by Arthur Harman, but formally introduced after the original publication if the book),

- Committee games, championed and executed superbly by Dr. griffith himself. (The Generalship game can be a form of committee game, as can a staff planning game.)

- Free Kriegspiel, different from rigid Map Kriegspiel,

- Muggergames, also developed by the man himself.

For definitions of these and others, consult the WD Handbook:

PDF link

Allen

Surely to 'have fun' at Napoleonics one only need roleplay historical characters?

Madmen, lunatics, psychotics, control freaks, cowards, foolhardy blowhards, political intrigue, hussars, pinma-donna-ism, national stereotyping, Napoleonic delusionals, Napoleon, General Markov who kept mixing up rivers and roads on maps, international allied infighting, Spanish, Gerard, monkey-hanging,

come on you should be trying harder!

"Madmen, lunatics, psychotics, control freaks, cowards, foolhardy blowhards, political intrigue, hussars, pinma-donna-ism, national stereotyping, international allied infighting, monkey-hanging,"

You Could have saved space and Written "TMP members chararacteristics"

:D

4

1

(Skirmish)

Wasn't very impressed.

- Allan

Iys an interesting book, although games and mechanics have overtaken it. However I always found his inability to say Die and call it a damned nugget grated.

Allen wrote,

"We'll know the simulation works right when it gives us the results we want."

I think hats whats know as proving the model;s integrity.

Your Jello idea sort of prooves the model's lack of integrity……

Both these techniques are probably just as valid.

I have played four of the 7 – divisional, brigade, army level and Generalship. I had fun, on the whole the people I played against had fun. Admittedly this was 20 years ago when we were so much younger and had considerably fewer pre-conceptions of what Napoleonic rules should be like. These rules were also my first foray into 2mm figures!

The first rule of Paddy's rules is, you don't talk about Paddy's rules!

I know how to have fun. I just don't want to.

I've done them all but the skirmish. I do them as intelectual exercises that I enjoy.

Mostly I do Divisional/Corp level games.

I'm lucky to have a like minded set of gamers that allows me to indulge my interest.

If you don't think Napoleonics is 'fun'…you just don't know how to play it….

link

Mr Clay, that game looks wonderful! I wish I had the temperament to mix food, beer and miniatures.

Whilst I'm not 'officially' a Napoleonics war-"Gamer" yet, my plans, once I have enough miniatures painted, definitely involve Skirmishes, with an emphasis on blending pulpy fun (based on the adventures portrayed by Messrs Bean and Gruffudd) with whatever tidbits of accuracy I'm currently digesting.

We keep having trouble with the horses. All they want to do is stand around eating, …then they poop. When we fire the cannons they poop lots on everything and run away. It's really hard keeping the park clean so we had to hire a whole army of poop pickers to follow the horses around, and after the guns go off they're running around following the horses, …then they get in the way.

The local magistrate said he wouldn't let us actually shoot at real people so we have to use store dummies. The horse poop pickers tried pulling dummies on wheels behind them so we could shoot at them but that didn't work either. The wheels weren't big enough so the dummies kept falling over. You know how hard it is to keep redressing those dummies especially when their arms and legs keep falling off every time they fell over. I'm really glad they don't bleed. Imagine what a mess that would be, with all that red everywhere, especially around the horses. Lots of red horse poop.

After a while you can't tell one sides uniforms from the other with all that red from the fake blood and the brown from the horse poop. Not only does it smell bad but it stains all our nice white pants. Glad I have tall boots. Some of the guys had to get hip-waders because of all the horse poop.

Wargaming is hell! Smells bad too. It's really hard to talk on your cell phone near the cannons when they want to fire too. Guess I'll have to learn to text… Will

To me wargaming, and the process of building an army, is a distraction from my stressful everyday life. It's fun to do the research, get an army together, paint it to reasonably represent what I intend it to be, and play games with like minded friends.

Those who take this process too seriously won't do well in our group of gamers. Our lack of concern for niggly details, exact formations or exact "regulations" wouldn't sit well with many of the so called experts on this forum, which is why we play V&B most of the time.

I laughed so hard at Will's post I almost wet my pants. Thanks for that bit of humor. Bob Graham

Clay – when I write rules to generate battles for campaigns step one is always "open a beer"!