"What I did/didn't learn about the era from TMP rules threads" Topic

Once in a while I explore taking up this era. Whatever happened to that store owner from Ohio who would run a Napoleonique game on Sundays at Historicon?

I just read probably every thread that seemed to deal with rules sets back to Jan 2006.

Almost always, the descriptions of the set are mainly a comparison to some other set. Not helpful if you don't know any sets. Also lots of alphabet soup abbreviations; again meaningless.

I do gather that broadly speaking there are 3 operational scales. Just not sure what they exactly represent, and what sort of game flavor it provides – from trying to get into a square in time, to Napoleon himself directing Corps at Borodino.

I'd like to see a table of rules organized into the broad Operational Scales, and also include this info:

Operational Scale: The total forces on a side are what (Company to Corps) and each unit is a ??? and units are one "block" base or multiple bases (representing ???) that might need to be arranged to show formations like square.

Ground scale -- with a 4x8 or 5x9 table, what battles could I recreate, in various figure scales? This is important as to what figure scale to decide upon collecting.

Written primarily for what figure scale, and usability with other scales?

Is it a "figures on linear bases in ranks" or a "figures on a big rectangle" system?

Roster/marker or casualty (fig/base) removal?

Size of bases used (by scale). There do seem to be some semi-standard basing schemes ???

Notable for emphasis on something (combat, maneuver, command control…)?

Notable for lack of emphasis on something?

Seems like every rules set has a different take on how to abstract the disparity between the size of the bases (especially depth) and the ground scale.

There also seems to be a difference in uniforms depending on "early" or "late" but I've seen figures described with different year ranges for the style depicted. A table of such for all the combatants would be useful when deciding what figures to collect.

Basing seems to be the most problematic area. Are there some combinations of figure scale and base sizing that allow you to use the same troops to represent a large operational unit scale with one set of rules, and a smaller scale with some other rules?

Another useful comparision for a newbie would be to list various battles by size of forces involved, and show the table size needed to do that battle, in various scales, with various rules sets (eg ground scales).

What actual frontage does a Corps, Brigade, Battallion, etc want to occupy?

Someone made an interesting distinction between Maneuver and Movement. Do some rules cater towards maneuver?

>>>
In the period, where large actions were concerned, the amount of manoeuvre conducted within a formation was generally in portion to there place in the hierarchy. So the elements of a Corps (Divisions and Brigades) did more than the elements of a Brigade (Battalions).

Let me not confuse manoeuvre with movement here. What I'm referring to as manoeuvre is turning movements and shifting tactically from point to point on a battlefield. Movement is the space you have in terms of distance to travel on a table top.

At different levels of game these can be very different.

If you want manoeuvre to be represented you need table space – so big table/small scale figures. If only a Division or single Corps is represented 28mm figures and a limited movement are fine, as the scale of activity represented by say a Division per side, is not far off directly to their front.
>>>

If you are truly a newbie I wouldn't try to get caught up in this stuff.

Instead, get your feet wet and forget about all the nuances. Your best bet is to play the rules played by groups near you -- every time. Doesn't matter what rules they use.

If you don't have a group near you then you need to take a look at something . . .well simple.

To this end.

Shako II might be the number one selling rules right now and they are fairly simple.

Age of Eagles is another well tested system (essentially Napoleonic Fire and Fury) also fairly simple.

Both of these lend themselves to solo play if you need that aspect.

When starting out, don't get too hung up about basing -- use white glue on poster board for a while -- it's easy to re-base when you finally decide -- I still have figures based this way.

Now hold your breath, because you are going to get way more advice than you know what to do with.

mjc

What about, "Are they any good?" ;)

Not bad suggestions.

Sounds like a big research project. No offense, but just who do did you have in mind to do all of this? It would be nice to compile such data, but given the vast amount of resources out there, it would be one heck of a lot of work. Speaking as a past President of HMGS-Great Lakes, there are always a lot of good ideas, just not too many volunteers to make them happen. Would you care to volunteer? Since you are new to Napoleonics you won't have many biases as to rulesets and figure scales.I know the hobby would benifit. Seriously it would be a useful project for many new and veteran gamers.

>Since you are new to Napoleonics you won't have many biases as to rulesets and figure scales

Sure -- send me copies of all the rules.

Quid -- recommending some rules by name tells me nothing ABOUT them. Not even their operational scale, which is probably the most basic decision to make since it affects figure purchase (scale & quantity).

I actually have Napoleonique Encore. Maybe a copy of the original too.

How come trial and error and personal research works for most people? Where did this "I want it on a plate and serve it to me NOW!" attitude appear from?

I blame Nintendo.

That is indeed a lot of specific information.Probably the only important piece of information is actually what the basing system is, then you know you can play a game, like it, or dislike it, and take it from there.
In the end a ruleset can fulfil all the right criteria, and you still wouldn't like it. If you only looked at a set of rules because they ticked the "right" boxes you easily could be missing out on mechanisms that were exactly what you wanted.
Plus, of course you are relying the subjectivity of who-ever compiles such a list….much in the same way that you relied on your mummy to say "Open wide,here comes the choo-choo" when you were a kid.

Another suggestion is do some more reading on the period not rules. Find out what sparks your interest, is it the maneuvering of battalions and the intricate nuances of time and distance or is it the idea of large formations smashing into one another. Does the fine detail interest you or is it the broad strokes of the period. Then come back with a list of what you are looking for in rules to represent your take on the period which will give you a more informed opinion on the period.

Other wise you will get a list of favorite and least favorite rules from all us Nappy gamers, which are all based on our individual knowledge and prejudiced views of the period.
William

The guy who ran Napoleonique and had the store sold it. He also was srlling off his figs.

Thanks,

John

You miss my point entirely.

For what it's worth -- the basic unit in Shako is the battlion. Basic unit in Age of Eagles is often the brigade 1/120.

As mentioned above this isn't at all helpful-- even for buying figs. Get the rules, read them and then by figs. But before you do that try to hook up with the local group. It really is the best option.

mjc

I happen to agree with quidveritas's advice, with one caveat. If the local group are "rolling their own", and using odd basing standards, you may find yourself adrift if you move or if the local group fades away.

Both Shako and Age of Eagles use fairly standard basing schemes, and that's not a bad thing to keep in mind.

Allen

About us (Napoleonic TMP Posters)
1) We all like to recommend our favorite rules over and over (see if you can pick mine out below).
2) We tell new comers to go find their local group and just play whatever they do.
3) We warn you about how much there is to know about the period and how confusing it can be, this note will go on to express how likely it is to take over your life.
4) We are well intentioned regardless so hopefully you do receive some helpful advice.

Now, to answer your questions …

One quick warning, I don't speak directly to your maneuver vs move question very well, but if what I have written is helpful and you would like further discussion I may be able to speak to that point.

REGARDING EARLY / LATE WAR UNIFORMS:

The uniforms of the period for many nations changed somewhere around the midpoint. Some players feel the practical time and expense of painting two armies to represent the early and late period, or restricting themselves to one or the other is silly so they just paint and use the figures as they like. Others feel this first approach is full of scandal and do the opposite (either paint up units for both or only play the period they paint).

Regardless, uniforms were complicated and everyone is an expert (or a novice) depending on the thread they are posting to. The largest issue for a new comer in this area is figuring out what you don't know. Some wargamers want to cry when the discover that horse furniture was a specific color in each army or that pompoms had a color code because they've already done several hundred figures, "the wrong way." As in all periods, research is king, but unlike some (Sci-Fi, Fantasy, some other historical periods) uniformity of painting wins over a certain degree of creative imagination.

GAMES I KNOW DECENTLY WELL:

Empire (I, II, III, IV, V)
• Units are infantry battalions (3-7 stands of 2-4 figures each), cavalry regiments (2-12 stands of 2 figures each), artillery batteries (gun stand plus 2-5 figures)
• Players command an army corps of multiple infantry and/or cavalry divisions/brigades
• A game would be at least one small corps per side and could be as large as one could field the troops and table for. The rules are suitable for large engagements.
• Ground Scale: 1:50 meters, a 4x8 or 5x9 table would be the minimums for a small(ish) game.
• Figure Scale: 15mm is primary, 6-10mm would also work quite well, 25-28mm becomes very difficult due to the table space needed.
• Figure to Man Ratio: 1:60
• Figure Basing: linear stands, typically 2-4 figures across though variation is fine, what is important is the frontage per figure.
• Casualties can be handled by figure removal.
• Basing Scheme: same used for most other 1:60 scale rules such as LoG, Corps d'armιe, Garde du Corps, Battles for Empire, etc.
• Notable for emphasis on players making decisions at all levels of command.
• A large French corps (say ~450 figures in three divisions plus infantry and cavalry), deployed with two divisions forward and one behind will take up perhaps 4' of width but it is very typical for players to "smash" them into smaller frontages (often just two feet with no space between battalions).
• Brigades and divisions maneuver in theory but in practice, due to the emphasis on detail it is easy for players to maneuver battalions (rather than just move them) causing games to become overly tactical.

Comments:
The problem with Empire is that it encourages players to command at every level from deploying skirmish companies from each battalion and later recalling them all the way up to grand tactical orders for divisions and corps. This leads to a very large amount of overhead even for players who are very familiar with the rules. The incredibly over the top use of national characteristics caused a bad taste in the mouth of many gamers as towards v. IV and V the French and English became gods while the others just stood there and got shot.

Corps d'armιe
• Units are infantry battalions (4-6 stands of 2-4 figures each), cavalry regiments (2-12 stands of 2 figures each), artillery batteries (gun stand plus 2-5 figures)
• The formations players command can range, typically a brigade or division but could be scaled up.
• A game would be at least one large division per side and could be as large as one could field the troops and table for. The rules are suitable for large engagements.
• Ground Scale: 1:50 meters, a 4x8 or 5x9 table would be comfortable for games with a division or two per side.
• Figure Scale: 15mm is primary
• Figure to Man Ratio: 1:50
• Figure Basing: linear stands, typically 2-4 figures across though variation is fine, what is important is the frontage per figure.
• Casualties can be handled by figure removal.
• Basing Scheme: very close to what is used for 1:60 scale rules such as LoG, Corps d'armιe, Garde du Corps, Battles for Empire, etc. Slightly different dimensions but minor enough it could be ignored.
• Notable for emphasis on providing a framework that players could use with a given scale of engagement.
• Notable for lack of emphasis on specifics above divisional command and lack of national characteristics.

Comments:
I have not played Corps d'armιe but they read as very solid rules for players commanding brigades or divisions, likely some holes if you scaled up to players commanding army corps. Does not use national characteristics but does use troop quality levels.

Legacy of Glory (LoG)
• Units are infantry battalions (2-6 stands of 3 figures each), cavalry regiments (2-12 stands of 2 figures each), artillery batteries (gun stand plus 2-5 figures)
• Players command an army corps of multiple infantry and/or cavalry divisions/brigades
• A game would be at least one small corps per side and could be as large as one could field the troops and table for. The rules are suitable for large engagements.
• Ground Scale: 1:50 meters, a 4x8 or 5x9 table would be the minimums for a small(ish) game. Depth is just as important as width as divisions are likely to seesaw during assaults.
• Figure Scale: 15mm is primary, 6-10mm would also work quite well, 25-28mm becomes very difficult due to the table space needed.
• Figure to Man Ratio: 1:60
• Figure Basing: linear stands, typically 3 figures across though variation is fine, what is important is the frontage per figure.
• Casualties can be handled by figure removal.
• Basing Scheme: same used for most other 1:60 scale rules such as Empire, Corps d'armιe, Garde du Corps, Battles for Empire, etc.
• Notable for emphasis on command and control.
• Notable for lack of emphasis on tactical combat decisions.
• A large French corps (say ~450 figures in three divisions plus infantry and cavalry), deployed with two divisions forward and one behind will take up perhaps 4' of width. Two feet per division for frontage is about right, of course this depends on the number of battalions in that division.
• Placing two infantry stands front to back would create a 3x2 base of 6 figures – in this way figures based for LoG or other 1:60 games could be used for rule sets such as General de Brigade where a player might play smaller actions commanding a brigade or division.
• Divisions maneuver, the smaller elements just move blindly in the given direction of their parent formation, players do not make any real decisions at the battalion level.

Comments:
Regarding the emphasis on command & control … players primary concern in this game quickly becomes, "when will my orders *happen*?!?" There is no instant radio control, you issue an order to a given division and compute the delay until it will activate, then it happens and the division continues to execute that order until a new one is issued to it by the player, the objective of the order is met or the division is no longer able to conduct the order.

Another notable thing regarding LoG that speaks to your initial post is that while players issue orders from the corps to the divisions, battalions are present in divisional formation (typically two or three waves). The battalions essentially just move forward, the division maneuvers to a given position where its axis of attack or defense be and sets up there to either hold or assault just as you note.

LoG was largely a reaction to Empire and sought to maintain the scale and emphasis on high level control by removing the necessity of player decisions at the lower formation levels.

Battles for Empire (BoE)
• Units are infantry battalions (2-6 stands of 2, 3, 4 figures each), cavalry regiments (2-12 stands of 2 figures each), artillery batteries (multiple gun stands plus 2-5 figures per gun)
• Players command an army corps of multiple infantry and/or cavalry divisions/brigades
• A game would be at least one small corps per side and could be as large as one could field the troops and table for. The rules are suitable for large engagements.
• Ground Scale: 1:50 meters, a 4x8 or 5x9 table would be the minimums for a small(ish) game. Depth is just as important as width as divisions are likely to seesaw during assaults.
• Figure Scale: 15mm is primary, 6-10mm would also work quite well, 25-28mm becomes very difficult due to the table space needed.
• Figure to Man Ratio: 1:60 (optional rules for 1:30 scale)
• Figure Basing: linear stands, typically 2-4 figures across though variation is fine, what is important is the frontage per figure.
• Casualties can be handled by figure removal.
• Basing Scheme: same used for most other 1:60 scale rules such as Empire, Corps d'armιe, Garde du Corps, Battles for Empire, etc.
• Notable for emphasis on being largely a copy of Empire and emphasis on tactical decisions though many players use the optional rules for 1:30 scale fighting to increase the size of battalions.
• Notable for reduced emphasis on national characteristics (its one great variation from Empire).

Comments:
Battles for Empire was largely a reaction to the Empire rules series but dumbs down the national characteristics that are so notable dominant in that series. Implements similar concepts in other ways, remains highly detailed at the tactical level.

Napoleon's Battles (Napy's Battles)
• Each unit is a brigade
• Player commands a corps
• Each side is one or more corps.
• Ground Scale: I believe 1:100 meters, a 4x8 or 5x9 table is fine for a decent size battle, couple corps per side.
• Figure Scale: 15mm though sometimes used with 25-28mm.
• Figure to Man Ratio: 1:100
• Figure Basing: linear stands, typically 2 figures by 2 figures (4 per base) with ~24-36 figures per brigade
• Casualties can be handled by figure removal.
• Basing Scheme: compatible with several other systems (I believe with Age of Eagles), other rules sets used this basing system because this game was popular (similar to how many games use the 1:60 basing because Empire was popular).
• Notable for emphasis on playability above all else, brigade move about as though controlled by radio so long as you roll well on your command rolls, tactical control.
• Notable for lack of emphasis on command and control, any aspects that would fall into "simulation" vs "game."
• Frontage of a corps is perhaps 18-24" in a "compact game" which seems popular with these rules.
• Brigades maneuver largely as they please so long as they stay within "command radius" or a player rolls high enough.

Comments:
Napoleon's Battles is meant for large scale engagements, it is highly playable, you can pick it up quickly and run with it. There are very few charts, modifiers, or rolls. The game suffers from being overly simplistic in the eyes of some but is popular due to its scale and ease of play.

Hope some of this was helpful and spoke to your questions.

Cheers,

The Bandit

WHAT CHANGED WHEN:

In the early war (1804-1808) French corps numbered 17-35,000 men, typically organized in 2-3 divisions plus a brigade of cavalry. There were one to two cavalry corps during this period made up primarily of heavy and dragoon divisions. The French Army was nominally 7 corps plus the cavalry and the Imperial Guard. This is the force that participated in most of the famous campaigns during the early war.

The Allies were using army organization based on the Seven Years War with the division being the largest permanent field formation. Ad-hoc corps or sometimes "columns" were formed of the divisions on the eve of campaign or sometimes mid-campaign, even on the eve of battle. These ad-hoc corps and columns suffered from horrible staff coordination causing slower reaction times than what the French could do.

During the later war (1809-1812, 1812-1813) the French Army got dramatically larger over and over again. Corps grew in their number of divisions and divisions grew in the number of battalions while the quality of troops dropped and the number of cavalry was greatly reduced.

The Austrians and Russians begin experimentation with permanent army corps similar to the French model. By 1813 this has been done by all the Allied Armies as general practice. The size of their armies have gotten huge as well. The battles of 1813 are the largest the periods sees.

In 1814 the French Army is largely rag-tag, hardcore veterans and elites backed up by rabble, or was it the hardcore vets backing up the rabble?

The Allied forces in 1814 are of similar makeup as the French, everyone has been at war for 15-20 years and is darn tired.

REGARDING THE SIZE OF VARIOUS ENGAGEMENTS:

LARGE BATTLES: A large portion or the majority of each participating army is engaged, might be considered "general actions." These are the famous ones on the main continent (primary theater stuff, excluding Spain).
Austerlitz 1805 – 73,000 French vs (maybe) 85,000 Russians & Austrians
Jena 1806 – 96,000 French vs 53,000 Prussians
Eylau 1807 – 75,000 French vs 76,000 Russians (both numbers are soft)
Friedland 1807 – 80,000 French vs 60,000 Russians (both numbers are soft)
Aspern-Essling 1809 – 30,000 (rising to 75,000 but most not engaged) French vs roughly 100,000 Austrians
Wagram 1809 – 170,000 French & Italians vs maybe 150,000 Austrians
Borodino 1812 – 130,000 Frech, Italians, Poles, Germans vs 120,000 Russians
Lόtzen 1813 – 50,000 rising to 110,000 French vs 73,000 Prussians & Russians
Bautzen 1813 – 100,000 French vs 50,000 Prussians & Russians (both numbers are soft)
Dresden 1813 − 70,000 rising to 150,000 French vs 120,000 rising to 170,000 Austrians, Prussians, and Russians
Leipzig 1813 – Everyone (200,000 French, Poles, Italians, Germans vs 365,000 Russians, Prussians, Austrians, Swedes, Germans)

CORPS SIZED BATTLES: There were a ton of division to corps sized engagements (where there was at least a division or corps per side) throughout the period. Auerstδdt in 1806 is the most famous of them but also many others, here are a handful:
Auerstadt 1806 – Davout's French Corps (28,000) vs the Prussian Main Army (65,000)
Pultusk 1806 – Lannes's French Corps (19,000) vs a large Russian force of perhaps 40-50,000
Golymin 1806 – Davout and Augereau's French Corps against a small Russian force
Heilsberg 1807 – Lannes and Soult's French Corps vs a large Russian force
Eckmόhl 1809 − 36,000 rising (maybe 60,000) Davout's French Corps vs 35,000 Austrians

I'm doing all this from memory so please forgive any errors. There are lots of battles available for any given rules set or scale but the real question becomes: What battles do you want to play and then match a given rules set to them.

• Napy's Battles – Suitable for large battles with small(re) tables and less troops, not suitable if there is less than a corps per player.
• LoG, Empire, BFE – Suitable for larger battles but require large tables and a lot of troops, not suitable for anything where there is less than a couple of formations (divisions, brigades) per player.
• Corps d'armιe & General de Brigade – Suitable for smaller battles, likely hard to scale beyond corps sized engagements though people do and seem to enjoy it, it takes a large commitment of know-how, players, figures, and table space.

Cheers,

The Bandit

"How come trial and error and personal research works for RICH people?"

Fixed your typo.

*******

Nobody around here to hook up with, so I can suit my own taste once I determine what it is.

*******

Bandit – really excellent stuff.

So generally a 4x8 to 5x9 table can handle "corps size" battles, but maybe only the smaller ones up to two corps on a side?

How can you do the "large battles" on that table size? Go down to 6mm figures on scaled-down base sizes? Or use Napoleon's Battles?

The 1:50 to 60 rules generally have battalion units and want at least a Corp in total.

The 1:100 Napoleon's Battles has the same upper limit of a couple Corp on this table size, but can handle more Corps.

What's a Brigade in this era?

Are there national standards (perhaps being developed) for number of divisions per corp, etc?

Sounds like the early period has very different command control problems on each side, so that is interesting if the rules portray the qualitative differences. In the later period everyone has copied the French, so there are only differences of quality.

Are there national standards (perhaps being developed) for number of divisions per corp, etc?

So now someone needs to describe rules sets suitable for the large battles on a 4x8 to 5x9 table size, without resorting to microscopic base sizes.

Hi Bandit,

Thanks for the breakdown of the rules. I have two questions when you say:

"A large French corps (say ~450 figures in three divisions plus infantry and cavalry), deployed with two divisions forward and one behind will take up perhaps 4' of width. Two feet per division for frontage is about right, of course this depends on the number of battalions in that division."

How are the divisions arrayed? If an average french division has 12 battalions what order are they in with a 2 foot frontage?

When you say "the ground scale is 1:50 meters", do you mean 1" or 1 cm?

Thanks,

John

John,

Regarding my statements of divisions, two waves of battalions with roughly half forward and have behind.

My opinion is that players often times compact things more than they should be. At 1:50 (inches to meters) battalions should have a good couple inches between them in each wave and each wave should be separated by 2-4" as well. This could be expanded and contracted but there were rough minimums that the divisions tried to maintain, I think people often blow these off so they can figure more troops on the table. I feel this is unrealistic. While it allows you to play a larger scenario on a smaller table – are you really playing the same scenario if you do so in half the space? Just my thought.

Additionally, there should be an open path between divisions for cavalry to charge and recall. Gaps had to be larger in real life to be exploited than the ones that change the course of games on the wargames table. So if your divisions are 24" across then there is likely 6" between them and the total frontage of the corps is more like 30".

My bad, 1" = 50 meters.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Paints By Numbers,

If you are going to use one of the rules sets I mentioned and want to do large battles I would say you should consider the following questions:

• Do I want to run battles larger than 1-2 corps per side?
• What emphasis most interests me in game play and rules? (i.e. command and control? tactical combat / micro-management? playability?)
• What years am I *most* interested in?

LARGER BATTLES:

6mm works, 10mm works, 15mm works. They require larger and larger tables to accomplish the same thing though. I paint 15mm Napoleonics, it's what I do, so goes.

If you want to run something the size of Golymin or Pultusk in 15mm (both 1807 French vs Russians) at 1:60 you can likely make that happen on a 5x9 table.

If you want to play Eylau or Friedland (the biggest battles of 1807) you aren't going to do it on that size table in 15mm.

Moving to a 1:100 game like Napy's Battles in 15mm will help this to a degree but you still won't be able to run the "big battles" of each campaign.

There are other rules that I am less familiar with such as LaSalle (new) and Grande Armιe (by the same author) which seek to run large battles in smaller areas with smaller scale figures. Typically people seem to use 6mm or 10mm figures. A square base is a regiment or brigade (I think) and thus you can host very large engagements on fairly small tables. That said, my impression is this is gained at a high level of abstraction.

The philosophy of the people I am currently gaming with is that we play small(er) engagements (couple corps per side) on a 5x9 table and will eventually work up to playing a large engagement every so often once the resources, know-how, and time are available.

Something to consider is that lots of players and gaming groups overload tables with figures, big time. This has a really cool visual effect and makes for great photos on websites, however, it leads to very ahistorical game play, everything is a slug-fest like Waterloo and nothing is a strategic contest like Austerlitz or Friedland. Some players prefer it that way.

EMPHASIS OF RULES:

The Pros and Cons I list are largely subjective. If one likes tactical emphasis – it stops being a Con in some rule sets, etc …

BFE & Empire: You will be in command of a corps (or elements of a corps since not every corps had all its divisions present at a given fight). The battalions will be deployed on the table and you will have the ability (and be encouraged by the bonuses in the rules) to make tactical decisions for each of them.
PRO: Detail level is very high, tactical emphasis.
CON: Detail level is *very high* considering you are a corps commander, tactical emphasis is more than is realistic. Learning curve and chart references are dramatically higher than the other rules sets noted.

LoG: You will be in command of a corps (or elements of a corps since not every corps had all its divisions present at a given fight). The battalions will be deployed on the table but you will be discouraged by the rules for making tactical decisions for each of them and will be encouraged to maneuver at the division level.
PRO: Command & Control is the most realistic of those listed, player is largely restricted to grand-tactical decisions (division and higher) though at a notable penalty is allowed to micromanage tactics.
CON: Learning curve is notably high (less than Empire but *dramatically* more than Nappy's Battles), rules are horribly organized making them very difficult to reference during game play.

Napy's Battles: You will be in command of a corps (or elements of a corps since not every corps had all its divisions present at a given fight). Your smallest block of figures on the table is a brigade and you move it about largely as you please.
PRO: Playability is high, overhead is low, ability to run 2-3 corps per side on a 5-9 is easy.
CON: Command & Control is a die roll, detail is low, tactical emphasis is high for the scope of game it is.

VARIOUS YEARS:

Knowing what years you want to play is not necessary, but it can be helpful. I like 1805-1807 & 1814. The battles are of similar sizes, none are huge, even the ones where everyone shows up. In the early years the French have some great advantages (though not at the "no one ever war-games those battles" – which I think are the most fun) and in the late years the French have a great deficit to play against, but hey the Imperial Guard is *always* engaged, how cool is that?!?

• If you want medium to large battles with medium to large armies you are looking at 1805 (French vs Austrians & Russians) and 1806-1807 (French vs Prussians & Russians).
• If you want large battles with large armies, you're looking at the War Against Austria in 1809 and Russian Campaign of 1812.
• If you want to be the English and whoop on a second rate French Army you want to play The Peninsular War 1808-1811.
• If you want HUGE battles and HUGE armies from EVERYWHERE in Europe, then you want to play The Campaign of German Liberation 1813.
• If you want small to medium battles with small to large armies from most nations in Europe you want to play The Campaign of France 1814.
• If you want to play an incredibly large battle on a very small battlefield (more so than any other of the period), with huge casualties, over and over and over again, you want to play the Waterloo Campaign 1815.

The thing no one tells you is that all of these sub-periods have *lots* of corps sized actions that were very significant and play quite well.

ORGANIZATION DURING VARIOUS YEARS:

Things changed a lot, seemingly all the time so standards are few.

A brigade is 1-3 regiments during the period depending on what country you are and what year. If you are early war Prussians than a brigade is possibly even more than 3 regiments.

A regiment is between 1-5 battalions, again fluctuating. During the early war for the French you are looking at typically 2-3 battalions per regiment and often times that regiment is brigaded by itself (in the case of light infantry this was typical). By 1812, 3-5 though in the field on the day of battle? Roll dice, could be anything.

The Allies did change from the "Old Regime" organization to the Army Corps method by 1813 (some beginning earlier) but their gains in this area did not make them immediately equal the French. This was due to quality and experience of Corps Level Staff groups. You can build a very efficient factory but if you hire the wrong person to run it … That said, also by 1813 Napy was having command troubles, the armies were huge, the army corps were huge and he was forced to rely on a lot of new, rushed to promotion, or not quite ready corps commanders. Scaling up in any business can be difficult.

Thus the French Army in 1813 suffers from some of the same issues that the Allied Army does. 1813 becomes a very popular year to play because the Allies are improving and the French are doing poorly, plus every nation is involved so no matter who you want to play, there is a spot at the table. I'm not a huge fan of 1813 because it seems everyone just wants to play Leipzig over and over, but there were some *other* cool actions during that campaign.

Early war the French have 2-3 divisions per corps, in 1809 there is a lot of ad-hoc organization going on because the War Against Austria was somewhat unexpected. You will find French corps with 2 divisions and others with 5. Come 1812 and major expansion of the army you find formations like Davout's (renumbered from III to I) Corps that has five divisions each of several regiments each of five battalions.

In 1806 for the Prussian Army you can consider a division a weak corps and each brigade in that division to be a division … That said, they also had Wings, a Wing could be one or two divisions of multiple brigades.

Fact is there is just mammoth variation. I do not paint Allies so my knowledge of them is not as great and the variation, by nature of their being several countries involved, is dramatically increased.

The best way to know the organization of an army is to grab several (not a stack) of Orders of Battle (OBs) for a given campaign – maybe one from the beginning, one at the first major battle, one from the 2nd major battle (if there was a 2nd major battle), one late in the campaign and compare them to each other. You'll have a notion after studying them what the given army was like during that period.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit, We have to thank you for your time and useful information.

John

And here I thought I was just ranting for my own enjoyment ;-)

Hopefully it is useful to some, there are a lot more people a lot more knowledgeable than I on these boards and a lot of people who are familiar with areas I am not, perhaps some of them will jump in too and help out some.

Glad is useful to you.

Cheers,

The Bandit

More really excellent stuff!

>• Do I want to run battles larger than 1-2 corps per side?

I guess yes, but my table size seems to preclude many of them even in a small figure scale. The Polemos rules seem to be a large scale, but mixed reviews.

I am in agreement that packing too many figures on the table is undesirable. If all I wanted to do was roll forward and toss dice I'd buy something from Games Sweatshop.

Going down a figure scale potentially quadruples your playing area, but at some point the bases are just too small & fiddly, so rules switch to the diorama-base and create more abstractions.

So one needs to determine if the organizational level where the abstraction starts is below your level of interest for playing the command & control.

The diorama-base with small figures has appeal, but such bases might not be easy to use with some other rules using a different system of abstraction & unit scale.

I play ancients with say 50 or so 6cm wide bases on a 4x6 table, and 100 or so on a 5x8. There is sufficient empty space. So I'm programmed to think that a Napoleonic set with similar numbers of bases per square foot of table will be reasonable.

I'd probably like to use larger numbers of small figures on diorama-bases that could serve as self-contained "units" in larger scale rules but also be put together into multi-base units or commands for one level smaller in scale…

A 6x3cm base could hold 2 or 3 ranks of 15mm figs six to ten figs wide, or two "strips" wide of 6/10mm figures and again two or three "waves" of strips, with room for variation as a diorama.

Or you could plunk down one 54mm fig very nicely painted, but that visual would suit a very large scale of game, more of a map pin on Napoleon's battle map.

>• What emphasis most interests me in game play and rules? (i.e. command and control? tactical combat / micro-management? playability?)

Dunno yet. Let's say the upper 2/3rds of the TOE in operational size. Seeing the actual shape of the formation is important -- If I have 2 up and one back I'd like to see that shape, even if all 3 are on a single diorama base. I might not need to roll dice to get them into that formation though. Chadwick's modern _Command Decision_ shows the details one level below the level at which you command, that works for moderns.

Keep talking…

>• What years am I *most* interested in?
Ditto.

"I guess yes, but my table size seems to preclude many of them even in a small figure scale. The Polemos rules seem to be a large scale, but mixed reviews."

If you want to do huge battles on small tables, all that matters is the the ground scale you use (and making sure that your elements have the right footprint relative to th ground scale). I did Waterloo/Wavre as a paired battles on a 'table' 24" across at 1" = 600 yards with brigade sized bases. There are plenty of rules out there which will let you do vast battles (obvious ones being Grand Armee or Volley & Bayonet) BUT they use rather abstract briagde sized elements, which aren't to everyones taste.

If looking at Polemos, also have a look at the Baccus site for their Leipzig participation game, and the free Leipzig-lite rules which let you fight truely vast battles in a sensible period of time (with some loss of granularity of course).

Napoleonics players seem to have a skewed definition of what a "small table" is !!!

It would be helpful to see some photos of units based for various rules sets side by side, to see which are just a row of figures vs seeing 2 & 3 ranks depicted, etc. And what a "unit" looks like when deployed on the table in various rules sets.

Somewhere I have photos of Davout's III Army Corps deployed "appropriately" on a table that is ~4' across but I do not have those posted online right now and am away from home, thus unable to reference them directly.

However, on that same table, here are shots of my entire Napoleonic Army circa last summer. Consider that Davout's III Corps still spans the front of the table but the intervals between battalions and waves has been shrunk.

link

All figures are 15mm mounted for LoG (1:60). Most battalions are 12 figures, some 15, some as large as 18 figures (a typical).

Cheers,

The Bandit

>I did Waterloo/Wavre as a paired battles on a 'table' 24" across at 1" = 600 yards with brigade sized bases. There are plenty of rules out there which will let you do vast battles (obvious ones being Grand Armee or Volley & Bayonet) BUT they use rather abstract briagde sized elements, which aren't to everyones taste.
>

So how many "playing pieces" were on the table for that battle? How long was the table?

With each unit/piece being a Brigade, the player is acting as what, something more than a Corps commander.

***

At what scale does it become OK to abstract the frontage of a Battalion to a constant length, even though it varied by national TOE and casualties during the fight?