"First game LASALLE rules" Topic

I thought the idea was a smaller game with these – hence not much command and control.

then the next size up for the one corps per side sized games (forgottne which general that is to be called)

then the full boonah with Blucher

How can you play a corps level game without command and control?

Blucher is the 'next size up', it's also the next game due for release.

link

I think you're getting confused…

Well Well, what a dog fight. I have played a second game, this time a small action french div of 8 battalions and 1 artillery battery of 4 guns v 2*british brigade of 3 battalions plus 95th rifles and one 3 gun horse battery.
In real live the brits formed the 95th in open order and delaided the french advance until the line battalions formed up from march order to line. The french attacked in column formation in a wave sort of attack, the first column attacking with the second and third battalions each to the rear 1/4. In real life the 95th fought off the first attack and the light bobs from the supporting battalions rushed up to help out. the british line battalions came into the battle only to have a flank pushed back by the french cavalry who stopped from forcing the attack into the walled wooded area to the british rear. After a fire fight the french pulled back and the british did not follow up.
OK what took place on the table top. Lasalle is a small action set of rules so how did they deal with this action.
first off the lights can,t fight as they did, ie in open order on their own, the reason for this is the weight of dice that the french have and the fact that the rules just don,t have any mechanism for the correct use of light infantry bar one of adding a dice to the fire of a attached unit. the firefight between the british lines and the french column in which in real live one british battalion had to fight off 3 french battalions, again cannot be fought out with these rules, again the weight of dice for the french force the result. In fact the rules just came down to rolling dice. As stated far to much is missing from these rules, players just need to get forget playing anything like historian actions and all we have is a set of DBM rules for so say napoleonic warfare.
terry

Way to go Terry. You've managed to damn players of DBM* with faint praise now too.

You really are a star.

*I'm not a fan of DBx either, but each to their own

So have you read the book yet, mate? Cuz you're still talking rubbish. There's no such thing as "attached units" and you obviously haven't read the bits for irregular and light infantry. If you had the book, you'd know that the 95th appears on the Brit light division list as a "Large" unit with an SK3, which means that it gets 7 musketry dice against the French and thus does indeed out-shoot three French columns. Not to mention that if you're using it in the open, it uses the "Rifle Volleys" rule, meaning it can tear up those French columns from 8BW away – that's two full turns the French have to endure that before they can even shoot back.

So again you've got basically nothing right. That tends to happen when you don't read the rules.

Are you even really playing these games, or just imagining them? Because after your first rant you promised you'd never try it again. So why the second game?

Since you're back, though: what is on page 51, by the way?

I have repeatedly defended Terry from the ad-hominem attacks that were launched against him earlier, but it does seem as though he has either not read the rules or has misunderstood them.

That the point Berks Dark, these rules JUST DON,T cut it for playing napoleonics. All they come down to is a who can roll the most dice.And yes I have read the rules and have been a napoleonic gamer for over 30 years.
On page 51 there is a heading, Fire (Obstructions for roundshot) a bit of text and a large diagram of french units and some artillery.
And here is something for you to do. Pick a real small action, and try to refight this using these rules. and then write a review.
There are a lot of people knocking me, but how many of you have played a game with these rules.??????
terry

Then sell the rules, mate. Go back to playing Empire. I don't see how Empire could do that little scenario you were talking about with only 8 battalions, but Whatever. Play whatever you want.

Lots of people like these rules. You'll surely find a buyer on Ebay. There's a whole bloody forum of people playing and talking about them and making scenarios for them.

Why vent your spleen constantly on the internet arguing about it, when you clearly neither understand the game nor enjoy it? It just makes you look loony with the broken English and the constant rage, and obviously missing whole big chunks of the rules.

I am not venting any spleen at all, and I think that three posts on this forum is not arguing. Its people like you who are arguing, And are you going to fight that real small action or just spit out more rubbish replies.
balls in your park.
terry

Terry,

I have played Lasalle with a small game, and am not particularly keen on the rules.

However, from your posts, I have to say that you seem to have misinterpreted a lot of the rules, or just missed them.

Having said that, I do take your point about the use of light infantry in Lasalle; the comments in the rules on the use of light infantry (irregular) units, as opposed to attached or inherent skirmishers, are rather perverse.

Colin

Hi Colin, yes I may have a few things wrong, But these rules have been promoted for want of a word as a set for small actions, Yet they are not a very good set for small actions, reason they just miss out so much, command and control, well there is not a lot, reason commanders are part of the unit, so we have a system that deals with command and control by keeping units in a set space, there are no generals who can undertake flank actions, napoleons ADC,s do not excess in these rules, these very men who won many an action by their leadership of smaller groupes to take some point on the battlefield. the way light infantry is used under these rules is again not true to fact.
and I say yet again, let someone stop knocking me and write a review of using these rules to refight a small scale action with, well lets say the british light division.
You all keep telling me I am not playing these rules correctly, well show me.
terry

Terry,

everyones entitled to an opinion.

Out of curiosity which rules would you recommend for smaller scale actions ?

Also which action do refer to in which the 95th were thrown out in open order in front of the main line ?

Hi, as to which rules to use, i don,t know. I have always played larger games and as this set was sold on the fact they are for smaller actions I got them, thats why I AM SO ED OFF, because they just dont,t deal with them, yes one can play a game, but one can,t refight a real action and get somesort of true result from these rules.
as to the 95th, look up any of Peter Edwards books, good reads and you will find information on the 95th and light companies of line battalions being thrown out in front of the main battle lines. Its historical fact that this was the job of light units. Just because this set of rules says you can,t use light infantry this way and get any sort of result does not mean it did not happen. It just means the rules are no good.
terry

Terry,

You really do need to calm down. In your earlier post you seemed to be discussing a real action which you tried to simulate with Lasalle; Simon was just asking which action it was.

However, I do rather agree that, at the scale covered by Lasalle, a rather less abstract skirmishing system would have been useful and appropriate.

Colin

I've always thought that a good way to do a comparison between rules would be to either take an historical action and play with various rules to see how each set handles the same scenario or alternatively taking say 350 figures per side and seeing what sort of game you could have with that many models with each rule set.

This has been done in the past (AWI and ancients in Battlegames mag) – its quite a useful guide to see direct side by side comparison.

Would certainly be good to see how the more tactical Naps rules compare with each other in these situations, for example:

Lasalle
GdeB
Napoleon
Black Powder
R&E

It's interesting, everyone has different tastes. I used to play shako and liked the abstract nature but I like smaller actions.

The problem and why this thread has caused ructions is that everyone has there own opinion of what they look for in rules especially the relationship between game and simulation.

Terry I would suggest that the abstract nature of lasalle is no different from the majority of divisional rulesets.

"The problem and why this thread has caused ructions is that everyone has there own opinion of what they look for in rules especially the relationship between game and simulation."

Eh? I thought the problem with this thread was that Terry posted an AAR, declared the rules rubbish, and was then accused of:

* Not having actually played a game.
* Not having read the rules.
* NOT EVEN HAVING A COPY OF THE RULES.

It appears that in truth Terry does have a copy of the rules and has played a game or games with them, that may or may not have been played with only a partial understanding of the rules.

So for having a negative opinion of a game he paid for Terry has been called a liar, and a troll in not as many words.

That is the problem with this thread.

I wold have to say it is not the neagtive opinion that has caused Terry trouble but that (along with the negative view) he keeps playing the rules wrong, making errors and then blaming the rules for his own errors. he does own the rules, he has played the game, he just has not read the rules yet (or at least finnished reading them).

He may be correct that the rules have problems and there may be areas where they fall down. How can we know until he plays them correctly, people stop attacking him and he we see some correct examples of the rules. What he needs to do is play them correctly, write with an informed view and let us know.

I have to say the point about that at least he tried the rules and wrote an AAR which is more then most. Perhaps people could play their own battels, write their own AAR and analysis.

The reaction has been over the top by all on both sides of the arguement.

My only problem with anything terry said is the first post he clearly misunderstood the rules and was corrected by the author but the was rude and was rude to me earlier when I asked a couple of questions.

I am interested in exactly which battle was attempted as a simulation but got no answer.

The other question is on rules comparisons, which rules would allow a battalion from a differnet division to form skirmish screen then shoot out 3 columns. I don't know of any rules at that scale that would.

I was just interested in comparisons of rules, I own so many.

Darren: that about sums it up

As I alluded many pages ago, he was rude to me via email when I attempted to buy the bloody rules off him. Nice.

Anger management might be the way to go. For someone who's been playing Napleonics for 30 years, there's a definite whiff of spoilt bratishness around Tel's posts

It would also be a good idea. <Before> damning a game in such strident language, to do any of the following:

To read the book, so one won't make embarrassing and obviously wrong accusations.

To play against another person, rather than fiddling around solo.

To try using some of the scenarios in the book, or the army lists, as written, rather than making up ones that might not be balanced or playable.

To ask questions on the Forum if one does not understand something.

Coming out with furious rants in barely-legible prose, damning something one has only cursory experience with and little comprehension of, rudely refusing the initially gentle suggestions and corrections, claiming the game can't achieve historical results but not basing one's tests on any historical battle, and then for some reason insisting on cranking it all up again, raises some questions about what a person really expects to encounter from others. That really pretty much set the tone from the outset.

If you don't like it, or don't get it, say your peace and move on.

Terry – what rules changes would you recommend?

This is the sweetness. I hope this thread lasts many hundreds of pages, because it entertains me.

BTW, got my copy of Lasalle today; great stuff! Personally I like the way skirmishing is handled… it has an impact on the main battle but avoids any long, lengthy, oft-hole-filled rules trying to cover any possible instance in which skirmishers were used.

As someone who plays around with writing rules, I've always found it hard to represent the many, many ways skirmishers were used without bogging the game down… my first few attempts resulted in skirmish rules being twice as long as the rules for a firefight, which seemed just wrong.

Skirmishers simply adding dice, and therefore the chance to create disruption, seems to represent the killing of officers and the degrading of enemy fire that one would expect from a unit whose skirmishers overwhelm those of the enemy. Simple, but effective. Plus, I really do like that skirmishers reduce the effectiveness of enemy canister fire… I can just imagine the artillery crew ducking behind the barrels of their guns as bullets whiz by!

And I've got to say… I am flipping through Urban's "Wellington's Rifles" while I sit here and I can't seem to find any examples of skirmishers fighting off a French column… are you, perhaps, reading one of Bernard Cornwell's history books about the 95th rifles?

Look up the action of Sabugal. as to never finding examples of the 95th fighting off french columns, I did not say they did unsupported, get some better history books.
and yet again some of you keep knocking me, YET not one of you have taken the time to refight a small historical action with these rules and do a review.
terry

Better history books? Hmph, I was always under the impression that Wellie's Rifles was a pretty good history of the 95th, but I suppose you know of some better ones. Can you make some recommendations?

As for playing a game of Lasalle… I reckon that, having played one game using the actual, accurate rules, I've played one more game of Lasalle than you have. So, here is my review:

Good stuff!

Terry wrote:

I am not venting any spleen at all, and I think that three posts on this forum is not arguing.

[Emphasis added].

Then wrote:

I AM SO ED OFF, because they just dont,t deal with them, yes one can play a game, but one can,t refight a real action and get somesort of true result from these rules.

Which is it? Either you're not venting your spleen, or you're "so ed off."

…95th and light companies of line battalions being thrown out in front of the main battle lines. Its historical fact that this was the job of light units. Just because this set of rules says you can,t use light infantry this way and get any sort of result does not mean it did not happen. It just means the rules are no good.

If you re-read the rules carefully, then you'd find that you can do exactly this. I run a British army complete with 95th Rifles. I have accomplished exactly what you appear to be complaining can't be done under the rules.

Becks Dark has a good suggestion: play another game with an opponent, after reading the rules through. Since you own the rules, might just as well give them another go after getting the rules right.

Could it be a language issue? I'm not attacking you, just asking whether English is your first language (your posts indicate to me that it may not be). If it isn't then maybe that's a reason for some of your plain errors in playing the game?

Well, as Terry1956 has said he is an ex-RA man living in Dorset (or somewhere near there), maybe English is indeed a second language!

;-)

No offence intended …

I just wish Terry would answer some more questions…like name the history book on rifles that we're missing.

I just wish Terry would actually read the rules, (correctly).
One should never resort to name calling,.. but it's tough to resist with this chap.
Becks Dark seems to have summed the situation up nicely.
BTW, this has been the most amusing / entertaining threads I've followed in ages,…
Thanks Terry for your incoherent yet somehow amusing ramblings.
Every time you trot out some defence of your wacky "review" it gets torn apart,…
You've made my week!
It's a bit like a train smash, you don't want to look / watch, but feel strangely compelled
Cheers

Haha ha ha!

YET not one of you have taken the time to refight a small historical action with these rules and do a review.
terry

Neither have you Terry. Not using Lasalle that is. :o)
Can't see how anyone could read the rules and then make the claims you did regarding the deployment light infantry in the rules. I'm even wondering if your fishing for people to correct your play and so learn the rules for free.
Am I a fan for Lasalle? I don't know yet.

Terry: At sabugal are you talking about the 4 companies of 95th thrown out in a screen in front of the 43rd foot which were brought around to threaten the right flank of the 4th Legre ?

Or the 2 compnaies used to shore up the skirmish screen of drummends brigade ?

In all the referances I've got i can't find a referance to the 95th actin in this ways. Which source did you use ?

look up peter edwards ALBUERA.
This off, lets just stop knocking me ok.
few points.
1. this set of rules, Lasalle, Tactical warfare in the age of napoleon, Thats the heading. from this I took it to mean that this was a set of rules able to bring to bear the tactics of the day. Wrong its a set of rules that just leaves out anything to hard to deal with and dums down the period to suit a set of fast play rules.
2. I have asked over three times for someone to try to play a small histrical action using these rules and write a review. as yet no one as taken me up on this.
3. there are numbers of actions in which british light infantry held the line in open order, just look them up. or if you wish read up the battle of Jena, the french used lights in open order for hours to disorder the prussian line. Under these rules can it happen ???
leaving things out just for a charge, a new set of rules. Is JUST taking wargaming backwards, we have more and more understanding of the napoleonic period yet the rule writers just come up with ever more child like rules.
I know that maybe I am not the best wargamer ever, yet with all the spin ahead of these rules coming out i WAS expecting something worth the wait and money. what I got was a set of rules made up of looks of colour pictures and no real meat.
Anyway thats it,
terry

"This off, lets just stop knocking me ok".

Sure, just stop writting unsubstantiated jibberish.

"2. I have asked over three times for someone to try to play a small histrical action using these rules and write a review. as yet no one as taken me up on this".

I'm doing that over this weekend. I would have done it sooner, but I insisted on having a thorough read of the rules, and the army is a bit funny about me just skipping off over the working week,…

"leaving things out just for a charge, a new set of rules. Is JUST taking wargaming backwards, we have more and more understanding of the napoleonic period yet the rule writers just come up with ever more child like rules".

That's you're opinion, and you're entitled to it,..
From what I've read of the rules in question I respectfully disagree.
If you showed the author the same respect this thread would have ended long ago,…

AAR to follow within a day or two.
Cheers

I thought Terry's review (especially the latest one) was useful.

I also think he may be slightly unfair in his treatment of the rules – in that they are not designed for historic scenarios, but for using reasonably ballanced forces of a division + a brigade size (as per the army planner).

Equally unfair would be a review based on a corps per side game, as someone else suggested oculd be done.

however, I can also quite understand his annoyance, based on the advertised scale of the rules.

I can only think of one set which could cover what he is looking for – Chef de Batallion, which coincidentally is from the Empire stable.

anyway, carry on Terry.

I would like to see a review from you using forces outlined in the rules themselves – just to see how you fair under 'optimal' conditions for these rules.

I'd never stick up for Terry as his initial comments to Sam were quite rude I think … however I can see from his point of view why he is pee'd off … obviously an old hard core naps gamer who probably hasn't played any of the 'new breed' wargame rules for us folks who need to get a game up, played, over and packed away with even a curry thrown in in the space of 3-4 hours MAX with 2-3 being ideal … which is what Lasalle and Black Powder are really aimed at and what wargames generally are (at least in the UK) in my experience nowadays (from feedback from WJ readers and general yapping around the shows etc) … it is true on Lasalle it says 'tactical' and to be honest I thought when I bought them they would probably be too fiddly for me to play and enjoy, but they are not and the abstraction is fine for me, I probably will play them … I like the way skirmishers are handled for the 'aims' of the game although bizarely what Terry is referring to may be handled better by Black Powder which is a level up (or down whichever way you look at it) in detail mainly. SO it really is horses for courses and unfortunately for Terry Lasalle is a big whopping shire horse on 'soft going' with Grand National type jumps! That's fine in many ways … but let the game continue … that 200 post mark isn't far off :)

his name seems to be Michael anyway, from the first posting.

so, who is the terry?

1956 – about right for Terry from minder.

or a Territorial recruitment year – but didn't they still have compulsary service still going then?

one could speculate for ages on the provenance of some nicknames.

Tell it like it is Tel!I have to agree with trailape, this has been the funniest thread I've read for ages.Knocks the "Why were the guard pants at Waterloo" discussion/disagreement into a cocked hat (Bit of period colour there).

Under these rules can it happen ???

Yes. That's why (among other reasons) some of us are asserting that you are not understanding the rules very well (for some reason).

To be honest I just don,t care anymore. over the past few months I think 6 new sets of napoleonic rules have gone to print, each stateing that they cover this and that, yet not one does,
I was not rule to any person, just as I said very ed off at some of the replies, and the large amount of spin for a set of rules that don,t do what they say they do.
Maybe for gamers that like to forget real facts and just get the metal on the table they are fine. But please don,t keep on that these are a good set of rules, they are not. maybe 5/10 at the most.

Terry, a suggestion:

Sit down and write your own set of Napoleonic rules which reflect Napoleonic warfare as you understand it and at the level of command and detail that you want. then, either just play them yourself or publish them.

That way, you will end up with a set of rules that suit you.

I did it (minus the publishing part!) many years ago for my large scale 6mm Marlburian and Napoloenic games.

Colin

Terry

You need a set of rules that represent tactics at battalion and company level to simulate small actions in the manner desired.

May have been wise making further enquiries before dropping money on Lasalle. Particularly when you had not gamed smaller actions before.

I can understand you wanting Lasalle to work for you after doing that. Just chalk it up to a dead end and try something else, Chef de Battalion maybe?.

Terry – what CHANGES do you recommend?

Yes, but

Are we there yet?

nawwww … only 196 !

Keraunus said : "I thought Terry's review (especially the latest one) was useful."

Really. I would say both his "reviews" are incoherant rubbish. Personally I would not use anything he has said to influence a decision as to whether to buy this set of rules.
I'm really not sure why he is even persevering with this game. An experienced wargamer such as he is should have been able to see from reading the rules that they are not what he wants.

As much as we can find fault with Terry's review attempts, his communication skills and defense, I also think the respnonse has been a bit 'over the top'.

Perhaps there is something of value here, but attacking Terry will not help.

I will buy the book he recommended though

200!