"Blucher: Corps level? Replacing Grand Armee?" Topic

I have had quite a long break from Naps as, despite shelling out a small fortune, none of the rule sets I have QUITE do it for me. I tend to prefer the larger scale actions with lots of regiments on the table.

Probably my favourite set of rules is Grand Armee. Excellently written, well produced and and pleasure to read and play. Despite that I am still not 100% happy with the rules as I'm not THAT keen on the brigade stand approach. Nothing wrong with the rules on that front, just me and my preferences. I know there will be people who adopt the approach that regiment formations don't matter in army/corps level games but, each to their own. It's a game and I prefer to play what I like, how I like ;-)

I was quite excited seeing the Honour system on the horizon and nearly opted to buy the Lasalle rules. I read though that the Blucher module will perhaps be pitched more at my level and, having just bought Black Powder too (still a bit unsure on these), I may hold off until Blucher comes out unless you need Lasalle (e.g. as a base system) to play it.

So, will Blucher replace Grand Armee or will it supplement it? I'm not quite clear from the info that I've seen but have been extremely busy of late so research time at a premium, largely going into what I play now rather than things yet to come. Will Blucher differ a lot from GA and if so how? Does Sam consider it to be a more refined/polished system or just a different one?

Like I say, I'm still looking for that perfect game and have tried several (not Shako II yet) and most now sit on the shelves, inlcuding:

Valmy to Waterloo
Revolution and Empire
In The Name Of Glory
Huzzah
Piquet
Le Feu Sacre

Sure I'll find what I want one day (yes I know I can write my own but the likes of Sam are MUCH better at it than I'd be) and who knows BP may yet do it. I am still eager to see Blucher though, and me even take the plunge with Lasalle if it's also worth getting and/or may give a flavour of Blucher.

Any thoughts?

Sam and other more informed folk are likely to be along soon. But in the meantime, my understanding from the site is that Blucher is NOT a replacement for GA. It is a separate game as part of the Honor series.

It is different in scale. In GA one base represents a brigade. In Blucher, according the the site, one base will still represent one battalion of infantry, regiment of cavalry or battery.

I have bought LaSalle and certainly like the look of them. I haven't played yet but will as soon as I have enough troops based. It is roughly divisional level with about a dozen units (regiments, battalions, batteries) a side. Foot and horse are all 4 or 6 bases each (mostly 4), allowing good old-fashioned lines, squares and columns.

I'm in the midst of writing the first draft of Blücher this winter. It will begin playtesting and real development in the Spring.

It's a totally different concept from Grande Armée. They have almost nothing in common. I don't want to get into details about game mechanics at this time because it's still in such an early stage and much may change.

That said, I'm trying to do some new things that haven't been done before. (And yes, I know that's an invitation for seven guys now to post that exactly that thing was done in a game called "Bloody Nappies" by Bertram Nosepicker in 1982).

I love grand-tactical games, but one of the things that tends to make them slow and repetitive is the problem of time and unit scales. The time scales are usually fixed, meaning we have to "play" through turn after turn, even though in the historical battle there may have been long lulls. Since gamers don't like lulls, they tend to bash away at each other, with no reserves, until somebody breaks or the wives call and ask if you can pick up garlic at the store on your way home. The result is that we spend 6 real hours playing 3 game hours, and the battle ends in game-time much sooner and with insanely high levels of carnage and intensity. So for "Blücher" I'm experimenting with a groovy new way to make game-time dependent upon real-time, and have the players decide when they want the game periods to end. In other words: you create your own time scale by the decisions that you take.

The other thing is that I'm trying to change the concept of a "unit" in the game mechanics. It's always been a problem that grand-tactical games ask you to declare what a "unit" is (a regiment, or brigade, or division, whatever), and then every unit in the game has to move, every unit has to shoot, every unit has to fight, against every other unit, over and over and over again, using the same repetitive processes turn after turn. That can take the joy out of even a good game, when it gets big enough.

So I'm trying to create a more flexible concept of the "unit," that varies by game activity. So if you've ordered the II Corps to move to Schlurpdorf, then the II Corps is one "unit" in that moment. Or if you're shooting a bunch of artillery, then all the artillery shooting at that moment is one "unit." If you're in a big headlock of combats all along the line, all the bases on your side of that combat are a single "unit" for that moment…. although then configured differently, perhaps, next turn. This way, no two game activities are exactly alike, and a huge complex combat resolution could be resolved with a single mechanism.

Blücher is the second game in the HONOUR series, so it will share the same presentation style as Lasalle, many of the same core terms and concepts, and of course the same basing and measurement conventions. If you play Lasalle, you can pick up Blücher without much fuss.

best,
Sam

Hi Sam,

What scale with Blücher be intended for? Can it be done with 28mm figures and, if so, how many bases in each 'unit', when a unit is one battallion or regiment?

Thanks Sam. Sounds spot on. Always been happy with GA in the past but sounds like Blucher might plug the gap that's still there for me.

Would you recommend picking up and playing Lasalle from an intro rather than business perspective ;-)

@Constantine: all my games have always been figure-size-neutral, so Yes, they'll scale-up and/or down to any figure size. I use base-widths for measurement.

@Empgamer: I would obviously love to sell you a copy of Lasalle, but I can't in good conscience tell you to buy it, if you're looking for a grand-tactical game. Lasalle is petit-tactical.

Lots of fun… but not grand-tactical.

Sure I'll find what I want one day

This is a false statement.

I used to think that too, but now after buying so many rules I realize that I'll never find "the" rules-- i.e.the ones that do everything I want.

That said, I'm trying to do some new things that haven't been done before.

Sigh… "There is nothing new under the Sun."

Sigh… "There is nothing new under the Sun."

There are plenty of examples demonstrating that this is a false statement. But if I start listing them, this thread will descend into chaos.

I look forward to these…..its a level of game i want to try, similar to Napoleons Battles where one base is a battalion…..keep us updated Sam!

Hi
I too am looking forward to BLUCHER.
I really like Lasalle, so BLUCHER is the obvious choice for me to "Take it up a level",…
Cheers

Sigh… "There is nothing new under the Sun."

There are plenty of examples demonstrating that this is a false statement. But if I start listing them, this thread will descend into chaos.

Ok. There's nothing new in wargames rules under the sun.

Even LaSalle (which I have and like) is derivative of Sam's other works to some extent.

There's nothing new in wargames rules under the sun.

That's exactly what I meant: there have been some really innovative rules over the years. No reason to think that new innovations are impossible.

Sorry to be such a Klutz, but what is the relationship between all those rules, LsSalle, The Honour System and Blucher?

I thought The Honour System was a core rule set and you added other "modules" on to it, like Blucher. Is that right?

Each rulebook will be a stand alone product. The "honor" system refers to the fact that they all share common core concepts.

Im glad sam is focusing on the issue of reserves/timing. I expect that he wants to see players "feeding troops in" to areas of the battlefield rather than just line em up and spat together.

I also like this flexible unit concept. As he points out in Lasalle, it is a mistake to put "commands", "units", or whatever into rigid structures like they are on the OOB. The CNC would very often break these stuctures apart to suite the situation. This seems to be particually true of the prussian army (my fav). When you read a book such as "waterloo a german victory", they constantly refer to ad hoc forces, rushed together, to achieve an objective.

PS ive already got two small armies, based for blucher in 10mm. You can use any scale you like of course but I think microscale is the way to go for this.

jon

I am sure there are "new discoveries" to be made in terms of game mechanics…et al.

though the challenges to be addressed have long been identified by game designers [though not every designer defines them the same].

For instance, IIRC, wasn't there a "tele-scoping Time concept" in Empire? Didn't George Jeffries try to define variable length bounds [turn time] in terms of decisions vice fixed units of time?

But, IMO, neither really delivered a well accepted solution to the challenges that Sam defines. So I look forward to his foray at the "beast".

As a long time Napoleonic player, I am looking forward to trying Lasalle

But from what has been said about Blucher, some of you might want to try Corps Command 3.0

Variable time: a 2 hour block of time can have 4 turns or 0 turns depending on a variety of factors. ie. Weather, leadership, nationality, chance etc.

Command Unit: Can be a Corps, Division, Brigade or a single battalion when orders are issued or how they fight depending on the situation. Players will naturally form provisional battle groups at times or use their formations as one when needed.

Smallest unit: Battalion

Check out the yahoo group for more details at CORPSCOMMAND

There's a great deal in what I've heard about Blucher that Paddy Griffith talks about in his Army game in "Napoleonic Wargaming for Fun". One senses Dr. G. was already well on his way to leaving figures behind so he recommends really tiny bases, but each one is a battalion. Also, orders CAN be issued to battalions, but he suggests, whenever possible, issuing them to brigades or higher. He uses both these mechanics because of eactly the stuff Sam talks about --scale issues, "grind" issues, &c. I have wanted to give these rules a go for some time, but they're not particularly well fleshed out. One thing I know for certain is that Sam's game will be.

Looking foward to it.

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

No updates in a while. What is the current status of the Blucher module?

Where will we be able to purchase it when its out?

Thanks!

Found the link. Never mind! (They sound good!).

Okay, I'm gonna be one of the seven guys. Steve Dake in MWAN described his Nappy game as "WAR ain't fair". He would let you move all the cavalry in one big swoosh or put units together in differenct ways as one movement. He would ask you what do you want to do and you would tell him and do it or not according to the rest of the rules. Sounds similar to what you're after as well as a smattering of VLB; going from action to action and skipping the minutia but getting on with the dynamic parts of the battle. I hope you succeed in doing that. Big actions in a battle have always fascinated me as a wargamer but rarely obtained. I'll call them pivot points. Feel free to use that.