"Lasalle or General de Brigade" Topic

OK, some help needed.

A week ago, I was all set on buying the pdf version of Lasalle.

This was to game battles of a couple of brigades each side to finish in an evening and, importantly, without any real degree of complexity.

Now, with the release of the new version of GdB, I am undecided. Are these rules set at much the same level of game and, if so, which should I go for?

I would very much appreciate a compare and contrast from members who have experience of both rules systems (I presume that the basic mechanics of GdB will not have changed much).

In particular, I would be interested in knowing the min/max size of battles for both sets of rules and how complex they are to learn and play.

Thanks in anticipation.

Alan

finish in an evening? – Lasalle

GdB is a very realstic ruleset, while lasalle aim at a Napoleoinc wargame, GdB is part wargame part simulator,
Now that sounds very complicated, but it's actualy quite easy to learn they were my first rules ever, with no previous experience with wargaming I learned the rules quite quickly.
But you probebly will need atleast 1 teste game to get a true feel for them.

Lasalle is quick easy, very streamlined and fun,
GdB is not as quick but still not slow, more realistic,

One example is that skirmishes are very detailed in GdB, while in Lasalle skimrishes simply give a bonus in fights.

A small Lasalle fight might take only two hours,
A small GdB fight probebly takes 2.5-3 hours

How big can they get? Lasalle can probebly be a main division, plus up to 3 suport units, so as much as 20 battalions or units, pr side, pluss 4-5 cavalry units and 4 batteries

GdB can get as big as you want, but you need more players.
I think one player can probebly control 2 divisions, so if you play big battle, you need more players, Corps sized games are quite commen with the rules, and I have heard about full scale battles with thousands upon thousands of figures, but then you might have like 10 players on each side, and play on huge tables.

But for a regular game, with one player on each side, 2 divsions mabye a corps is max

"finish in an evening and, importantly, without any real degree of complexity"

That's Lasalle, not GdB. As much as I appreciate GdB's approach, we never play a game that doesn't slow to a crawl and result in at least one headscratching/argument moment – usually when the rules try to model something that Lasalle has abstracted and streamlined, i.e. skirmishers, charge reactions, casualty tracking and morale effects.

Shako is actually closer to what you want than GdB, if you are looking for alternatives, although my preference is currently with Lasalle.

Cheers,

Christopher

GdBde skirmish rules too complex? Frankly, I find them very simple. Never played LaSalle, but I can vouch that GdBde, once played a few times, flows quick and easy.

Many thanks for the most helpful replies.

It is the smaller battles that I am wanting to game with whichever of the rules I decide upon. I am not interested in trying to play large battles with them as we have other rules for middle-size battles and upwards.

From the sound of it, Lasalle seems to be the set I am looking for to have a game fought to a conclusion in a reasonable time without too much of a sore head.

"GdB is a very realstic ruleset"

I would dispute that to be honest. I found the games were often decided via bloody infantry melee. Not realistic in my opinion.

Its also quite old school and figure based. Requires quite specific basing.

Only my opion of course etc etc …

Well the melee isn't exactly melee, it's close order fighting, point blank musket fire ect.

"melee isnt exactly melee its…"

what a load of old tosh that particular chestnut is – of course its melee, thats why its called melee in the rules.

and blucher is correct – it is also wrong, almost as wrong as post printing attempts to claim that its not actually melee its …

(which is not a criticism of GdB in particular, but of all 18th and 19th century rule sets which have a melee section in them outside of combat in built up areas).

"GdB is a very realstic ruleset" = you like the level of detail and the feel.

Realism is in the eye of the beholder.

Melee (pronounced /ˈmeɪleɪ/, from the French mêlée (the French spelling is also quite frequent in English writing), pronounced: [mɛleː]), or sometimes referred to as "brawl", generally refers to disorganized close combat involving a group of fighters. A melee ensues when groups become locked together in combat with no regard to group tactics or fighting as an organized unit; each participant fights as an individual

I think both games would satisfy your requirements Alan.

But neither will the first evening you try out the new set.This will happen when you are reasonably familiar with the rules.In my experience it takes time to learn any new rule set and all of them require some head scratching while you are doing it-add to this an individuals particular personal Napoleonic foibles or preferences for what they think should be in a set of rules and what could be a short game becomes a much more drawn out one.

I havent yet played Lasalle but I have heard only good things about it.It certainly has everything you need from top notch production values,army lists,logical so I would expect it to be capable of being picked up very quickly.
Someone described it to me as the DBA of Napoleonic wargaming by which I think he meant it seeks to fill a void in the napoleonic market for a quick balanced and possibly competitive game that gives a result without the need to faff around too much.
There are a couple of guys at the club who have a copy and we hope to have a few games to see how it performs.

I have played hundreds of G de B games and for a game of the size you are thinking of it easily produces a result in an evening assuming you are reasonably familiar with the rules.Lack of familiarity with any rules means scrabbling through rule books but we can now just use the playsheet and the game zips along nicely.

As to whether any rule set is "realistic"-I dont really know whether there is any set that is,simply because all the people who could have told us have been dead for 200 years.
Every rule set is a combination of the game designers own interpretation of what they believe represents an approximation of the period for which it is written AND a set of mechanisms that make it into a game.
Particularly in the Napoleonic period for some reason everybody is an expert on what is realistic-or to put it another way..we all have our own pre-conceptions about what we want to see happening.
This is variable and subjective and G de B ticks most of my personal boxes in this regard.
It is detailed and models certain wargaming mechanics that most gamers expect to see.
Most gamers want to roll some dice and see if they can charge home into the enemy and "melee"
The fact that in this period very few actual bayonets were crossed in open country doesnt change this need in most gamers.
So G de B has this as part of the game sequence and has made it clear for some time that melee should be thought of not just as hand to hand combat but rather a series of very close volleys as well.If some want to get hung up on the use of the word then so be it
Probably to be more accurate all Napoleonic/18th Century rule sets should have no melee phase at all but wheres the fun in that
And whats the alternative?
Units testing morale,failing,running away all the time?
Oh and G de B has no prescribed "thou shall only base like this" convention.
It has recommendations for base sizes but any two armies similarly based can play it.
I,m biased towards G de B as you can see but it will do what you want of it

I find it fascinating that some people can look at a term like "melee" which a rules writer has states is to encompass both close combat and close range shooting, and say it doesn't.

That was a superb post, Jack27.

I have to say that I disagree with a couple of the comments made about GdB in this thread.

Firstly, with regard to basing, GdB is far from requiring "quite specific basing". Although basing recommendations are given, the rules can be used with virtually any basing system. I have used them very successfully with my First Carlist War armies (infantry in units of 12 based 2 deep) and with my Le Feu Sacre Napoleonic armies (infantry in units of 12-18 based 1 deep).

Turning to melee, I discussed GdB with Dave Brown before the first edition was even published and one thing that attracted me to the rules was his assertion that "melee" was a shorthand for a variety of things that could happen once two or more units came into close proximity. Short of modelling this whole range of activities, this seems to me to be a reasonable approach. Describing the GdB approach as "post printing attempts to claim that its not actually melee its …" is somewhat inaccurate as the rationalisation of "melee" is actually printed in the rules. Personally, I would probably do away with the word "melee" and replace it with something like "close combat" or "the moment of truth".

Having played a lot of GdB games, I find that it is very possible to fight a divisional level game to a conclusion in an evening without any more than the usual amount of head scratching that any wargame involves. I have never felt that games are usually decided "via bloody infantry melee"; what usually decides our games is the collapse of one side (usually the one that I am on) after being pounded by artillery and then either defeated by an attacker or having attacks defeated by the defender. Good generalship, sound tactics and good use of the three arms together seems to make the difference, except where my beloved Neapolitans are concerned.

I have now played about a dozen games of Lasalle; the rules are beautifully presented but I feel that they are somewhat "vanilla" when compared to GdB. As one of our group commented: "At this level of play, I want a bit more of the detail of what is happening to my units; this is too broad-brush." That may reflect our personal prejudices but those are what attract us all to particular rules.

Of the two sets, I would go for GdB.

Colin

For small battles you might desire:

- one base = one or two companies
- a definite figure ratio
- a definite ground scale

GdB has all of them.

Lasalle has a more generic basing, with usually 4 bases per battalion (and mind you, Sam gives four good reasons for this). I am not sure if Lasalle has a definite ground scale in the form of 1 Base Width = N meters/yards.

I am not sure if Lasalle has a definite ground scale in the form of 1 Base Width = N meters/yards.

There is none stated, but I would venture that the frontage of a typical battalion divided by 4 would give you N. N = approx 100 ft? Based on 600 men in three ranks with about 2 ft frontage per man.

I have played and like both sets of rules. I have been able to use the figures that I based for GdB for Lasalle with only minor adjustments.

I agree with most of the posts. Lasalle plays a little faster than GdB. There are some things glossed over in Lasalle that are more detailed in GdB.

However, with the group I play with, the Napoleonic gamers have been more receptive to Lasalle and are now playing more Napoleonic games. The playing time (and probably the hype, as well) has been a big factor in this. We can arrive, unpack the figures, set up, play, discuss, and have the figures packed up in less than four hours for a game on a 4' by 6' table using around 20 units (infantry battalions, cavalry regiments, and artillery batteries).

Good discussion here. I would venture a guess that the two could work together. La Salle as an introductory, quick play set good for Napoleonic war gaming newbies, but with enough heft to make it appealing for groganrds, and General de Brigade as the detailed set for those who have the interest for venturing into more tactically detailed, heavier waters.

Just to make certain, a question, neither of the two systems uses a point allotment system for movement, formation changes, "activation", etc… correct ? You can move the units, you want to move ?

Do it easy, base for lasalle, buy both rules(it's only like an extra $30)

Your standard lasalle basing will give you 24 or 32 infantry and 8 to 12 cavalry,

Now 24 and 32 are pefectly normal sizes in GdB, nothing that makes it hard to play gdb, then if you want some diffrence sized units, you could ad together two 24 units and get a big 48.

8 cav is a little little, in gdb, so if you got 8, then get another unit and you got a nice big 16 strong unit for gdb, 12 is also perfectly normal sized unit for gdb.

How are casualties handled in both GdB and LaSalle respectively? By the base or by the fig ? Couldn't find that in any reviews.

In lassle you remove whole units, unitl that you don't do anything to them, so a 4 base unit is a 4 base unit until it gets destroyed.

In GdB you "remove figures" natuarly you can't remove single ones, unless you use magnetic bases and base each figure seprantly, so you keep track of figures lost, when you have lost enough for a full base to be removed you do that.

Bottom Dollar,

With GdB you can move as many units as you want but what they can do is limited depending on their brigade's orders.

Colin

What's the best scale to paint generic Napoleonic armies? ONe where you don't have fuss with well the facings on the 97th were this color, but the shoulder straps on the 15th were this color… You know, basic ok these are the generic grenadiers, generic guard, generic line, generic light, generic lancers, generic curaissers, etc… ?

And how well does LaSalle and GdB convert to their use if you keep ground scale at 15mm?

Colin, same as LaSalle or you can move however you want to in LaSalle ?

PS Either way, you guys have talked a person into buying some Napoleonic rule sets, probably when my ACW 15mm armies are fieldable and that would be nearly so.

Good discussion, thanks.

If young want generic armies, then Lasalle is the best, infact the rules make sure that words like brgiades and battalions aren't realy used, there are units and forces.

Forinstance, the main force in Lasalle is division sized, but you don't have brigades, so have a loose division so to speak, then when you are "suport forces" you get forces the size of brigades with a "brigade commander"

But in GdB you have brigade commanders battalions ect.
So to realy get the most out of GdB you should have the 13th legere or 88th regiment of foot ect. GdB is best when you base your division(s) on a real one. you can read a little about my seond jump into GdB here link

While you can with no problem use Lasalle with historic OOBs or even create a historic battle, I feel lasalle is best used when useing the Army builder, a very fun little thing,

"I find it fascinating that some people can look at a term like "melee" which a rules writer has states is to encompass both close combat and close range shooting, and say it doesn't."

I find it incredible that people read wargames rules and take every word literally. Its an abstraction, like 99% of everything in all wargames rules (actually I don't find it incredible,I should have ceased to be surprised by wargamers long, long ago).

Nope, no OCD in this thread…

@bottom dollar: probably 6mm, although you could make an argument for 15mm as well. I'm finally getting to the point of being able and willing to paint the Waffenfarbe on my 15mm WW2 Germans, but you don't *have* to paint that much detail on a 15mm figure.

It seems like a lot of Napoleonics players aim for that level of detail, and I admit that I like the pageantry of the period.

LaSalle should play just fine at 15mm (I have yet to play a game of LaSalle), but I think 6mm looks more like an entire division.

christot, that's why we have words, so they can be taken literally. I don't own GdB, but if "melee" means "close combat", then it shoudl be called "close combat". But if the designer qualifies his definition of "melee" at the same time to include "close combat", that might not stop me from buying the rules.

Bottom Dollar,

To field generic units as described you either need to use 6mm or employ the sneaky trick of using 15mm but having everyone in greatcoats:).

Both GdB and Lasalle will work fine using 6mm figures on 15mm base widths. Using 6mm also allows you to make the bases shallower, giving a far more realistic look.

Movement in Lasalle is pretty much at will, although formation changes are more difficult if a unit is out of command range.

Thanks for the recommendations. Good Napoleonic leads here.

When I first noted the melee stated as close combat, I was indiferrent. Still fine with it and see no reason to gripe about the semantics.

That said, I still raise an eybrow on on moving halfway when charge is declared, and the outcome of the charge settled later in the turn. Second, the target unit has no requirement to react to the charge unelss the charger charges home. So on occasion when I solo, I bring in another rule drafted from my an older rule set, that the charger has to test to chaarge. No movement is made by the charger unless he successfully tests to charge. That said, the target tests to react. Assuming both sides fair ok, then its back to the GdBde printed rules.

It may seem like extra steps are necessessary, but frankly my melees are cut WAY DOWN, and I typically can forecast that it'll only happen if the target falters, becomes unformed or worse. Seldom does a charger tangle with a formed target and lock bayonets, swords, etc. It took a while of fiddling with the tables going from Percentage die to D6, but its in place and for me, it works fine. Now my games seem to mirror historical readings that firefights at close range will eek out the result, at a slower rate if the Die Gods are not kind.

All that said, I converted to GdBde a while ago, finally rebasing most of my collection from my 30/1 scale units to 20/1, etc, but worth the effort.

A few months ago I took a scenario from GdBde, Arroyo Molinos, and as stated above, we didn't finish in one evening. Took two settings. Nobody complained about the rules or the time taken. My rules of choice noe…

Pardon the spelling.. new glasses on the way

GdB allready have test to charge and stand, alteat my rules have them.

First the charger moves half way, then the defenders can either counter charge or stand and fire, if they fire, then the charger might get soldiers dead, so they have to test if they can continue the charge, if they pass, the defenders have to test if they stand, if both pass, then the charge is moved into mele

Has everyone read the 'Elusive rule grail found?' thread? I saw suggestions that throw both rule sets in a blender with Black Powder and go from there.

Sounds like crazy talk, but is there any positive reaction here?

Doug

Gunfreak
What I alluded to was a test before ANY movement.

Doug,
Not crazy talk. A zillion gamers, a zillion opinions. Im sure there's a rule set I'll stumble upon someday that'll make what I'm currently doing seem like nonsence. I've been gaming since '76. Tiied beaucoup rules, some stuck for years, some for only days. I never consider a rule set as permanant. I'll evolve again I"m sure. Maybe the blender isn't such a bad idea. Like most I game with what I'm comfortable or satisfied with TODAY. And nver taken too seriously. I do it to escape the crap of daily life and just chill out…

"christot, that's why we have words, so they can be taken literally. I don't own GdB, but if "melee" means "close combat", then it shoudl be called "close combat". But if the designer qualifies his definition of "melee" at the same time to include "close combat", that might not stop me from buying the rules."

(Un)Fortunately we also have coyright laws, which is why with some rules (not, I, hasten to add, the 2 being compared here), the terminolgy,and entire texts get re-written with different language because the rules are esentially a re-hash (and often an improvement) on some other published set.
In my limited experience, I know of 2 sets where authors have been "warned" of their use of somewhat generic terms that others claim ownership of. In both cases the text was changed just for a quiet life.

christot, without asking for details, I know of no copyright suit that is sustainable on the grounds of ownership of "generic terms".

PS Can the owner of rule set sue for getting improved without permission? Perhaps if the improver continues to call it by the same name? Interesting.

Of course, none of the above has anything to do with LaSalle nor GdB and Napoleonics is a whole new ballgame. Time to relegate leisure time activities to leisure time :)

I can recommend 6mm, I have a large Austrian and mid size French army waiting to be painted. Nice and simple, all you really need to focus on is jacket colour, helmet shpe and standards, most battalions can be used for any of a similar type. (thou I might paint up one French battalion in yellow jackets for Neufchatel)

Grenadiers with shako and plume or bearskin. Eagles to each battalion or one to the 1st and fanions to the rest ? Diamond or tri-color ? :) When I get done with my 500 plus ACW's, it'll be a toss up between 6mm and 15mm. LoL.

In 6mm My French grenadier all have shakos. just easier that way.
I have some Austrian Grenadier battalions in bearskin though. The figures are detailed enough to paint up well and in detail, but also so small that a really basic job also looks really good, just make sure your colours are brighter than usual to make them stand out more.

Im going with eagle standards and battalion fanions. I have some nice sticker/transfers from baccus for my French and Asutrians.

@pbishop

"Not crazy talk. A zillion gamers, a zillion opinions. Im sure there's a rule set I'll stumble upon someday that'll make what I'm currently doing seem like nonsence. I've been gaming since '76. Tiied beaucoup rules, some stuck for years, some for only days. I never consider a rule set as permanant. I'll evolve again I"m sure. Maybe the blender isn't such a bad idea. Like most I game with what I'm comfortable or satisfied with TODAY. And nver taken too seriously. I do it to escape the crap of daily life and just chill out…"

Preaching to the choir, brudda.

Mostly, I was asking how arduous to make those blender pieces fit. Of course, that asks 'which pieces', which is somewhat the point of the 'Elusive rule grail found?' thread's question, though the conversation wandered from…

Oh, wait, am I doing the same thing? If so, a thousand pardons!

Doug

PS Ok, 999 pardons; the discussions did seem related.