"Black Powder - Napoleonic House Rules Resources" Topic

The aggregate number will be determined by the number of rolls and 8 doesnt get more rolls than 6 because it depends where the troops are….

I don't know what you mean by the aggregate number above. To me, the aggregate number is the same as the number of rolls. Perhaps you mean the probability of a blunder is determined by the number of rolls?

Let me suggest an example. I have a command rating of 6, you have a command rating of 8. You have organised your force into 2 brigades. You make a command roll for the first brigade which is successful. You make a command roll for the second brigade which is also successful. You cannot make any more command rolls because you have issued an order to every unit in your command.
In my turn I order one unit to form line which is successful. I order a second unit to move up in support which is also successful. I attempt to order a third unit to charge. It fails.
You have made 2 command rolls with a rating of 8. I have made 3 command rolls with a rating of 6. The probability of me blundering is thus greater than yours.
So the probability of a blunder occurring is dependent on:
- the commander's command rating and
- the number of orders he attempts to issue and
- the number of units under his command (this last is a limiting factor)

I suppose you could say its a bit like a game of chicken …

Actually, although KevanG is technically correct in that the deterministic probability of a blunder is greater for a commander with a rating of 8 than a commander with a rating of 6, in practice the probability of a blunder actually occurring is very small.
Depending on the number of command rolls attempted, the probability of a blunder starts at 2.7% on the first roll and decreases thereafter, admittedly at a faster rate for the rating 6 commander since he has a greater probability of failing the roll anyway. However the difference between the probabilities for the two commanders is so small (less than 0.1% and decreasing) that I can live with that quite happily I think.

And remember that a blunder may actually be a good thing.
At the end of the day if you don't like blunders you can just have a house rule (dragging this thread back on topic)- ignore them and leave them out of your game.

The aggregate number is the total. It was the total number of blunders which should average out as 1 in 36 of actual rolls.

Well, the percentage is only 2.7 for a generals last roll irrespective of his rating and all individual roll,

Ha ha ha ha. Don't waste your time Margard! It drives him crazy that people can enjoy these rules so he jumps on trying to take the thread as far off topic as possible.
Heres some quotes from the other thread.
"somewhere between 'space bimboes on mars' and Kerplunk"
"Black powder….The QVC of wargames channels"
Max

Yes Margard, I think Max has a point. Well done for your heroicly patient efforts to explain to our stubborn friend, but as the saying goes, 'there's none so blind that will not see…'

Kind Regards,

Sparker

aaaaaaaaaaaaaah kevanG; in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king ;-)
down with blackpowder i say --it helps newbies play,sells historical figures,fast and nay dare i say it Sirrah might only might be fun too. The horror the horror

Yep, Crazy, thats me!..but off topic? oh contrare my dear gentleman maximillion…… I beleive I have established that for the Napoleonic Period, you may wish to amend the blunder rule…

But You probably actually want to start on the play sequence and possibly follow it with the break test, the command rules, the command roll, the support/melee interaction, squares, Free moves, Initiative moves, relative movement distances, method and type of Orders, the omission of interpenetration rules. Then start on the firing tables, the save tables, Obliqueing..and throw in something on the relative balance of firing prior to melee from closing fire….that should do just to start with.

Just a few tweaks before looking at the special rules.

…or you could do what I do and laugh at it.

:oP
Your Honor.
The prosecution rests!

(80b)

When you presenting the defence MAx?

Can I start….

Its more fun than Ludo…

Yeah, but it was fun trying! Am I allowed to correct his spelling mistakes? (au contraire – its French!).

As far as his last but one post is concerned, it is obvious that Black Powder just doesn't float his boat and never will. (Hint: It's a GAME…) I guess there's always one. As Maxshadow says, the case rests.

(Hint: so is Ludo….)

Can I correct your maths?…Its more than 2.7%

(Hint: so is Ludo….)

But Ludo is not a wargame. Again you miss the point.

Can I correct your maths?…Its more than 2.7%

You are quite correct, the actual value is 2.7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777…%
But I thought 2.7% (the truncated value to 2 significant figures) was close enough for all intents and purposes! And I get bored typing all those 7s…

Nope , its more than 3! The actual value is determined by the command value and how many rolls you make unsurprisingly!

and 2 significant figures would actually have been 2.8.

Nope , its more than 3! The actual value is determined by the command value and how many rolls you make unsurprisingly!

Read what I wrote. That the actual value is determined by the command value and how many rolls you make is indeed correct. However, the probability decreases with every roll because you cannot make the last roll unless you have successfully passed all the previous rolls. For a command value of 8, the probability of passing each roll is 72%. So for example the probability of a blunder on the 3rd roll would be

0.72 * 0.72 * 0.027 = 0.014 (1.4%)
It will never go higher that 2.7% (the probability of blundering on the 1st roll)

and 2 significant figures would actually have been 2.8.

That's why I said truncated – i.e without rounding. It would be 2.8 if I had rounded to 2 significant figures.

Thanks, I was tempted to try Napoleonics given that I like Black Powder and there are some nice new figure lines out. It is good to be reminded why I avoid the period (at least that I will ever bother to admit on line).

Try using aggregates, It doesnt decrease or increase for any individual roll. its always 1 in 36. You are working out the chances of blundering on and ONLY on a third roll……but blundering percentages are aggregates. You should be adding them together!

I get
2.7% for 1 roll,
4.7% over 2 rolls at command 8
and 6.1% over 3 rolls at command 8.

Try using aggregates, It doesnt decrease or increase for any individual roll. its always 1 in 36. You are working out the chances of blundering on and ONLY on a third roll……but blundering percentages are aggregates. You should be adding them together!

No, that is incorrect. If you could roll as many times as you like regardless of each result then you would be right. However, the opportunity to roll is dependent on the previous rolls. I am working out the chances of blundering on and ONLY on a third roll because to make that third roll the first two rolls must be successful. If the first roll fails you don't get to roll a 2nd; if the first is successful but the second fails you don't get to roll a 3rd time.
You cannot aggregate them because you only get to make the nth roll if all the preceeding rolls are successful. If you don't believe me go ask a maths teacher.

We have been talking at cross purposes. I have been calculating the probability of a blunder on the nth roll. You have been attempting to calculate the probability of a blunder over all the rolls of a given commander in a turn.

The latter depends on the former. The maximum number of possible rolls by a given commander in a turn is theoretically infinite but in practice limited by the number of units under his command. For the sake of argument let us consider this limit is 6. So the commander can issue a maximum of 6 orders in a turn (one to each unit under his command).

The probability of a blunder on the nth roll is:
p(success)^(n-1) * p(blunder)

So for each commander value we need to calculate the probability of a blunder on the 1st roll, a blunder on the 2nd roll and so on and then add all these probabilities together to give the total possible blunder on up to 6 rolls.

I have run a spreadsheet to calculate these probabilities and it produces these results:

Command value / P(blunder in up to 6 rolls)
10 / 13.5%
9 / 11.0%
8 / 8.5%
7 / 6.4%
6 / 4.7%
5 / 3.8%

Clearly the probabilities reduce if you reduce the limit to less than 6.

Make of that what you will.

"Make of that what you will."

..That I don't need to ask a maths teacher anymore?

As a solution for anyone who thinks Cuesta shouldnt blunder less than Napoleon, I would suggest that the blunder table results are amended to be good on a high score and bad on a poor score and that the command rating difference from 7 is taken as a die roll modifier i.e. less than 7 is a -1 (even 2) and 8+ is a +1(or 2).

Well, for what its worth at our Bussaco refight yesterday, a large game that lasted 12 moves, of the four players only two had to throw on the blunder table. And yes, one was an able commander with a command value of 8. The result forced a move to the right, upsetting his plans considerably, but entirely compatible with an order misunderstood amid the shot, shell and screaming!

12 moves 4 players, 2 blunders….you would expect that rate if there were 1.5 rolls per player per turn or they were lucky to roll so well

The only maths that really counts here are that while there are people who dislike these rules, there are also many others who like them … very much.

For example, the latest issue of 'Wargames Illustrated' has an article about a Franco-Prussian War game using 'Black Powder', and is written with an obvious sense of passion about these rules.

The numbers say that if you want a fun, narrative-style game, 'Black Powder' will give it to you, despite any possible nuances in the maths. And the numbers also say that if you are more logically and precisely inclined in this hobby, then you may (or may not!) prefer other rules.

Preferences, Kevan, preferences. Your 'bad rules' are the other guy's 'fun rules'. Live with it.

Arteis is right. None of us know BP's future direction but as of now a lot of people are getting a lot of fun out of it.

And BP is a good set because of……

What worries me is – is it "good" because it is the Perries, or does ot genuinely have merit. I like GdeB and R2E (and do not like the Fat Lard rules systems), so will BP be adding to my Napoleonic wargame hobby?

Arteis,

I play an awful lot of rules and I play a lot of simple and fun narrative style games, but I do avoid bottletop games if I can.

I find that black powder is a peculier brand of unpredictable movement but with far too controllable and predictable melee.

If that's people's preference then they live with it, not me. I can and have walked away.

"None of us know BP's future direction"

I suspect that we would speculate somewhere between providing wargaming nirvana and oblivion…or both

I suspect that we would speculate somewhere between providing wargaming nirvana and oblivion…or both

Rick Priestley is involved, so my guess is neither.

"If that's people's preference then they live with it, not me. I can and have walked away."

I don't think you have walked way at all, Kevan. You always seem to turn up on any thread about BP (usually started by people interested or enthusiastic about BP), aiming to pour cold water on the rules. That is not walking away.

I have also walked away from many other sets of rules. However, the only way you'll ever know that is because you won't see me on any discussions at all about those particular rules. This is because a) I don't even read those discussions; and b) even if I did read them, I would think it churlish to destroy their fans' fun just because of my own personal hobby preferences.

Arteis, Its a forum to talk about stuff….

If that talk is considered destroying 'fans' fun by pointing out the freakyness in a set of rules and why someone thinks its freaky, then something is wrong with the fans, not the discussion….and would apply to almost any negative comment in any thread on every board, wargames magazine and club meeting

You consider it churlish to comment, I consider it non- contributing lurker if you don't.

If I like a set of rules, then it is because it has ticked all the right boxes for me at a given time and for certain reasons. In fact, I often play more than one rules set depending of time, place, and mood. And enjoy them all for different reasons.

But the truth is that no matter how "freaky" a mechanism may be, if I and others enjoy the resulting game (as we have), then what do I care? I certainly won't pitch it in the bin just because of a few (or even repeated) posts on a forum. I know what I'm looking for and trust my own judgement.

Black Powder works for me just as much as does Republic to Empire or even my old copy of The Complete Brigadier. And despite all being so very different from one another, they all do what their respective designers seemed to have set out to do.

"the truth is that no matter how "freaky" a mechanism may be, if I and others enjoy the resulting game (as we have), then what do I care? "

Then I would ask if you dont care, Why do you wargame and What part of wargaming do you actually care about?

If I put effort into the figures, the terrain and the scenario, why should I not care that a set of rules creates chaotic nonsense in my game, destroys the visuals and makes a mockery of the period and combat represented…. albeit it could be described as amusing to people who don't care about those things?

You see, I know people who dont like black powder, but play it anyway. ..and they don't mention it to the people who like them. albeit I am not so sure I know who they are. It seems to be that people 'use' black powder now rather than 'like' them.

When it comes to rules, I dont just look for ticked boxes, It has to have no ringing alarm bells, flashing lights or screetching sirens as well.

Then I would ask if you dont care, Why do you wargame and What part of wargaming do you actually care about?

I wargame for many reasons and have done so for many, many years. As for those aspects of gaming I care about most (other than the painting and modelling- always a constant) much depends on my gaming situation at any given time. it's not an absolute. Re-read my post again and note that I've played and enjoyed a number of different rule sets.

Yes, there are times when I want a game which is more of a simulation than a beer-'n-pretzels session. And believe me I can be just as picky about how Napoleonic warfare is portrayed as the next grognard. But games at that level of detail tend to take a long time to play out and often require a permanent layout, something none of us have the luxury of at this time.

These days, given work and family commitments (not to mention energy level) we made the deliberate choice to seek a set of rules that would allow us to push our battalions, squadrons and batteries around the table and which doesn't move at a crawl. To play games that can give a good narrative and allow for shared camaraderie between players in the limited time we have available. Games have to reach a clear conclusion. We only game once a month, so the learning curve has to be short.

So at the moment yes; Black Powder "ticks the right boxes" and does what the authors intended it to do. It represents a gaming philosophy we currently buy into, otherwise we wouldn't have considered the rules in the first place. While it certainly doesn't replicate Napoleonic warfare in detail (nor does it claim to), it provides us with enough of a broad-brush approach to the period that suits us fine. Most of all, we enjoy playing it which frankly is all that matters.

Of course there are issues. But we just have to turn off the sirens and deal with any emerging problems as we see fit. This might be to change the offending mechanisms or even just let things be in the interest of getting on with the game. It's allowed, and has been the case with almost every rule set I have ever played.

You see, I know people who dont like black powder, but play it anyway. ..and they don't mention it to the people who like them. albeit I am not so sure I know who they are. It seems to be that people 'use' black powder now rather than 'like' them.

Not quite sure what your point is here. Are people being coerced into playing BP? We are talking about one of many sets of rules out there in what is basically a fairly obscure hobby, not a social or political movement. If anyone your end wants to play something other than BP, then by all means they should speak up and say so. That's not an issue with any rule set, that's an issue with the players. If BP doesn't turn the collective crank, find something that does and get on with gaming it.

But as far as my situation here is concerned, those of us with Napoleonic collections are quite genuinely happy to be playing Black Powder. On the whole, BP is working out for us quite happily and meets our current wargaming requirements- as we determine for ourselves- much more than the do the other options currently available to us, fine though many of them be.

If our gaming circumstances change in the future, or we happen to find something we like better, we might take up a different set of rules- or we might not. Rules come and go over the years, but miniature collections remain the same.

Really BP was a breath of fresh air for my gaming experience. Before playing laborious,
tight lawyer proof, ponderous rules had no appeal. I just don't have the will or time.
It's easy to adapt it to what you think is a decent feel to the period that you game.
It's the best all rounder out there.