"Napoleonic rules w/ regiments as units?" Topic

Im putting together some 28mm Austrians for use as 1809 battalions for use with Black Powder.

These rules will only allow me to game some of the smaller actions of this campaign like Raszyn.

Can anyone give me a rundown of what rules are available where the basic unit is a regiment so that I can fight some of the larger battles (obviously with basing that is similar to Black Powder!)?

Can't you just play BP and call them regiments? The rules are abstract enough that I doubt it would affect game play much.

The problem with calling them regiments is that it throws out the groundscale; ranges become far too long.

Oddly, there are precious few. Battalions or brigades seem to be the main unit scales. One issue is the various sizes of a "regiment." They can vary from the tiny, one battalion regiment of British to the huge regiments of Austria and Prussia. But at brigade level this even out much more so Austrians are 6 bases versus everyone else's four, and that kind of thing. At regiments you get some of three bases, some of 12!

The problem with calling them regiments is that it throws out the groundscale; ranges become far too long.

Of course it depends what you mean by regiment. In the British Army in the field, regiment was pretty much synonymous with battalion. Assuming you are referring to regiments consistng of 2 or 3 battalions, then it is simple enough to reduce the ranges in BP.

Margard,
Indeed on both points. However, so often people seem to forget about groundscale.

Extra Crispy,
Very true, and I suspect that is why there are so few "regimental level" Napoleonic rules.

Does not Field of Glory Napoleonics use the regiment as the basic maneuver unit?

I have indeed just considered using BP at this scale with just a few changes to range & movement. I was just wondering if there were any regiment specific rules out there.

Using BP would be useful as it would limit me to learning just 1 set of rules!

Scomac is correct FOGN uses regiments as the basic unit. Although some "regiments" may actually be a brigade for the British, etc.

Other than FoG, the most recent attempt was I think the old "Napoleonique" from the 1980s.

Isn't the F&F varient at this level?

Other than FoG, the most recent attempt was I think the old "Napoleonique" from the 1980s.

As I recall, Napoleonique was battalion based, with a 1:30 ratio. But it's been decades since I've seen them, so I could be wrong. Mostly what I recall is the various 'combinations' of 2D6 values they used for combat resolution.

"Isn't the F&F varient at this level?"

No, brigades.

OK, what would be the difference? Theu are both collections of Battns.

Field of Battle II, from Piquet, is flexible enough to handle regiments. There have been several of Gonzalvo's (Dr. Peter Anderson) battles recorded here on TMP. His group is using it for several battles at Historicon, notably Borodino.
He uses regiments almost exclusively and successfully. Take a look at his website, Blunders on the Danube.

I think there was a reference to and link to a review of FoB recently on TMP.

If 'regimental' here means a collection of 2-4 Bns, then I suppose Polemos Marechal d'Empire and Horse,Foot and Guns fit the bill.

Regards

Other than FoG, the most recent attempt was I think the old "Napoleonique" from the 1980s.

Uncle Duke and Jim Getz published "Napoleonette" about 6? years ago and it is a regimental scale game, where a regiment consists of between 1 and 5 battalions. The game never got much traction, and yes, the huge Austrian regiments are real pains to deal with.

"Oddly, there are precious few."

The reason may be that regiments were first and foremost administrative entities, which ensured (in principle at least) the recruiting, drilling and equipping of men.

The tactical units were battalions and brigades, so most wargame rules will use either of these as their building blocks. Any other approach soon comes up against the different national practices: single- or multi-battalion regiments, battalions of the same regiment serving together or in different theatres, etc. To the best of my understanding, Black Powder deliberately uses a sliding scale where units can be either.

Ned Zuparko's rules, "Vivel L' Empereuer, from ? 20 years ago were the first rules that I recall being specifically designed for regimental dscale (ie, about 2,000 infantry or 400 – 1000 cavalry per unit; IIRC it was 1:100 ratio. I tought the idea quite brilliant for *miniature* wargaming, as it places units at the level of the uniform distinctions! :-)

It also means that a typical corps will habe about 10 -25 units, between Infantry regiments – Artillery Companies – cavalry Regiments. Obviously, sometimes very strong units may need to be split or weak ones combined – not much new there.

As far as scaling up BP (or FoB, or whatever), I try to keep the ground scale reasonable for the troop ratio, but in all honesty, unless you're trying to draw (probably unjustified) conclusions about a historical battle from the game, I find that it hardly matters to the play or feel of the game.

Indeed, I'd even suggest you try it out both ways – play the same battle once adjusting and the second time NOT adjusting the move distances, ranges, etc., and see what you think yourself.

Peter

"Ned Zuparko's rules, "Vivel L' Empereuer, from ? 20 years ago were the first rules that I recall being specifically designed for regimental dscale

Ah, right, that's the one I was trying to remember.

The reason may be that regiments were first and foremost administrative entities, which ensured (in principle at least) the recruiting, drilling and equipping of men.

AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!!!

Far to often we see people confusing REGIMENTS with Battalions.
FOG-N claims to use the regiment as the basis for it's 'Units' which I really struggle to come to terms with.
I've read the rules and played a few games now and I'm pretty sure the units I'm moving are Brigades, (a collection of Battalions).
But hey, if the guys a FOG-N want to call it a Regiment who am I to argue.

Hazelbark on the FOGN Forum has done an amazing slide show that illustrates these rules in the Yahoo group
link
link

John

Volley & Bayonet: each stand = 1500-2500 infantry, 1000 cavalry or so and 12-18 guns.

Republique from WTJ :

wtj.com/games/republique

Divisions are made up of several regiments. Each regiment has around 3,4, or 5 bases. Each base is just under 1 battalion.

Bases that make up a regiment move and fight as a group.

Plays a good game, with emphasis on command and control. What happens at the sharp end when 2 regiments clash is determined by a single opposed die roll, with the chance of firefights and breakthroughs built in to the results.

Handles skirmishers, but abstracts musketry and melee into a single contact resolution. Easy to learn, well written, and gives a good feel for the period. Heaps of army lists and other support material as well.

Free to download and print off as well !

What Musketier said.

Battalions and brigades were tactical units.

Regiments were administrative units.

Sounds like you want a 'brigade level' game……

"Ned Zuparko's rules, "Vivel L' Empereuer, from ? 20 years ago were the first rules that I recall being specifically designed for regimental dscale

Ah, right, that's the one I was trying to remember.

Published by Chaosium in 1981. Based in part on a treatise on 'grand tactics' by Clausewitz. E-mail Ned for a copy if you are really interested.

"Battalions and brigades were tactical units.
Regiments were administrative units."

IMO that is irrelevant as a wargaming argument. For wargaming it is important, what battle you wanna play, what units you wanna show in miniature and what is playable by one person.

What battle? I (and many others) want to play small battles with one corps a side with one against one player or real battles like Waterloo with 3-4 players per side.

What units to show? I prefer to paint different units. So i dont want to paint 4 bataillons old guard grenadiers, i prefer to paint grenadiers, chassauers and tirailleurs.

What is playble? A player can handle without problems up to 15 units. A corps had about 30-40 bataillons.

It shows that a regiment of 2 bataillons is the best game unit you can use. You have the detail that is lost in brigade games (how to show visually a austrian avantgarde brigade with hussars and grenzers?), but you can play bigger battles with one or more corps per side.

If your unit is 6" wide in line, that would be (in regimental scale) 200 m. So 30" is a km, a table 6 foot deep is more than 2,2 km. Even Waterloo is possible with a big table.

Agree with Decebalus. The most important thing is that you can enjoy playing the kind of battles you want to play, with the kind of figures you want to paint.

There is no perfect or ideal solution at any scale.

If you play with individual battalions and squadrons, you run into all the problems with their variable size and strength, particularly once a grueling campaign is under way. My 281-man BN versus your 1134-man BN is a challenge to constructing any reasonably simple combat system, or rules for formations. A small scale invites literal interpretations of size and strength, but that almost requires different base sizes, which makes it almost impossible to standardize, and we all know how people react to being told to re-base their figures.

If you play with regiments that are set at some theoretical number of battalions, then you run into all the problems with the fact that different countries used very different systems. Fitting a British 1-BN regiment, with a Russian 2-BN regiment, with a Prussian 3-BN regiment, with a French 4-BN regt. etc, etc, in the same system…. and don't forget the extra grenadier BN that got attached to the brigade and is all by its lonesome….

If you play with brigades, then you run into all the problems of formation and footprint, as a combat is really decided by what the brigade's component units are doing, not by "the brigade," and so you struggle with trying to represent things like forming lines, squares, skirmishing, divisional artillery, etc. (Not to mention that one brigade has 4,389 men, while the other one has 840 men….)

If you play at any higher scale, you can finesse all of the above, but people will tell you that "it's not Napoleonics," because they can't see columns, lines, and squares on the table.

"Isn't the F&F varient at this level?"

Yes, there is a F&F variant called Regimental Fire and Fury.

I want to say that it is aimed more for the ACW somewhat like the original F&F. Worth checking if you're interested. The original, Napoleonic, Lace Wars & the upcoming Age of Rifles are all unit is a Brigade.

"there is a F&F variant called Regimental Fire and Fury."

That's a small-scale tactical ACW game. The Op was asking for a large-scale multi-battalion Napoleonics game.

So what we've established here is that different nations used the same term to describe different organisations.

Regiment (in the field)
British = 1 Battalion
Union/Confederate = 1 Battalion (sized)
French, Russian, Austrian, Prussian = 2 to 4 battalions depending on what date and campaign you pick.

Brigade
British = 2 or more single "battalion" regiments
Union/Confederate = 2 or more single "battalion" regiments
French = 2 or more multi battalion regiments and some artillery
Prussian = 3 multi battalion regiments plus cavalry and artillery (basically the same size as a French Division in size).

Rules pick a name for their basic manoeuvre unit F&F picked brigade and FOG-N regiment, because for their respective periods that was the next level up from the basic ACW regiment or Napoleonic battalion.

There are two basic unit sizes in FOG-N six stand and four stand. So for the Plancenoit scenario Prussian battalions are six stands and the French four stands. To me that looks like two stands per battalion if you want to work on historical OOBs. If a regiment (ie French 1809) has four battalions you could use two four stand FOG-N "regiments" to represent them.

If a Union or Confederate regiment was the same as a battalion (or British regiment in the field) then to me a F&F brigade is substantially similar to a French/Austrian/Russian Napoleonic regiment of several battalions. The only difference being that F&F can expand the brigade beyond the equivalent of three battalions as the stands represent a number of men not a sub unit.

Regimental F&F to me would be on the same scale as Napoleonic Battalion level rules.

Anyway back to the OP I believe a F&F Napoleonic adaptation (Age of Eagles or the free ones that are available), FOG-N or indeed Black Powder should fit the bill.

I wouldn't get hung up on the manoeuvre unit name, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck call it a duck.

There are two basic unit sizes in FOG-N six stand and four stand. So for the Plancenoit scenario Prussian battalions are six stands and the French four stands. To me that looks like two stands per battalion if you want to work on historical OOBs. If a regiment (ie French 1809) has four battalions you could use two four stand FOG-N "regiments" to represent them.

As illustrated here with FOG-N and Plancenoit on a 8x5' table:
link

John

John – I think it was reading your review that prompted me to buy the rules, your explanation of them was very clear, thanks.

Just waiting for some Calpe Prussians to arrive now!

The Prussian post-1806 Brigade was a division in all but name because the terms of the peace treaty limited the size of the Prussian army. Brought to full wartime strength with Reservists and Landwehr, it functioned as a divison, including its organic artillery and screening cavalry. As such it would often be split into two unequal "de-facto brigades" – if memory serves, one of the regulars and reserves, the other the Landwehr, each commanded by a colonel.

Thanks SRRD,

I just looked back at the Stats on my blog, and the 4 FOG-N posts were the most popular I have done, with over 3500 hits. I believe that there is a real desire for Corps level rulesets which use the same basing as the Battalion level rulesets.

Hint…hint to ODNAL (Sam), where is Blucher?

John

Appreciate all the input, especially the link as Plancenoit is one of the games I would like to recreate at this level.

Ill be picking up a copy of FOGN tonight.

"Hint…hint to ODNAL (Sam), where is Blucher?"

He and Stonewall are currently fighting it out, to see who is coming out next.

If you play with regiments that are set at some theoretical number of battalions, then you run into all the problems with the fact that different countries used very different systems. Fitting a British 1-BN regiment, with a Russian 2-BN regiment, with a Prussian 3-BN regiment, with a French 4-BN regt. etc, etc, in the same system…. and don't forget the extra grenadier BN that got attached to the brigade and is all by its lonesome….

And that is why using the REGIMENT as the basis of your gaming unit crazy.
Play at either Battalion Level or BRIGADE level is my suggestion.
I use actual ORBATS where posible when I put my armies together. If I decide to play at a Divisional or Corps level I will use a Battalion of miniatures as a REPRESENTATION of all the many and varied battalions within that Division or Corps.
Like I said earlier, FOG-N uses the Regiment as the gaming Unit but it sure looks like a Brigade to me.

Its always nice to see new material being produced for the hobby, especially those that are likely to get more people interested in the subject and period.

Having a company like Osprey back a product is also an excellent thing for the hobby, as it gets a wide exposure.

At the risk of sounding like a completely elitist snob (which I am NOT) … I cant help but feel that there are several things about FOG-N that leave me really uneasy.

These are my 2c worth of opinion – which are bound to divide (and probably earn me a bucket load of stifles !!) … but I make no apology, as the understanding of military history is something I care about deeply.

Where to start ?

I suppose it is the idea that those who discover the period through FOG-N, will start their journey of discovery with a mental model of how warfare works in this era which is essentially wrong on several levels.

Embedding incorrect concepts in peoples heads early in the learning experience is just counter productive. As these new players read up and learn more about the actual warfare of the period, they will have to un-learn several things if they are going to make any further progress in the subject.

Otherwise, reading up on the real history will be difficult, as the facts that they discover will not gell with their mental model of how warfare supposedly works in this period.

Imagine starting kindergarten children on their road to geography education by telling them that the world is flat. That is a much simpler, more appealing and more digestable concept than the truer details. But it's not doing the kids any favors in the long run.

It is not about the abstraction mechanisms – as all wargames rules abstract to one extent or another. There are also plenty of good rulesets out there that already have decent abstraction models for this grand tactical level of play. They all manage to do that quite comfortably without inventing a whole pile of new constructs that have little basis in reality.

If other rulesets can abstract at this level with accuracy, why then does FOG-N feel the need to invent artificial concepts that muddle the understanding of the period ?

Large square blocks of 'regiments with special attachments' that move around the table shooting muskets at each other = the battle of Waterloo ? Sounds like a fun weekend, but is that how things really happened on these famous battlefields ? I am no expert in the period, but Im not convinced that is a good model to be introducing new players to the period with.

And that I think is the real tragedy of having Osprey push these rules in the genre of historical gaming. Especially so since there are already plenty of really excellent rulesets and other material available that are just as accessible, just as much fun to play, and yet … manage to be accurate and educational at the same time.

I just fail to see the problem (in the existing body of material) that FOG-N is trying to address, to the point that justifies the invention of a-historical concepts of warfare in order to sell a game.

Thats my scathing 2c worth of opinion anyway. Off to paint up another regiment of Old Guard Paratroops, and add some more chainsaws to my Royal Scots Halberdiers :)

"If other rulesets can abstract at this level with accuracy, why then does FOG-N feel the need to invent artificial concepts that muddle the understanding of the period ?"

I'm not a fan of that system, but I think you're exaggerating. First, every game invents artificial concepts that have nothing to do with the history. What is a "command radius" or a "sequence of play," or a "movement allowance," or any of that crap?

And second, who cares what war-game rules a new gamer is introduced to? They aren't studying for an exam in astrophysics. There are no right and wrong ways to play make-believe history. If a person really likes Napoleonics, they won't learn more about the period by playing more game rules. They'll read books.

Steve64,

I certainly would not stifle you, your opinion is valid, but really pushing around toy soldiers is a game after all and I agree with SMTE, that if you want to learn something read a book!

In my opinion what is important in a ruleset in order of importance:
Flexibility of basing
Easily understood mechanism
Quick to play
Looks good
Give accurate overall result

I do take issue though with:

And that I think is the real tragedy of having Osprey push these rules in the genre of historical gaming. Especially so since there are already plenty of really excellent rulesets and other material available that are just as accessible…

There is no tragedy from Osprey encouraging people into historical wargaming.

I am also curious what ruleset do you find

….just as much fun to play, and yet … manage to be accurate and educational at the same time.

John

"I use actual ORBATS where posible when I put my armies together. If I decide to play at a Divisional or Corps level I will use a Battalion of miniatures as a REPRESENTATION of all the many and varied battalions within that Division or Corps."

Really?????

Take the austrian corps of 1812.
link

I cant beleave you will play it with bataillons. It is to big to build with bataillons, with brigades you loose all the difference in troop types. With regiments of 2 bataillons you can build the orbat and get at the same time a playable army.

Trailape, you mean you play a corp level game with 30 e actual bns on the table per side? 30 actual units of however many figs (12,24, or 36)?

MY kind of gamer. I was looking at ORBATS for many battles from 1805-1811 and was going to build Davout's III Corp or Lanne's. Probably in the area of 60-45 bns respectively. I am looking forward to building all these at 24 figs per unit.

If other rulesets can abstract at this level with accuracy, why then does FOG-N feel the need to invent artificial concepts that muddle the understanding of the period ?

Can they?

The rules I'm familiar with that work at this kind of level use fairly similar types of abstraction, or, if you really care about this kind of thing, they run into different ones.

Not sure why FOG-N seems to be singled out?

Regards

Decebalus,
Why is the Austrian force of 1812 too big to build with battalions? It is only 20-30 battalions. I, and many others, have larger armies than that. For example, my main army is Massena's corps at Aspern-Essling and that works fine.

The problem with using regiments is that armies fought by battalions, brigades, divisions and corps, generally not by regiments (except for the British where a battalion often was a regiment).

Agreed with trailape & colinjallen. I play 1:60 with players commanding corps, works fine.

Also agreed that every period has a formation that defined tactics, in the ACW it was the regiment, in Napoleonics it was the battalion.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I cant beleave you will play it with bataillons. It is to big to build with bataillons, with brigades you loose all the difference in troop types. With regiments of 2 bataillons you can build the orbat and get at the same time a playable army.

REALLY, you can't believe me? Are you suggesting I'm a fibber?
:^O
I actually DO use historical Orbats.
For example my Prussians in 28mm that I've collected for playing LASALLE (a Battalion Level Game) is based on a Prussian Brigade from the Battle of Dennewitz 6-7 September 1813. Units are drawn from 3rd Corp using both the 3rd Brigade GM Hessen-Homburg and elements of 4th Brigade GM Thümen plus regiments from both Cavalry Brigades within the Corps' Reserve Cavalry under GM von Oppen.
It's all there.
For gaming at Corps level I also use orbats. If I was playing using FOG-N you can find examples of these in the actual rules.
Obviously the UNITS are now Regiments (well Brigades actually IMHO).
The first 'Army' I put together for Napoleonic gaming was IV Corps, Grand Armee of 1812 for playing 'Age Of Eagles'.
So yes, I use actual Orbats.
FWIW, I like FOG-N, (I just don't like the concept of using the 'Regiment' as the gaming unit).

Ah – I think therein lies the actual 'problem' that larger scale rules are addressing.

Wargaming Napoleonic battles is …. not easy. Battles involve lots of battalions. Even small engagements need a lot of battalions. There is no getting around that fact.

That takes space, time and money if you want even a few figures per battalion on a battlefield. That is a serious barrier to entry that is likely to turn off all but the most insane and compulsive gamers.

There is nothing wrong with making this more accessible by moving the scale up. Napoleons Battles did a great of job of this.

Moving up to this scale, to allow a Corps per side without taking a year or more to build the miniatures .. means abstracting out musketry / skirmish fire / melee into a single contact mechanic. This really does allow the player to begin to appreciate command at the Grand Tactical level. (I think Snappy Nappy might do it this way as well ?? not sure)

Republique (free / open source / downloadable rules) do a great job of this scale of battle as well. Highly recommended.

The 'problem' of fighting larger battles has already been well addressed. If 12 figures on the table represent a brigade, then they should behave / move / form up / fight like a brigade relative to the ground scale.

So fighting at this scale means that the 'feel' of volleys, smoke, bayonets and storming buildings is …. abstracted well below the surface of the game. Brigades move and push against each other repelling like opposed magnets.

There is a lot of other action happening inside that abstracted block that represents the brigade. Battalion level formations, passage of lines, volley fire, mutually supporting arrangements, skirmishing, advance to contact, firefights, etc, etc, etc.

To cherry pick some fun aspects out of that lower level detail and apply them at a higher level, for the sake of making the game more fun is all well and good, but it distorts the impression of what is really happening on the field.

And Whirlwind is quite right – a lot of systems do this, so why single out FOG-N for special treatment ? No reason really, I was just hoping that Osprey of all people would have leaned more towards historical accuracy given their excellent reputation for all things historical.

Given that the ground is well covered by a lot of existing rulesets already – I dont see that FOG-N is bringing anything new to the table either.

For John – no offence intended mate, in fact I think your enthusiasm for the game is excellent. If FOG-N is your introduction to the period, then yeah, get right into it. Keep building, keep adding, and keep reading. Its a great journey.

Asking about other rules – ah thats a hard call, but thats just me.

If someone asked me "What computer should I get – an Apple or a HP or Toshiba, etc ?" .. I would probably say "Neither – just get the parts and build your own, work it out as you go". Same with anything really. Car not behaving ? You can shop around for a good mechanic, or you can open the bonnet and work it out. Hungry ? KFC, Burger King or Maccas ? Neither – get some real food from the local market and fire up the stovetop. Playing and learning is everything.

So open up a a fresh new document in your word processor of choice, and start writing your own rules now !! Model your understand of the period in the form of rules, and let both evolve from there.

Learning through playing gives more insight than studying for an exam.

Given that Napoleonic Wargaming is a reflection of real events from the past …. its those real actions that form the basis of the study. Everything else, from books, memoirs, rulesets, movies to re-enactments are a model of the actual. And there is no shortage or resources available, so grab whatever you can get your hands on.

Things I have found useful :
- Free rulesets: Republique, Elan, Huzzah!
- The library
- Older guys who have been obsessed with the period for decades.
- Old school rules like Airfix, Empire, Valmy to Waterloo, Legacy of Glory, etc. Levels of detail that are often un-playable, but struggling through them provides insights and rewards effort.
- Newer rulesets derived from the Old School mode of thinking, like Republic to Empire, Revolution and Empire, GdB.
- Just got the newly published copy of Chef de Battalion too. Wow !! An expensive and insanely detailed tome that models combat at 1:5 scale. Everything I thought I understood about how battalions fight has gone straight out the window … again :) A treasure of a book.

For John – no offence intended mate, in fact I think your enthusiasm for the game is excellent. If FOG-N is your introduction to the period, then yeah, get right into it. Keep building, keep adding, and keep reading. Its a great journey.

Thank Steve. A look through my blog will reveal that I have have play tested multiple rulesets: Le Feu Sacre, Field of Battle, Lasalle, Republic to Empire, Black Powder and most recently FoG-N. With FOG-N, I was just looking for a set that I could play a corps action game with my battalion based units (24-36x28 mm figures to a battalion). I am still waiting to see Blucher which I think will be a similar level game. I started wargaming about 4 years ago, so I am quite new to the whole thing.

I have actually read Republique, Elan and Huzzah and even had Shane Devries send me a copy of his ruleset, that is what you could call detailed!

I may look at GdB. Of the games I have play tested I have liked Republic to Empire the least. But I am still sure that they are a good set of rules.

I believe of course that we are looking for different things in a game, and to each his own. It seems you really like games that simulate combat to a great deal.

I will always favour simplicity and elegance over complex mechanisms. Thus I like BP and Lasalle the best. FoB is also really fun, I am all for card driven mechanisms. FOG-N appears to be an excellent and well supported game which is really well put together, and until I see Blucher it will be probably my choice for a grand tactical game if indeed I play any. Battalion level gaming is my focus.

So I laud Osprey for publishing such a useful game, I hope to see more.

John