"Do you give bonuses to 'Napoleon' in Wargames?" Topic

Wellington once said something like "On the field of battle Napoleon is worth 40,000 men". The little corporal is almost universally regarded as one of histories great commanders. So I am curious, how to you model the effect of Napoleon himself in Wargames?
I guess it will depend on the type of rules you use as to whether the effect of a commander-in-chief comes into play. I give Napoleon (and some other Commanders) some limited bonuses in my games, so I was wondering what other folks decide to do with the pesky Corsican.

In a game with command and control he would hugely increase the chance of troops acting. Not necessarily as he wished, but no one will risk the wrath of le petit tondu if they can avoid it. Should it be a younger Bonaparte, if he puts himself at the head of troops they will be greatly inspired, a la the bridge at Arcole. However, once he becomes emporer I wouldn't let him attach to a unit. Too much at risk even if he (the player) wanted to. Minimally, no unit will want to appear weak in front of their commander and/or ruler.

Depends on the rules, some of them have done it for you.

In Horse, Foot & Guns has is a 'brilliant commander'. That is a good thing to be.

In War & Peace he is a +3 General, which means he is fairly likely to win pretty well any battle he fights. Only Wellington is as good:)

As 21eRegt says, you need to model his command style at various periods of his career really.

In Corps Command he is an "A" rated commander, the highest level you can get, with a much higher command and control ability, command zone, etc. I think only Wellington rates as high as him. I think the game also specifies that earlier in his career he is considered to be a Division Commander, and past a certain date can be used as an Army Commander and CinC.

He is a bit too high up the command chain for the size of the action I play. I'd expect him to have some thing special. +1 more than everyone else, a wider command radius or some morale boosting talent… A reroll per turn or the like.

Typically he affected troop morale. [Tactical and Grandtactical play rules].
Then he affected quickness of orders and subordinate's activity (Corp leaders/marshals). [Grandtactical play rules].

So if the rules do not already address these with some kind of bonus or mechanic, then I move the ratings up one or down one (if not present) for the morale, corp commander's abilities, army to corp leader orders, and affecting activation of reserves…. in comparison to the allies' abilities-per the rules mechanics at play.

MG

I give him +1 to his armour class because he is small which makes him harder to hit.

In the rules I'm working on, players can hold cards, always good to have. Napoleon gets more than anyone else pre-1810. While emperor he also gets more "follow me" cards added to his deck, simulating officers vying for promotion. He also boosts the morale break level of the army. It's easier to fight his underlings, as in the Trachenberg Plan.

Hello TelesticWarrior!

I always thought that part of the allure to gaming was being in the shoes of the C&C to see if you could do any better. So I have never liked rules that give Napoleon a bonus. Presently I enjoy the Polemos series of rules that put the players in the shoes of the senior commanders and the armies success or failure on the table top depends a lot on your abilities, not any built in personal command values. It's a much more exciting style of game. Although designed for 6mm gaming it can work for any scale.

Best regards,

Glenn

Back in 1979 I played a campaign based on the board game "Napoleon at Bay". In the board game, Napoleon gets +2 on battle rolls, making the Trachenberg Plan (avoid Nap, attack subordinates) the way to go unless you have very large numbers.

In our campaign, it was just me. Since there was a morale deficit if Napoleon didn't win convincingly, the Allies were always looking to fight him with a moderate advantage in numbers. The French had some great moments, wiping out the Russian Guard one time, the Wurttemburg Corps another, but we fought bloody ties in most of the big battles and French national morale went down the drain. So I like the option to give a serious bonus depending on commander. I know I'm not Napoleon.

I let him suddenly find out he is needed in Paris when things go pants and then blame his subordinates for the loss : )

Actually rather than giving a command figure a benefit beyond say a slight morale boost for being present with a unit, superior commanders will have had some larger effect such as greater morale for each unit than standard, or a better ability to react to circumstances (presumably due to a more efficient staff system) rather than something that relies on what the actual figure is doing on the table.

Glenn Pearce,
The problem with those game rules is the missing motivation effect/factor that must be accounted for. Otherwise, you are just Gen de Div VanDamme as role off CC. IE.How do you implement your "charisma and ability to inspire" let alone the triple size in staff (over any other CC or corp commander) and the its impact?
MG

If Napoleon shows up for one of my games-he gets the best chair. Other than that, he's on his own.

Yes, I give Napoleon a bonus in my wargames.

I use the General de Brigade Deluxe rules and the highest general rating is Excellent. Excellent generals generally get a +1 to the die rolls. If Napoleon is on the field, I rate him as Excellent with a +2 to the die rolls.

21eRegt, I like your rule on not letting the Emperor attach himself to a unit.

Given Napoleon's insistence for obedience to orders then perhaps his subordinates should have their initiative reduced when Napoleon is commanding at the battle.

Hello marshalGreg!

Sorry but I don't see any problem at all. As far as I know motivation, charisma and inspiration are very difficult traits to pass on en mass and even if they can, I think that all goes out the window after the first shot. Once the hits the fan all of that would have to come from the soldiers direct commanders. Certainly if the commander of the army is in a specific location he would probably have an impact on those troops, but to say that Napoleon could somehow do more then another commander is clearly immeasurable.

If I'm playing Napoleon it's my motivation, charisma and inspiration to my fellow players that's important. After all they are the only humans in the game. The rest are just metal figures and are only effected by numbers, values, charts, dice, etc.

To directly answer your question all the other commanders who are generally not represented by a player are rated and that rating is a catch all for all their qualities, good and bad. The entire staff effect is also worked into those ratings.

The Polemos system is pretty simple, but covers a lot of ground that requires volumes in other rule systems.

To give Napoleon some kind of magical number just seems to defy logic, and will clearly slant the game in favor of the French for all the wrong reasons. Napoleons skill set was way beyond intangibles. It was his ability to concentrate troops at the critical points and execute timely attacks that made him one of the best generals of his time. These are the areas that your rules should focus on. The player who can do that the best is the Napoleon of our group.

Best regards,

Glenn

Should have +10 to logistics or the like.

He should provide extreme advantages to any battalion he's attached to, with slightly decreasing advantages to units further away.

The downside is that, if he is killed or wounded, the negatives to those same units are double those same bonuses.

Remember at Essling (or was it Wagram?), where he received a scratch to his ankle, the entire army went into a gasp, whereupon he had to ride around the battlefield to let them all know he was ok.

If I'm taking the role of Napoleon in a wargame, giving my troops morale, movement or combat bonuses will give them an advantage, but it won't necessarily result in me devising a grand-tactical manoeuvre or battle plan of equivalent skill! Nor will they guarantee that I will respond appropriately to battlefield crises…

That's why I simply play as myself, in hypothetical/imaginary engagements, rather than pretending I'm some historical character. Victory or defeat is down to me (and my opponent) not the application of character bonuses.

Interesting replys so far Gentlemen. Keep 'em coming!

Arthur1815,
The incident you refer to occurred at Ratisbon in front of the big medieval walls. Napoleon was at his inspirational best during the first part of the 1809 campaign.
Your approach is similar to my own. I play as myself, and victory is down to the skill of the players, but historical personages such as Napoleon lend morale bonuses to units stationed near their location.

I also play with an 'army morale' factor that is slowly eroded away during battle (as troop, territorial, cannon & colour losses occur, Generals are killed, or reserves are committed etc).
When the army morale equals 0 the the C-in-C takes a personal Leadership check. If this is failed then the battle is lost! This check has to be taken every subsequent hour at -1 LD per check. Napoleon has a LD of 11, so he has a far better chance of passing than, say, Bennigsen (LD 8). So it is up to the tactics, strategies & skill of the human players to make sure they don't get into a situation where their army morale = zero. But if it does, it goes down to a die roll to see if your army is finished off!

Hello TelesticWarrior!

I'm with you up until your army morale check. A minor issue but I think your doing a disservice to Benningsen and all the other army commanders when you do that. I think your just buying into the hype and myth of the period and giving Napoleon an unfair advantage that really can't be substantiated.

Best regards,

Glenn

He tends to give a morale and tactics bonus in my game… this affects order lead time and maneuverability in the field. command and Morale role bonuses.

Hi Glenn,

8 is above average in my rules, so Bennigsen is rated as pretty good. Leadership tests are made on 2D6 so a score of 7 is the average.
Off the top of my head
Napoleon is 11,
Wellington, Charles, Davout 10
Massena, Blucher 9
Bennigsen, Soult 8
Wittgenstein, Ney 7
5 & 6 are reserved for complete fools or Monarchs who fancied themselves as great commanders but really weren't (I'm looking at you Tsar Alexander!).
But of course all this is pretty subjective.

I like the army morale system a lot for large pitched battles such as Borodino, Wagram, Vittoria etc (which is what I usually game). I've played with victory conditions devised by other people and I feel they are better suited to smaller tactical games where a simpler objective is required to win. In grand tactical battles there is usually only one objective; destroy the opponents army and his will to fight on.

(By the way I think Napoleon's superiority over other commanders can be substantiated. He fought close to 60 battles and won pretty much all of them except when he was significantly outnumbered. The man was a master on the field of battle, he may have aggrandized himself to an extent in his later writings, but it can't all be hype! His enemies certainly did their best to avoid him, i.e. the trachenberg (Sic) plan in 1813).

Hello TelesticWarrior!

I realize that your rating is subjective. I'm not doubting in any way Napoleon's superiority over most commanders. I just think your applying it in the wrong way.

I also think victory conditions is a joke and perhaps should be the topic of another thread. The objective was always simply to destroy the enemy in front of you and if possible his will to fight on regardless of the size of the action.

Napoleon won his battles mainly because he had an excellent tool to use, the French Army. He was then able to concentrate this army in a location that was generally to his advantage. Finally he knew how to wear down his opponent in battle and make decisive attacks at critical times and locations. That's pretty much it. None of this has anything to do with a numeric chart and dice roll when the army is already broken.

So a lot of Napoleons skills are really before the battle has taken place. Those on the battlefield are not much better then a few other commanders and possibly not as good as some.

Anyway my point is that your simply using a creative number and a chart that really can't be substantiated and I think you might be better off using Napoleons true skills in another area of your rules or better still just dropping the entire concept.

Best regards,

Glenn

In Napoleon's Battles (Craig Taylor and I designed it), each brigade has a dispersal level from A to E, the number of hits which when reached requires the removal of the unit. When present, Napoleon increases this level by one level (from C to B for instance). This is very important for the 1813/14 battles when large numbers of newly raised French infantry had a dispersal level D rather tha C as most regular infantry.

The rules also have a command radius. Napoleon's is 28 inches or 2800 yards per turn or 1000 yards greater than the next most efficient general. This reflects his orderly system. They were young men (15-22 or so) of good breeding and high intelligence who were personally selected by Napoleon. On the battlefield they were used to deliver orderrs (and no they never got lost) at the double quick or as fast as possible. They wore a distinctive sky blue uniform which the entire army knew and when they arrived with a message they spoke with the authority of Napoleon.

Additionally, the Napoleon base has an intrinsic defensive value based on the units attached for his protection plus there are rules which allow the gamer to make additional attachments.

Finally, the death of Napleon immediately ends the battle in a loss.

Bob Coggins

Hi Glenn,

So a lot of Napoleons skills are really before the battle has taken place. Those on the battlefield are not much better then a few other commanders and possibly not as good as some.

Absolutely agree with the first part of the sentence. Napoleon had won many of his battles before the first shot had been fired, his plan of campaign (and execution of the plan) ensuring that the enemy was already in a bad situation.

That said, we like to fight the historic battles (and not usually the full campaign) using the historical OOB's and deployment. Many of the battles are fantastic to war-game even considering Napoleons grand tactical advantage (i.e. Austerlitz, Friedland, Wagram……).
So we, as gamers, still need a gaming mechanism to tell us who has won the battle. This is also true for made-up scenario's. Fighting until one side is anihilated is not realistic and in any case, few gamers have the stamina to fight til the bitter end. Like you said, I feel the victory conditions used in many games is unsatisfactory, so I'm forced to devise my own.

After reading Clausewitz and others I've come to the conclusion that a big Napoleonic battle is like a clash of Will power between the opposing forces and the brains of the C-in-C's trying to control them. There always seems to be a point in historical battles when one commander throws in the towel because he realises its a lost cause. I'm thinking of Napoleon giving the order to retreat at 'some point in time' at Aspern-Essling or Leipzig, or Massena deciding at 'some point in time' to call off the attack on Wellingtons position at Bussaco or Fuentes.
How do we model this theoretical 'point in time'? Army morale is one way of doing it. I've taken part in many great games where the Army morale of both sides is eroding away rapidly due to all kinds of events. It's very exciting to find out who is going to crack first. Do I commit my reserves to smash the enemies centre and possibly force his retreat? But if so, will that mean my own Army morale is hanging by a thread and leaving me open to a defeat instead!

I love the concept myself, and I'm certainly not ready to ditch it. Might not be everybodies cup of tea, but thats probably why Napoleonic gaming is so diverse and has so many rule-sets.

None of this has anything to do with a numeric chart and dice roll when the army is already broken.

Well, the dice roll is a nice bit of flavour at the end. It's a relatively minor thing because if you have performed well up to that point then your Army morale will not be at breaking point anyway. Your enemy will be the one who has to take the roll. The die roll might give him a chance to hang in there for a bit longer, but the end result is almost enivitable….
I give Leaders ratings to all generals on the battlefield (Divisional level and upwards), because I feel there are important times during the battle that difficult decisions have to be made by the command staff, by the C-in-C's and their subordinate General's.
Hope this all makes sense,
TW.

If the benefits occurred by 'Napoleon' represents his staff and the efficiency of the army organization, that is one thing. Having the player gain benefits for being Napoleon simply doesn't work.

The player is being set in place of Napoleon. To try and attach special abilities--or deficiencies--to the player so he can 'act like' some historical person doesn't work from a simulation standpoint.

Both players start 'playing the rules', acting in ahistorical ways because of things/rules the original participants didn't have to deal with. They were just themselves. The players should face the same circumstance the historical figures did, not be forced to act or benefit from artificial mechanics.

It is like the infamous "McClellan Rule" for Antietam scenarios, where Union corps can't move because McClellan was cautious. The Confederate player knows too much plans accordingly and the Union player starts devising strategies to mitigate the rules. In both cases, their decisions have little to do with the actual challenges faced by both commanders. It might make for a good game, but it ain't history and it ain't simulating anything real.

No one can be expected to act like Napoleon in any 'realistic' fashion, so why make rules that attempt to produce just that?

I generally don't play strictly historical battles for this reason. How ever if I were playing a historical great or aweful leader I would expect some deviation of my normal gaming style, especially when it comes to morale and Esprite' which or small toys cannot display. I real life there is a huge impact how do you model the impact a charismatic leader has without some rule?

Hmmm, now who was it who said "morale is the physical as 3 is to 1"?

It's a bit like a role playing game where one is asked to behave as someone with greater intelligence than their own, isn't it?

One can always choose to make poor decisions but how on earth can you model someone able to make better decisions than oneself?

I always allow him a +2 for limbo dancing under low fences, +3 for Gallic shrugs and a whopping +5 for night-time headaches.

Hello TelesticWarrior!

Our club is presently 48 years old and has been in my care for about 35 years. Most of our games are strictly historical battles and mainly Napoleonic. I've probably played, watched, game mastered close to a 1,000 games. Excluding some of the early games, they are never down to the last stand. They also have a morale system, but most times THE PLAYERS concede before the system says their finished. We also do not have any personality rules. So what your trying to achieve is certainly possible, and does happen, without injecting intangibles.

Without question there is a game of will power going on, but it's between the players, not the lifeless metal figures. I've seen many a game end by one side, simply because they lost the game of wills, and had convinced themselves that they could not win. While other players scratched their heads.

I apologize if I mislead you. I'm not advocating you throw out your entire morale system. Just the personality part. If you like having what I call a saving dice roll fine, but it should be equal for all armies. Attaching a personality rating is just fudging it to someone's advantage for no justifiable reason.

I also have no problem with you rating all of your commanders as long as they are only used for troops directly under them and the same criteria is applied equally to all commanders. Also that the rating reflects their actual abilities, not another intangible disconnect. I realize that this might not be clear, but hopefully you now understand my general point of view. I'm also just speaking in general terms, as I have no idea how your actual system works.

Best regards,

Glenn

All good points.

Napoleon's real genius was strategic and grand tactical. That work is mostly done when battle commences, except to order the timing of a pre-planned attack, or to react to unforseen circumstances.

However, on the battlefield, Napoleon's presence should have a general army-wide morale bonus, and huge personal bonuses for close proximity to battalions, regiments, even divisions. Much more than Wellington or other commanders.

Of course, his death or wounding is a morale disaster.

Glen, you speak well to the wargaming tradition, and to how we, "as players on a stage" (your great bard) interact when gaming.

Widowson, you have it exactly, and succinctly. That's what we do.

A wound,rare though it is, is always a flurry of movement!

We also don't allow post 1803 shows of proximal bravery unless the ump determines a crisis is severe enough to warrrant it, and that is essentially a 'death of the army' unless…criteria.

Hello Widowson!

Thanks for your kind words.

Looks like were very, very close in our thinking, just off perhaps a bit with our Napoleonic mystic.

I have no doubt that when Napoleon paraded in front of his army it was electric, but it's pretty much like watching the Queen in a parade. When she is no longer in sight it's over. I don't think there is any army wide effect that lasts past the first shot. From that point on it's your mates and your commanders that will see you through, not some lost image in your mind. I think it's a lot different then say some brain washed fanatics.

On the other hand I completely agree that senior commanders have an effect on troops they are close to, as long as they are there. Actually pretty much the same as my statement above.

Unfortunately I can't agree that some personalities were not only more electric then others, but also managed to give off a bigger shock, for lack of a better explanation. In other words give a greater degree of some kind of magic to the men. There is just no way to measure this. The period is full of giants, and I don't believe there was any tangible difference between Napoleons effect on his troops or Wellingtons or Bluchers, effect on their troops. I think when you try to do this your just buying into the myth of the period, and trying to somehow put a number on it.

So I fully agree that senior commanders can effect the troops they come in contact with, but there is no "realistic" way to introduce that effect on a personality basis into a wargame with lifeless figures.

I also think history is full of armies being shaken or completely broken when their commander is wounded or killed. It's not exclusive ground to Napoleon.

Have another look at what McLaddie says, I can't disagree with one word of his post.

Best regards,

Glenn

Hello la Grande Quartier General!

Thanks, I like to think I've learned something from playing and watching so many games. In fact for many years we studied our games in great detail. Who did what and why? How long did that turn take and what can be done to shorten it? How realistic are the effects of a given rule, etc.?

We also studied players and how to effect them as we often played competitive games with other clubs. Players were specifically assigned to play against other players to undermine their weaknesses. Although I greatly enjoyed those games, I'm glad their over.

Best regards,

Glenn

Yes indeed. Nap always gets a bonus, the exact nature of which depends on the year.

Of course, Newton's 2nd law dictates that for every Napoleon on the table there also has to be a Ney……

War & Peace (strategic europe) had a really interesting rule, which was that the French economy and production did better if Napoleon was sitting in Paris, rather than out conducting campaigns. Historical, and also a reason to keep him at home.

"La Bataille" series of boardgames rated each leader for how they influenced artillery fire, cav charges, and infantry melees. Not suprisingly, Napoleon gave good bonuses to artillery fire. If Napoleon were hit however, the game was lost. One of my opponents in the "La Bataille de Borodino" game therefore put Napoleon in charge of a howitzer (indirect) battery, placed behind a woods to protect it from direct fire, and had it plug away, bonuses to full effect. A bit gamey, but those were the rules…