"Looking for rules" Topic

I have been intending to come back to Napoleonic wargaming after a period of time away. None of the rule sets I've seen so far cut it for me. Here's my problem.

The British were in two ranks and the French etc. were in three ranks. In a straight up fire fight the British were no better than the French and the winner was usually decided by morale and training etc. When a French Battalion advanced on a British Battalion then the British would wait to the last moment before firing. All nations knew the benefit of firing at close range but no one was quite as adapt at it as the British. With the French disrupted by the volley the British could either continue pouring volleys into them or launch an attack. Just Giving the British a plus one in firing is blatantly wrong, unhistorical and lazy rule writing. If I was happy with that then I might as well play warhammer as they don't pretend to be a representation of history.

Battalions tend to move and form based on companies. Also a different number of ranks tend to have a different footprint. Let us take a fictitious Battalion of 1200 men. If it was split into 10 companies then each company would consist of 120 men. If the same Battalion were split into 6 companies they would each consist of 200 men. The area taken up by each company would be different and therefore often the formation different. For example the number of muskets firing from each face of a square. The sizes of the footprint also changes when formed in three or two ranks. If unit size wasn't important then why bother with a varying number of figures to represent a battalion. I know rules like Shako do away with this and have Battalions the same size and firing the same thereby making it down to tactics. This is fine but it generalises too much and takes away the real character of the Napoleonic wars. The British weren't the same as the French. The French weren't the same as the Russians etc. etc. So once again if were not having rules that push us into using our troops in the correct way then I might as well play warhammer.

I'm not against abstracting rules for better game play. I love Regimental fire and fury as you end up with a game that plays like and feel like the American Civil War. A number of adapted quick reference sheets can be downloaded from their web site but they end up playing like the American Civil War in a different uniform. Someone has made a very good effort by adding an extra download for the liberator but spoils it by irritating things such as plus one for the British firing.

Have i got the Napoleonic wars all wrong? Is there a set of rules that fit my needs that i havnt found yet? Or am I just asking for too much?

Well … what I'm taking away from your comments is that you want to actually see (on the tabletop) more of the details of individual formations, and that in combat you want to at least include more layers of nuance and detail in your mechanisms, and have that process have a demonstrable effect on the tabletop as well? In short, "more crunch"?

To cover the easy part first, any set of rules can be adapted to represent more (or less) detail on the table in terms of unit size and the details of various formations such as columns formed to deploy to right, left, or center. Just come up with a basing scheme you like and fit it into the rules you use.

As for the depth of tactical detail in rules, it's true that "modern" (by which I mean "most recent" rather than necessarily "more advanced") rule sets tend to abstract a great deal, and thus the nominal +1 can wrap up many different factors. It can work if done well and the level of play is pitched to the right level, but there is nothing wrong with wanting to see more than is usually obscured in the black box – it will simply take a bit more time on average to play.

By far the best set of rules to evolve the 80's-90's take on more detailed rules in this spirit was "From Valmy to Waterloo" – however I'm not sure if it's still available. Of the currently available rule sets, perhaps "Revolution to Empire" might fit best?

All the best in figuring out and eventually finding what fits your conception of Napoleonic warfare – because in the end that is what we are all really after!

Cheers,

Christopher

PS – I also love RF&F for the ACW, but I agree that it somehow doesn't translate well into Napoleonics – I think the author would even agree that this is a compliment, as the rules are pitched so well to their own period!

Battalions tend to move and form based on companies.

In many armies they moved and fired by platoons.

Also a different number of ranks tend to have a different footprint.

One of the most problematic areas for historical gaming in this period, is: basing. If a game demands idiosyncratic basing (i.e., each nationality has different base sizes, and their base sizes change depending upon historical changes in organization), then you'll lose 99% of your potential players / customers right off the bat, because nobody wants to re-base their figures.

(Let's face it; most guys with French armies use the 6-company organization, even when playing battles from the pre-1808 period, and nobody gets too upset that it's all "wrong.") Nobody wants to have to collect two armies, just to be able to play both Austerlitz and Waterloo?

Thus most games try to standardize basing and make it as flexible as possible, so that most guys can use the rules, no matter how their figures and units are based. That's a logical compromise, but of course it means everybody's units are historically "wrong."

" it generalises too much and takes away the real character of the Napoleonic wars. The British weren't the same as the French. The French weren't the same as the Russians etc."

One could argue that it's just as much a generalization to say that there's some sort of all-encompassing national characteristics that make "the French" a certain way, and "the Russians" another way. No doubt different units in the French army performed very differently, based upon their leadership, experience, and so on. The question is: how much of that sort of detail do you want to include in game play? And how do you want it represented? If you think that giving somebody a +1 for shooting is ahistorical and "lazy rules writing," then you obviously must have some other sort of system in mind.

If you don't already have friends nearby who play a certain system, then my advice would be to write your own rules because it's always unlikely to find a game whose author just happens to think about all of these things in exactly the same way that you do.

I have been intending to come back to Napoleonic wargaming after a period of time away. None of the rule sets I've seen so far cut it for me. Here's my problem.
The British were in two ranks and the French etc. were in three ranks. In a straight up fire fight the British were no better than the French and the winner was usually decided by morale and training etc. When a French Battalion advanced on a British Battalion then the British would wait to the last moment before firing. All nations knew the benefit of firing at close range but no one was quite as adapt at it as the British. With the French disrupted by the volley the British could either continue pouring volleys into them or launch an attack. Just Giving the British a plus one in firing is blatantly wrong, unhistorical and lazy rule writing. If I was happy with that then I might as well play warhammer as they don't pretend to be a representation of history.
Battalions tend to move and form based on companies. Also a different number of ranks tend to have a different footprint. Let us take a fictitious Battalion of 1200 men. If it was split into 10 companies then each company would consist of 120 men. If the same Battalion were split into 6 companies they would each consist of 200 men. The area taken up by each company would be different and therefore often the formation different. For example the number of muskets firing from each face of a square. The sizes of the footprint also changes when formed in three or two ranks. If unit size wasn't important then why bother with a varying number of figures to represent a battalion. I know rules like Shako do away with this and have Battalions the same size and firing the same thereby making it down to tactics. This is fine but it generalises too much and takes away the real character of the Napoleonic wars. The British weren't the same as the French. The French weren't the same as the Russians etc. etc. So once again if were not having rules that push us into using our troops in the correct way then I might as well play warhammer.
I'm not against abstracting rules for better game play. I love Regimental fire and fury as you end up with a game that plays like and feel like the American Civil War. A number of adapted quick reference sheets can be downloaded from their web site but they end up playing like the American Civil War in a different uniform. Someone has made a very good effort by adding an extra download for the liberator but spoils it by irritating things such as plus one for the British firing.
Have i got the Napoleonic wars all wrong? Is there a set of rules that fit my needs that i havnt found yet? Or am I just asking for too much?

Company basing and national characteristics? Easy:

link

Modify the national characteristics tables to taste(in your case, I might reduce the British firing factor by 1)

Regards

Nobody wants to have to collect two armies, just to be able to play both Austerlitz and Waterloo?

Err … actually, for some of us, that's the goal! ;)

I have many of the same issues as the original post.

My solution is to take a modern commercial set of rules then modify it with house rules to be more historically accurate. I think this can be done with both General de Brigade and Republic to Empire, although in both cases I dislike basing in two ranks so my first amendment is to single rank basing. I also use a 1:30 figure ratio, again which requires some small amendments to make the original rules work.

There is a set of rules produced by the Liphook Historical Wargaming Group called Art of Command which they use for their grand scale games (the next one of Vittoria on 23 June is proposed to have 48 players and 5 umpires on a massive table). It has many features which I like, and for me requires less amendments to make it historically accurate.

The Liphook Historical Wargaming Group website has more information at napoleon200.org.

Rod

There are plenty of free rulesets out there, for example, at runtus.org Just look around until you find one that suits…

I have one of the original copies of Bruce Quarries campaigns in miniature and it's definitely of the British line v French column style. The rest of the book is very good though which is why I've kept it so long. The rules were Ok in their day but very long winded to get the detail. If I picked this set of rules up now I would groan and gnash my teeth the moment I saw the words attack column or columnular.

I had a look at the Liphook Historical Wargaming Group website and the idea of how fast play they seem to be and possibly accurate as well was interesting but I can't find anywhere to have a look at them.

Thanks for the link to the rules website. I had been hoping that someone had already found a reasonable set already.

Two ranks volleys are 1 ½ times as powerful. Three ranks volleys are 1 ½ times as often. I didn't expect it to be such a difficult thing to find.

Actually hardly anyone fired 3 rank volleys during the Napoleonic Wars. The only way to do so safely was for the front rank to kneel, as they did during the 18th century. By the Napoleonic era all ranks remained standing but only the first two ranks of most armies fired. If they had a 3rd rank it was used as skirmishers or to extend the line (Prussian and Austrian system) or to reload muskets and replace casualties in the 1st and 2nd rank (French system).

Rod

DD,

Have i got the Napoleonic wars all wrong?

Given your second paragraph, probably yes.

IMHO I would suggest that the British 52nd Light Infantry were significantly "better" in a straight up firefight than let's say the French 122nd Ligne.

DB

So if I've got it all wrong then how did the French manage to hold their own in a firefight with the British? Why didn't every other nation think to themselves that putting the third rank in a position to fire might be a good idea?

Did I not say the third rank would be loading instead of just standing around? Hence firing more often.

More free rules.
link

As far as the third rank, several nations and even Napoleon thought 2-ranks was a good idea. It's just hard to change in the middle of a war.

DD,

how did the French manage to hold their own in a firefight with the British?

I'm not sure that they ever really did. Even when the French were actually given a chance to go toe to toe in a stand up firefight with the Brits it seems they came out second best pretty much every time.

I would suggest that that was due to a superiority in British fire discipline, backed up by better training (and at least some training with live ammunition which the French rarely, if ever, received) and a less rigid and more effective fire system.

DB

In "Napoleon at War" there are special habilities both for French and British much more important than a mere +1. This is an article from their homepage explaining the British habilities:
manatwar.es/?p=143556

Do not hesitate, NaW is your game!

I read the piece on their web site and fully agree with them about the british method of firing at close range. This was suddenly let down when I found out that they have the French in column.

In NaW French units may be in colums or line and there is not special advantage for Frenchs in doing either but the obvious, colums are faster and lines shoot better. The thing is because french usually try to hit the british lines before brit cavalry arrives French usually attacks in column. French player may also downgrade his units to conscript making them worse in firefight but equally good in assaults and that leads again to form in column.
British on the other hand have a rule that forbide them to assault in columns so they always deploy in line to maximize his firepower.
Many people say you have to play these rules to see their advantages.

Now all I need is all measurements in metric. When it comes to wargaming then that really is asking too much .

Ive been having a look through the free sets of rules from the link given by thomally and there are so many ill be there for ever

NaW sounds like the one to go for. Thanks for pointing out my mistake regarding the French but their web site gave very little away. It sounds like they push you towards using the French in column but we'll see. I'll probably ignore the restriction on the British attacking in column but then why would they bother when they can out shoot an opponent attacking them.

Are they kidding? Base sizes of 1.6 by 1.7 Inches. Which marketing genius thought that one up? It seems that the first thing players did was convert the sizes to millimetres. I'm talking about Napoleon at war of course. The rules seem fairly good so I'll give them a test run after my holidays. Looking at posts it was first said that the French can't win then as players started getting used to playing the French can't lose. Sounds like you have to use tactics. All very promising.