"The Regiment as Basic Unit: "Vive L' Empereuer" rules, 1981" Topic

Ned Zuparko's 1:100 wargaming rules were a very interesting development back in the day. I found his choice of the "Regiment" of circa 2,000 Infantry as the basic maneuver element for a game where the player had a Corps to command interesting and inspirational. That and the outstanding design notes were the things I liked best about these rules form the past:

link

Peter

I wasn't gaming when Ned's rules came out, but I've thought about picking them up for a while. As for his use of the regiment, it of course stands in contrast to what has become the relative default of using the brigade for a multi-battalion unit on the gaming table. However, brigades were such variable and malleable things on campaign and on the battlefield that I think his argument for using a "common denominator" is pretty sound. After all, once you abstract things to the level where one tabletop unit represents several individual tactical units, you will invariably have to incorporate some flexibility in your scaled representation of force anyway. Is it "more accurate" to field brigades of widely divergent sizes simply because of the paper OB, or to field more standardized gaming units that allow you to represent the overall force in a more standardized form?

Cheers,

Christopher

I played Vive l'Empereur for a year or two before being seduced by Empire. I came from a world where the battalion was always the basic element, but rather liked the regimental notion. Note a British brigade from the Peninsula was the same as a three battalion regiment. I enjoyed many aspects of the game but didn't like keeping a roster rather than removing figures and I found the melee system confusing. Still, I have thought about trying it again.

Peter,
I remember these rules, never played them though.
I might even have a copy of them somewhere. Those were the days, when new Nap rules were purchased to gleam the design notes for any new and interesting ideas put forth.

John

Wow! A blast from the past! Ned gave me playtest credits as my group in Tucson really liked them and submitted some changes (which he adopted).

Like another lifetime ago….

Tom Dye

The much more recent Field of Glory:Napoleonic rules also use the regiment as the basic unit.

Sitting in a box somwhere long forgotten, until now!

"I think his argument for using a "common denominator" is pretty sound. After all, once you abstract things to the level where one tabletop unit represents several individual tactical units, you will invariably have to incorporate some flexibility in your scaled representation of force anyway. Is it "more accurate" to field brigades of widely divergent sizes simply because of the paper OB, or to field more standardized gaming units that allow you to represent the overall force in a more standardized form?"

Since there was no standardized form on the battlefield, any arbitrary choice of unit size is going to give you that problem. Even in the same division, you'll find regiments that had 1 BN present, 2 BNs, 3, 4… plus a BN of grenadiers thrown in, and these guys from Württemberg we appear to have picked up along the way….

Although it's probably not represented by people on TMP, I suspect that there's a sort of basic mood shift in the historical side of the hobby, away from worrying overmuch about representing historical OBs, and more toward just fielding standardized "units" that look good, and to which you can point and say, "There's my Saxe-Coburg 3rd Leib-Trabanten Füsiliers!"

In some ways, that's a return to the older, pre-80s style of play, so perhaps we've come full circle.

The TT:

I made the transition form standardized units to Historical Organizations circa 1977… and then switched back to Standard organizations again circa 1995. I think standardized is a much better long term solution, and with moving the level up to the "Regiment" or the Brigade it makes even more sense.

Peter

PS – now tell me, is the cover illustration on VLE done in tones of "Prussian Blue" or not?! :-)

(see my blog post from last week about the fascinating history and chemistry of that color)

I played VLE in the 1980's at Stoke Wargames Group. We refought Austerlitz, Aspern Essling, Wagram and Borodino, together with some smaller fictitious scenarios. I thought they were the best thing since sliced bread ;-)

Ned didn't continue to market the rules as he got involved with the VLB concept, which is a great pity.

From my own experience, VLE would work perfectly well using a brigade as the basic unit rather than a regiment.

I should add that many of the design ideas reflected concepts described by Clausewitz in his 'Essay on Tactics'. Musketry was a particularly clever representation of the Clausewitz view, in that unequal opposing forces inflicted losses as a function of their combined strength.

Echoing other posts, the designer notes are really excellent. I recall reading and re-reading them many times.

A first rate product.

Allan

Thanks guys for the kind words. As I offered once on another thread, if anyone would like a free PDF copy of the VLE rules, just ask me for it at:
nedz AT mindspring DOT com (substituting @ for AT and . for DOT of course).
Perhaps Allan or someone could modify VLE into a brigade game ;^)
- Ned

Still have my copy.

Allan – I also enjoyed them at the club. Still think they were ahead of their time and at the figure scale (100:1) are still playable now.

I enjoyed them that much that I recall asking Ned if I could adapt them for late 19thC 'house' rules. I called my mods. 'The Last Napoleon', but I lost the all the work on a computer crash!

Thinks – May resurrect the idea. (Assuming Ned still has no objection).

Chad

Chad,
No objection from me, may you grow fat and rich from them.
(All I ask is that I be given appropriate credit… and perhaps a shrine or two erected and dedicated to me at notable public monuments across the country!).
– Ned

Chad

I remember the rules mods you did for Franco-Prussian (you changed the figure scale to 1:150, IIRC). We even put on a demo game of Froeschwiller at Cheadle in 1985 with the Stoke group. Remember?

Thinking about it, I recall you had a hard copy print out (probably done on a dot matrix printer). I wonder if you gave me a copy? I have a bundle of old documents somewhere including games rules, etc. I must dig it out.

Allan

Ned

I am sure that VLE would work as a brigade unit game, I just wonder whether the greater simplicity of Bill Gray's AoE would make the detail and chrome of VLE look an unattractive prospect to the current marketplace.

Having said that, I will contact Chad offline about his FPW mods.

Allan

Ned,

Thanks for the pdf download. I have glanced at it already and it has brought a smile and fond memories. Thanks.

Kevin in Albuquerque

In that shrine, I'd be represented by the statue of the yapping dog--
The VLE game came from some observations by Ned--why was it that in the then current games the high casualties--the appendix in the Chandler book ("The Bible") had the winner's losses between 5% and 25% and the loser's at double; far less than then current games. One complaint of mine was the oh so slow movement rates--especially for reserves--in all too many games, the reserves could not reach the frontline. Artillery also had been slighted in the then current games--indeed, the then current Napoleonic artillery resembles that of Frederick's day--as did the deployment of infantry and cavalry--the firepower was much to damaging Indeed, there were those who preached firepower and slighted morale--ignoring Clausewitz's observation that a battalion became a "cinder" after 30% losses, even less, not the 60% to 90% that was current then--and the muskets in the game came off as if they were repeaters.
The then current games lacked mass attacks
They were fought on postage stamp sized tables, eliminating the real problem of anchoring flanks on terrain
VLE is a morale game--firepower is important, but you have to get the enemy to run away--he will not be shot to bits--and a regiment, unless attacked by several arms, is unlikely to quit the field--rather it will rally and return--unlike the then current practice of units blasting each other to annihilation
Indeed, the real casualties come in the pursuit of the defeated army by the fresh reserves of the winner
But most Napoleonic games --miniature or board--tactical and even grand tactical--do not model this at all.
Recall that the Prussian defeat in 1806 was from the pursuit
Only a great calamity on the field made it unnecessary for the pursuit, such as the premature blowing up of that bridge at Leipzig
Two last notes: I noticed that most boardgames and miniatures games then lack bibliographies and footnotes--where sis they get all that info on the strengths and morale levels and the ratings of commanders and units?
How did the designer cook up his algorithm--the mathematical model? Some designers asserted an authority that they did not have--they based this sophism on the game they had produced and the articles in the various magazines to "support" it--much like some "scholars" who quote themselves. In this last respect nothing has changed--even though some will produce reading lists--
Enpuogh yapping for now

I note the offer in this thread of a pdf copy of this rules from the author. I tried his e-mail address but it is no longer valid.

Is there anyone who knows his new address, or that can send me a PDF copy of the rules? Thanks for any assistance!

I think I still have pdf copy. I will check and let you know

Markconz

I have a pdf copy of the rules. email me and i will send you a copy

Pete

Many thanks Pete!

Could you please send a copy to markconz (at) yahoo.com.au
Substituting '@' for 'at' of course.

Chad47,

I would also appreciate a pdf copy of the VLE rules. Please email them to jam55126 AT yahoo DOT com

Thank you!

Will do

Me too please pmyers920 (at) cox.net
Thanks,
Phil

If it is not too much trouble could I have a copy too please?

ultrajim123 (at) gmail DOT com

Many thanks

Ned does have a new email address. I am sure he will pop up shortly to circulate it ;-)

Alan

I still have my copy and am happy to send them

Pete