"New edition of Napoleon's Battles?" Topic

I see the publisher is showing the cover (looks nice, and also possibly expensive…..)

Does anyone know about the changes in this edition?

Link?

capitangames.com/nb

None that I have seen as yet. Bob Coggins had let everyone on the yahoo group in on the sale of the game to Captain Games. The guys at Captain love and play the rules so I see nothing but good stuff coming from this development.

I like the rules. I know they get trashed all the time but after I've based thousands of figures I'm not changing rules systems. I look forward to the new look.

I don't think they get trashed much. I know that early on, many Empire players trashed the rules quite a bit.

Btw way, how do they compare with Shako, which seems to me shares the same basing but may be more streamlined?

Not sure, chatting to them at Salute they were very positive and looking at software for running campaigns. Looking forwards to it and not rebasing thousands of 15mm figures!!

Tally Ho!

Dragoon1064, there are other systems that use the same basing…

Shako is Napoleonics Lite. Good game to play, not too much to remember, terrible historical foundation, quick to play. Basic Rock Paper Scissors view of the period, indeterminate level of command – possibly Division or Corps, but no real rules for morale. Basic unit is btn – three bases of troops with any number of figures on you like.

Naps Battles, stronger historical foundation, quite a good game, not a quick game to play. Basic unit is a Brigade. More sophisticated factors to consider compared to Shako. Morale rules pretty good, Command rules very good, and higher organisation morale much better than Shako. There are a few issues – I dont know if the new ed will sort them out. First is time – it takes far too long to play imho. Unit size mins and maximums are not compatible with historical Orbats, artillery is too powerful, and wall to wall batteries in some scenarios advance 2" a go firing like the tanks at Cambrai. Over the years NB has increasingly fudged the command level, pulling the player down to work skirmisher companies as well as Corps orders.

Of the two, Age of Eagles is your best bet!!! :)

"Over the years NB has increasingly fudged the command level, pulling the player down to work skirmisher companies as well as Corps orders"

How, I have been playing for 20 odd years and in none of the 3 editions has this gone on.

Only having played a few games of AoE of the 2, Napoleons Battles is a far better system!

Tally Ho!

Tally Ho!

Shako and NB are not comparable. I play both.

In Shako a player leads a division. It is not the game for playing Austerlitz. Base unit is a battalion.. Formations and unit ability is modeled. Upper command functions and commander quality are minimally represented.

in NB a player leads a corp or army. Base unit is a brigade. Commander quality and upper command structure are built into the system. You play Austerlitz with this one. But not the attack on Plancenoit.

I have played Shako the most, including big battles. But don't recommend it for large engagements. If you want to fight the big battles go with NB. if you want column, line, and square go with Shako.

I agree that NB does play a little slow, but other than Commands and Colors Napoleonics, I have yet to find a quick game at the higher tactical level. I like AOE a tad more than NB, but that is personal preference and don't think one is that much better than the other.

1815Guy et al,

Thanks for the mostly kind words. Regarding those creeping artillery lines, I suspect you as many have misread the command radius rules. A few months ago I learned that after 20 years many are applying the command radius rules incorrectly. Why this never came up is beyond me. To clarify, touching combat units cannot be used to extend an officer's command radius. This means divisional generals cannot command 4 batteries with a 3 inch command radius. He must be able to trace his individual radius to each and every unit he presumes to command. Artillery batteries may only form a "grand battery," a unit of multiple batteries, under the command of designated artillery commanders. Regardless of the number of batteries the grand battery is assumed to be one grant tactical brigade. This does not mean that batteries cannot be grouped together to form a "massed battery" of individual units which must be commanded individually.

Craig my studies found what many think are orders of battle are in fact tables of organization and armies did not organize for or fight battles according to To&Es. For battle, units were split or combined to form brigades which were large enough to have and effect on and surivive the grand tactical battlefield yet not so large as to be difficult to control by voice.

The gaming decision that brigades must be of a certain size was admittedly arbitrary, made for playability. It is however noted the size of NBs brigades falls within the ambit of the average size of historical brigades.

Bob Coggins

I thoroughly enjoyed NB, my (sole) problem with it was aesthetic: the way division level artillery was incorporated into the infantry brigades. I just like seeing lots of guns on the table top!
AoE scratches this particular itch, and gives me the command choice of where to deploy my divisional artillery. Shame really, it was the only thing I had against NB which is otherwise a terrific way to play large Napoleonic battles in quick time.

langobard,

I understand. Indeed Bill Gray told me he had to have his batteries. His AOE, which is playable and entertaining is one solution for those who desire the representation of most of the artillery.

NBs is command driven. Division and column commanders did not have the knowledge to command artillery. They would simply inform the battery commanders of the unit's task and the battery commander would place the guns for support. Where the guns were placed and in what numbers, was the decision of the battery officer. Thus, in NBs the fire of the supporting artillery is built into the fire of infantry brigades. Reserve, heavy and horse, batteries were commanded by army, corps or wing and as such are represented on the table.

Bob Coggins

Shako- It is not the grand-tactic play as AoE or NB since units are battalions and cav. regiments. It shouldn't be in this discussion due to that.
NB was an innovative step to GT play, within a reasonable time period (as compared to Empire playing time required) and allowed a good intro for most non-traditional Nap folks (since an army could be created with a reasonable amount of figs at the 120 scale).
The rules could have been re-written to present the rules and concepts to a more easier/digestible manner than they are. I find them very difficult to read and understand.
The move rates for the different nations and troop quality was brilliant!
The cost for low level formation change fell very short. The higher level formations are really of those of "tactical level play" and cause the rules to fall short of their intention…. I understand for the period the attempt of a force was to out maneuver the opponent and catch them in "under deployment "situations and this was a historical goal. So the rules do attempt to capture that but the mechanics fall short of capturing it for grandtactical level and comes across too much as tactical of a small battalion level unit. A revision here would be a great improvement for the rules.
AoE did come later (from the Fire n Fury development) and does address some of the short comings of NB. My experience in playing AoE is:
* Easier to understand and learn to play.
*More artillery is represented (I like to use by models) and less powerful/balanced.
* No more a cav. and infantry can attack the inf. unit simultaneously with the target guaranteed to be destroyed as in NB due the formation not allowed to form square which is real nonsense historically.
*A less esthetic issue of "formations being more line playing with a battalion (that is supposed to be a brigade)" but there is still, IMHO, too much of that here as well.
* still feels too much like ACW playing.

My biggest issue with both is the mounting of inf. on 3/4x 1" of 4 figs and that of NB with the cavalry on the 1x2 stand of 4 figs. The linear look of more of the "older/traditional" rules still suits me better.

To my experience on Command and control being "solely by a command radius and troops not within it do not move" really brings the game at that level of play down and causes them to fall short of play they are to be. A mix works more realistic IMHO and can still keep it simple enough with some innovative mechanics. AoE does move closer to that but still falls short of the C & C friction/decision making. Revolution & Empire or Empire or Legacy of Glory address the command and control quite well but are more complicating.

MG

Sorry for my ramblings!
I see I moved away from the subject by too much focus of the later discussions.
I hope the newest edition addresses the short comings of the old NB.
Cheers
MG

I think the "Marechal Edition" should have a readily recognizable Marshal pic on it.

I vote Lannes--but back to the original question--does anyone know what changes are being made to the rules? The site suggests a significant "modernization"

langobard,

I don't think you veered too far afield, I enjoy such rumblings and I appreciate your best wishes. Your concern that the units appeared perform more as battalions than brigades is held by many gamers. I would argue your belief is incorrect but I understand that Craig's and my decision not to go into a lengthy explanation is the reason you and many others hold such a belief.

As for command and control, Craig and I asked ourselves this question: If you are a brigade commander and your brigade is placed by your division or corps general who rides off into the smoke without further orders, given your limited knowledge of the grand tactical situation and your desire to become a general of division,what are you going to do?

Bob Coggins

My big beef with NB was how they rated the different nationalities and units. The French are slightly too powerful, the British slightly underpowered and don't bother showing up with any Spanish as you have no chance with them. Like a few other posters, I like seeing more artillery and skirmishers on the table. NBs isn't a bad game, but it needs tweaking in the national ratings and it's really expensive as well.

I like the rules. I know they get trashed all the time but after I've based thousands of figures I'm not changing rules systems.

AOE is based the same. No rebasing to switch to AOE. That is if you like rolling buckets of dice just to move your units. Is Grand Armee based the same as NB?

"My big beef with NB was how they rated the different nationalities and units"

As opposed to other rules in which the troop quality remains the same from 1795-1815? If I want more guns and skirmishers on the table I fight smaller actions with Bns in 28mm.

Tally Ho!

Bob,

As for command and control, Craig and I asked ourselves this question: If you are a brigade commander and your brigade is placed by your division or corps general who rides off into the smoke without further orders, given your limited knowledge of the grand tactical situation and your desire to become a general of division,what are you going to do?

The biggest issue that I run into with Command Radius based C&C is that in combination with You-Go-Me-Go the result typically appears to be there are no persistent orders.

Let us consider your example in the context of an attack. Once the brigade is placed by the division commander, the division starts forward to attack. With Command Radius + You-Go-Me-Go, if the division commander doesn't tell each brigade to move X yards (max movement rate) forward every Y minutes (time represented by a turn), elements of the division just halt.

This seemed strange to me in the context of a division sized or larger assault. As I understand it, the brigade commanders know "we are attacking forward" or "we are attacking that geographic objective" at the least, therefore, their movement shouldn't just halt itself. If anything, once a brigade gets outside Command Radius, rather than halt, it should continue with its old order until it is either accomplished or the brigade is unable to continue.

Could you speak to the designer perspective on this criticism? Was it a playability thing or was there historical basis for supporting it?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit has identified my number one concern with almost all current Napoleonic rules (NB, AoE, Grande Armee, and Volley & Bayonet included). Once an order is given, keep doing it until ordered to stop – even if you no longer think it's a good idea.

I'd be interested in Bob's thoughts on this too.
Phil

I agree with some of the points that marshalGreg makes in critiquing NB -- particularly the excessive power of combined arms attacks. Surely they were powerful but not inevitably obliterating to the target. While I appreciated in playing the game how much that incentivised the player to keep his own cavalry in reserve to prevent such attacks, it really went a bit too far and so we established a house rule that the infantry was able to form square it it passed the test with a modifier for being in contact with infantry.

The game is very complicated, it's true, and I'm always a little surprised when I read people saying that it was a good game for getting non-Napoleonics gamers into the period, because with all the different reactions potentially permissable, I've always thought you need to have a good sense of the period to be able to make heads or tails of the game, which I think is a good thing.

Whilst you may play with relatively small forces, the games doesn't really make a lot of sense unless you have a lot of figures, as the combat results at the unit to unit level are too random and need lots of interactions to be able to start to look like a period battle between army A and army B.

I'd be hard pressed to seek another set of rules though, as I greatly prefer the way that NB works over other systems. The characteristics of the various nationalities at different time periods are extremely well handled and subtle, and represent the armies of the different nationalities better than any other system I've played. I also think that Craig Taylor had a real gift for making sound mechanics, one of the weakest points of miniatures rules generally, and NB really works as a system. It's just very solid.

I still play First Edition (when I play at all anymore -- too busy packing orders!). My concern is that a new edition will try to layer on more complexity, which I think the game does not need. I'm happy with my tattered old copy from almost 25 years ago! Too often I've watched great playable games get so overloaded that they become unplayable by all but a fanatical few (Starfleet Battles, Squad Leader, etc.). I loved Zucker's Napoleon's Last Battles system, and really loved Napoleon at Leipzig, but I bought Four Lost Battles when it came out in 2005, expecting something similar, and could not make heads or tails of it!

Like ubercommando, I also had a few issues with the troop ratings, thinking that the French were a bit too powerful (and I love the French!), but you'll never get consensus on something as subjective as that. Worst comes to worst, you can always change them in our group. The way the ratings are handled though is truly masterful and arguably my favourite ratings system in any miniatures system.

Though I don't play Napoleon's Battles anymore, it was THE game which got me to cross over from Avalon Hill board games to miniatures gaming. And for that I have to thank Mr. Bob Coggins and the late Charles Kibler for making a miniatures game which looked good (love the two ranks!) and was relatively accessible for someone with more time to paint and play games which lasted six hours or more to complete a historical battle (like myself in my 20's). I didn't cut my teeth on Empire, and so did not have any difficulty accepting the assumptions and concessions to playability which the designers made. I cannot forget the joy of creating my first French brigades, and then discovering Old Glory figures, painting them very badly with a Testors nylon brush dipped in enamel paints. Only later did I meet other painters who showed me that acrylics were the way forward.

Later, of course, I discovered Fire and Fury, DBA, DBM, and many other games. But I never would have been introduced to this exciting world without Napoleon's Battles.

Bob, if you're reading this, THANK YOU!!!

Nick In Somerset; I don't know how you can extrapolate my reservations about the national ratings in NBs into my support of same ratings throughout the era. That's not an issue; I've played a few historical battles using NBs and the national ratings seem off.

And it's still hideously expensive.

Ratisbon, sorry, I'm a bit lost, this is only my second post in this thread, so I'm not sure what you are commenting on:

I don't think you veered too far afield, I enjoy such rumblings and I appreciate your best wishes. Your concern that the units appeared perform more as battalions than brigades is held by many gamers. I would argue your belief is incorrect but I understand that Craig's and my decision not to go into a lengthy explanation is the reason you and many others hold such a belief.

As for command and control, Craig and I asked ourselves this question: If you are a brigade commander and your brigade is placed by your division or corps general who rides off into the smoke without further orders, given your limited knowledge of the grand tactical situation and your desire to become a general of division,what are you going to do?

I suspect you have misidentified me, my sole concern was the lack of artillery 'toys on the table'. I understand the explanation you put forward in your first response to my original post, and indeed to a degree I even agree with it! After all, in NB, you are a corp commander, it isn't your job to place the each battery. It is simply a tactical decision I didn't want to give up! (I know, contradicts the megalomaniacal wish to be a corp commander…)

I guess in this specific instance, that I am that most horrible of wargame creatures: someone who understands the designers goals, and even agrees that you have come up with the best possible solution to maintain focus at your chosen command level, but who still wants this one aspect to drill down to a lower command aspect…

The two or three meters each of Russian and French artillery pieces in my collection has nothing to do with this of course!

Kind regards,
Colin

langobard,

I don't understand why you don't know. Well I do. I misaddressed the post. It should have gone to marshalGreg.

Mea Culpa.

Bob Coggins

Timotheous,

Thanks for the kind words. You'll be happy to know Charlie lives unless he was killed at Pickett's Charge reenactment. It's Craig Taylor who sadly passed away.

Bob Coggins

khurasanminiatures,

Thanks for your comments. I would point out with experience in dealing with them, combined arms are not half so powerful as many think.

NBs unit ratings are the most transparent rules in history. Craig and I always encouraged gamers to change the ratings if they had a better idea.

Bob Coggins

Ratisbon…I appreciate your reply to my ramblings!
Soooo…Per some of the TMPer's comments concerning Command and control…. What brilliant mechanic will you have to capture the "fire of an arrow" effect of a unit given order to launch and then the commander dashes off in to the smoke and the troops march off as like a robot, to pursue its goal only to deviate from it by victory or utter defeat… or perhaps the commander returning (bleeding, tatered and deshuttled) out from the smoke with a change to the orders!
Would it be in this addition?I am intrigued to see what comes of this!

I am bit surprised that there were not more words regarding the "gamey feel" of the game by the TMPers. I would be interested what changes were/ are too be made to address some of that feel. I can't begin to discuss any details since I have not played the rules enough to be one to present any further specifics.
It has been a concern by all those I have played with during the few times over the past 20 yrs.

BTW: I still hold my one and only copy of the rules (first addition) in the "VIP rules shelf of the classics" ….along with my other classics Empire ( 1-5), Column, Line & Square and Pas de Charge. It has been an interesting progression of rules systems and which have survived to be played still in large numbers today!!!
MG

Bob,

Would you speak to my Command & Control question above?

Greg,

There are several models that allow for persistent orders, all are pretty simplistic in their requirements but before derailing the thread to discuss those I'd like to hear what Bob has to say as a lot of games suffer from this and I am unfamiliar with its basis.

Cheers,

The Bandit

"the brigade commanders know "we are attacking forward" or "we are attacking that geographic objective" at the least, therefore, their movement shouldn't just halt itself. If anything, once a brigade gets outside Command Radius, rather than halt, it should continue with its old order until it is either accomplished or the brigade is unable to continue."

Bandit: wargames don't use the "Units Keep Doing What They Were Ordered to do" system anymore, because it usually resulted in bad game design. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's historically justified. Of course it's historically justifiable; but it doesn't work well in a wargame.

First, it requires some sort of written orders, because if you want to limit units to some kind of pre-existing order, then that order has to be spelled out, such as "Attack the town," or whatever.

That means players will then try to insulate themselves against nasty unforseen circumstances by writing various caveats into those orders, such as: "Attack the town, unless threatened on either flank, in which case stop and reform…." The players will always find a way to write-in caveats that allow them to do whatever they want, whenever they want.

So the rules then tried to nail-down all the things you can or can't do, under an "Attack" order: how much of its movement allowance a unit must use each turn… in what direction… unless the following 17 things happen, in which case…"

And of course whatever level of command gets the order, is usually subdivided, so that an order to the 9th Division to attack, might be rules-lawyered because the player might say, "Well, now that I don't want him to attack anymore, I can rationalize that not ALL of the 9th Div's BNs have to attack the town…" so the rules then have to specify more and more detail about what it means to "attack," and how much of a force has to obey the restrictions, and whether any of its component units can be exempted…

And pretty soon the "Command" chapter is 20 pages long. (Think: Empire IV, or "Valmy to Waterloo" or "Legacy of Glory.") By the early 1990s, those games had gotten so complex that there were multi-page flowcharts and tables describing exactly what each unit could or couldn't do, based on the type of order that its brigade or division received, which was in turn based on what kind of order its corps commander had received…. You actually had to consult a rulebook to figure out whether the 4th Silesian Landwehr could advance toward the enemy or not, and if so, using how much of its movement allowance.

Not to mention the fact that if you're issuing lots of orders to lots of sub commanders, who then issue orders to their sub commanders… and you have to keep track of all the order changes to each one, and how long it will take each change to be implemented… That's a very slow game.

And then there's the messy problem that nothing is ever clear or neatly-defined in a wargame. How do we know that the 9th division has met its orders? When it has one unit in the town? When there are no enemy within X-distance of the town? What happens now? Does it automatically switch to some other kind of orders? Does that have to be written down, or are the instructions for it already in the book somewhere? And what if part of the division took the objective, but another part is still attacking enemy units somewhere else… does it keep "attacking" even though it's no longer on an "attack" order, and if so, with what limitations or objectives?

All of this got written into wargame rules of the 1980s and early 1990s, and yet players still found ways to cheat it or argue around it: "Well, now that the Prussian cavalry has appeared on the hill, obviously my infantry commander won't just go attacking into the face of enemy cavalry, so he would change his own orders…."

---

The bottom line is: players often say that they want to be "restricted" or "limited" to actions and decisions that mirror what their historical counterparts had, but of course it's usually not true. Players want to do what they want to do.

Trying to restrict them just results in a massive pile of rules, riddled with detailed caveats and exceptions, which they will inevitably dislike, and find ways around.

Thus I think it makes sense to find some other way to limit player control, whether that's with "command points" or cards, or a command radius, or some other totally artificial concept, as long as that mechanism gives you a sense for the basic principle that your control has limits.

Then I just let people play the way they want to play.

To Mr. Coggins, all I have to say is this. You gaming system has given me countless hours of pleasure, good times with friends, loads of laughter and smack talk, and a greater appreciation of the Napoleonic era. I have no intent of changing to something that works fine for me. Thank you sir.

Sam – I think you're playing devil's advocate here, or at least arguing from a rather singular perspective. ;)

The examples you give of "order systems" are rather extreme (and as I played all those systems, one could say caricatured). The most common way of using "continuous orders" – regardless of the rules – is simply to issue written (or verbal) orders during the game, and rely on the players to live by those commands. Yes, there is wiggle-room, but as in all things in this hobby you have to find the right group with a mindset that coincides with your own gaming prejudices. That can't be too hard, as I've always played that way, and I've changed groups between various States and Nations and Continents. I hate to tell you, but not only did I use written orders when playing Napoleon's Battles … but also Lasalle, and even Grande Armee! I prefer to see the various abstracted C&C systems as a way of abstracting the *ability* to carry out orders, not the *existence* of orders. As for how the "continuous" nature of orders fits into the "discontinuous" nature of most abstract C&C systems, one can always make each successive turn more likely to activate in some way, thus ensuring that formations will eventually "follow orders".

I suppose what I am getting at is that there no good reason not to use orders of some sort in your games if you wish to, even if there are other C&C systems in play. If those C&C systems fly in the face of your conception of how formations followed orders on the battlefield, then some simple adjustments is all that is usually needed. Either/Or is a needlessly limited mindset.

Having said that … nothing will cure you of your preconceptions of formations smoothly following orders on the battlefield like switching your reading from Napoleonics to the ACW for a bit! I'm starting to be of the opinion that most ACW rules should come equipped with Random Event Tables. ;)

Cheers,

Christopher

Sam,

It seems your post answers my question with, "Choice of playability," which is fine, I was asking Bob because I wanted his perspective but I'm happy to hear yours as well.

I don't agree with your premise that the only solution to Persistent Orders is written orders which are impossible to govern in a rule set and I would further say that your examples expand the question into secondary areas as well.

To narrow the perspective some, a persistent order was the only aspect my question addressed and this could be done as simply as with an order chit that persists turn after turn until there is opportunity for the player to issue another one. I'm not advocating this solution but citing it as an example of a simple mechanism for a Persistent Order.

As I said earlier, I didn't want to derail the thread into another subtopic before Bob could answer my question but I will risk it so far as to ask you:

Bandit: wargames don't use the "Units Keep Doing What They Were Ordered to do" system anymore, because it usually resulted in bad game design. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's historically justified. Of course it's historically justifiable; but it doesn't work well in a wargame.

How is it historically justifiable as the *default behavior* in the circumstances I included in my original question?

Cheers,

The Bandit

" there no good reason not to use orders of some sort in your games if you wish to"

At the risk of doing a grammatical triple-negative, I'd say that there's no good reason not to use Anything in your games, if you wish to.

There's a difference, though, between a game that you play with a few old friends using house rules, and a game that you sell to thousands of people, many of whom are going to send you email questions and post on forums, asking for rules clarifications or justifications.

Sure, there's no more historical justification for a "command radius" than there is for a "movement allowance" or a "dice modifier," or anything else we do in wargames. It makes no sense that General Schlumpff is perfectly obedient when he's 800 yards away, but comatose when he's 805 yards away. But unless you want to muck about with all the complexities, ambiguities, and added work of written orders, or a matrix of order chits, then a Command Radius is a perfectly defensible compromise: a game mechanic that "works" within the context of its goal: keeping the game moving in some clear and definitive way that gives a plausible result.

That's good enough for me, anyway.

If others can come up with smooth, clear, and conflict-free ways of crafting "Continuing Action" orders, then I'd love to see them. My long years in this Biz have given me a deep faith in the ability of players to "break" all but the most very simple of rules. (And then to complain to me, that they managed to break them. But that's a separate topic.)

I played "Shako" several times with the Conliffe group who designed it, and I rarely saw anybody using even that very rudimentary "continuing orders" system (draw an arrow to indicate your unit's mission), because it was just too contentious and led to arguments when Joe said: "Hey, you can't turn to face my flank attack… your division has a command arrow to take the town!" and Steve replied: "How do you know what my command arrow says? And anyway, my commander can still carry out his orders while taking this brief pause to turn and meet your attack!"

What was the point of those arrows and orders? People just did what they wanted.

-

PS: Those 1980s and 90s games with written orders (or order chits), existed before the era of the Internet, when players had to figure things out on their own, and if there were rules ambiguities, they just had to soldier on through them. Nowadays, every player expects immediate feedback by forum or email for every rules issue. Can you imagine trying to answer thousands of questions along the lines of:

"The 9th Division was given an "Assault" order chit to take the town of Schnickelfritz. Three BNs drove the Prussians from the town, but three other BNs on the Left got hung up in fighting with some Landwehr in a nearby valley. The "Assault" order says that once the force reaches its objective, it auto-changes its order to "Hold." But under a "Hold" order chit, no units of the force can attack, unless re-taking ground that was held prior to switching to the Hold order, and lost after switching to Hold. So does that mean that my three BNs on the Left can't attack that Landwehr that's right in front of them in the valley anymore (even though we've already charged them twice) unless I give an order to the Corps commander, to change the 9th division's orders back to "assault" the valley? Or do I have to wait for the Prussians to charge me and hopefully drive me out of the town, so that I can once again legally attack in the valley?"

That's not me being devil's advocate. That's me applying a situation nearly verbatim from a once-popular Napoleonics game.

Sam,

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying that you are broadening my question substantially.

You've made it clear that you believe Non-Persistent Orders allows for greater playability, fair opinion to have.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Sam,

It is a good question for the boys who led men in the military.
If I was to make a bet I would be at 50%… that those 3 Btns were given order to stop attacking the landwehr " Damn it Div Gen Schmidt you missed a golden opportunity as you scream later at your subordinate!!! (if the CO was concern about the future welfare of his DIV), but… if he was an upcoming "Ney" perhaps he would just let them continue…( Damn it DiV GEN Schmidt you wasted your potential reserves needed to hold the counter attack you just had to withdraw from losing that damn town!!! What am I going to say to Erhzog Charles now Ahhhhh!!!" and so it goes….
I respect much of what you bring to the discussion and much of it has merit! I have been there with those rule systems too!

Bottom line is….
what will the revised NB have in regards to new mechanics to deal with this.
There has to be something better/a balance too it than … my brigade Bianchi arrived off of the road on the far right and moves one turn (8") from the edge of the playing board, per the historical situation, then halted for most of the game since it was not in command radius of the CiC (which was far from historical since had order to maneuver to a specific location and the other plays screamed per rule #…. you can't proceed and… thus likely cost me the battle).

There must be a holy grail of balance and perhaps Bob may have found or will find it!

MG

Bandit,

Worry not I will answer. Your question raised the issue of the I-go-you-go sequence of play in the context of persistent orders. This complicates the answer which I hope to have in a few days, without writing a book.

Till then, my example of a division general "placing" a brigade and then riding off into the smoke is no more or less than what I wrote. It has absolutely noting to do with a division or corps attack, which would be tightly controlled by senior officers.

Persistent orders is an interesting concept but I'm not convinced they have much of anything to do with what occurred on the grand tactical battlefield. That's what senior officers are for, to change or modify their orders based on the situation and their experience.

Command is like a funnel. The higher up the chain of command the more wiggle room the officer has. The further down the chain of command the less wiggle room. For instance, a battalion commander has none on the grand tactical battlefield.

At the grand tactical level brigade and battalion officers are nothing more than glorified overseers tasked to get the boys to do precisely what the division general wants them to do. If they cannot, well there's always someone who wants to be promoted.

If his division is ordered to advance his battalion must advance while maintaining its position relative to the other battalions in the division. If it does not or if it deviates from the expected it would take a division general who will be within 3 to 500 yards a minute or two to determine the reason and take appropriate action.

More in a day or three.

Bob Coggins

marshalGreg

Clausewitz maintained war is a game. So why wouldn't NBs have a gamey feeling?

Bob Coggins

Bandit

Thanks,My first thought is I'm writing more about the rules since I sold them. My second thought is gamers would be better informed if they asked questions and got answers, even if they disagreed with the answers. My third thought is, all too many designers don't have the answers so gamers don't ask questions. My final thought is, gee this is fun.

As previously stated, the example I cited has absolutely nothing to do with an attack, save if rules don't have some sort of command and control system and gamers are allowed to throw their units around without restriction. Historically, corps and divisions which attack are closely controlled by their senior officers whose presence establish command and control. So if I were to attack using NBs, I would, as my historical counterpart would, make sure that my units are in command by checking the radius of my generals.

As little or nothing on the grand tactical battlefield occurs simultaneously, when combined with defensive fire and its effects occurring before offensive fire the modified 'I go you go" is a good sequence of play to represent the problems of attack and defense faced by Napoleonic commanders whose attacks were expected to prevail in the face of defensive fire.
In NBs, infantry brigades have sufficient movement in column, to start beyond the range of artillery and close with the enemy within one turn. There is no stopping, you simply move the brigade forward into combat contact. The defender then fires. This represents long range volleys, skirmishers and supporting artillery.

The important thing in the sequence is all fire effects are immediate. This presents the attacker with the distinct possibility of being disordered and not being able to fire as it enters combat contact at the disadvantage of a -3 modifier facing the distinct possibility of being routed from combat and the absolute surety of being forced to withdrawal after the 1st round of combat.
This not only places the burden on the attacking or phasing player to prevail in the face of the defense but also shows why it is necessary to soften up or disorder the defender prior to an attack. This also brings home the folly of attacking without proper preparation such as at Busaco.
This preparation can occur in one of two ways. With the bombardment of reserve and horse artillery or with the skirmish and supporting artillery fire of the brigades. A good example of the use of skirmishers/supporting brigade artillery fire to soften the defense is Jena.

We recently celebrated the 150th of Gettysburg. It is a perfect example of "persistent orders" as I understand what you mean not being carried out. Pickett, Pettigrew and Trimble's brigades were ordered to advance on the Union line. Pickett's brigades did but the brigades of the other two stopped well short of the goal, even though their orders had not changed. And it was no different during the Napoleonic wars. At Eylau, Augereau's corps was routed by artillery fire long before it closed with the Russians, yet the orders persisted. And while it can be argued the poor fellows suffered a change of situation the same cannot be argued at Austerlitz. Despite persistent written orders to capture Telnitz and advance into the rear of the French, Buxhowden halted the attack at the Goldbach. This is a perfect example of a senior officer changing his orders on his own volition and so too was Bernadotte's decision not to advance his corps towards Austerlitz as ordered another example. At senior command level officers often changed or modified their orders based on their own authority. Thus, I do not think on a grand tactical level there was such a thing as persistent orders. Senior officers either followed their orders, modified them or did not follow them based on their own authority.

Bob Coggins

Bob,

Thanks for providing a detailed answer.

I need to clarify something though, when I say Persistent Order I mean an order that persists from turn to turn, not in the face of anything and everything.

My issue with a unit halting rather than persisting isn't so much that a subordinate doesn't follow his standing orders but that the only way he disobeys them is to halt in place which seems odd.

It seems equally possible a subordinate would continue on his previous orders as he'd halt in place. From a game mechanics perspective it does seem way easier to have them halt in place. But from a historical perspective, the subordinate could just as well fail to break off an attack and continue to surge forward when you want him to halt or fallback.

Your examples – Austerlitz is better than Eylau since routed troops are not under orders, hence routed – all deal with corps commanders, i.e. the player, when my question was about direct subordinates of the player.

Cheers,

The Bandit

All good stuff!

My popcorn is almost finished…
please carry on you two!

Bandit,

Lets see if this helps. In NBs the gamer directs the division general to move one of his brigades to a certain position, which he does, I then direct the division general to get out yonder and rally your other brigade which he does, leaving the first brigade in place with the persistent order to defend. This most often happens when a brigade is ordered to defend a town often resulting it it remaining in the town for the entire game.

I was rereading a number of post which were concerned with the length of NBs games. The rules were designed to fight large historical or the like Napoleonic battles on a one-to-one basic 1 hour to play one scale hour. However, wargaming is as much social as competitive. Thus we found during our play tests a 30 minute turn took an hour to play because players were well being social with each other. Thus, 8 hour battles were taking 16 hours of play. The solution was and is to put a timer on the turns.

Also it all a matter of the size of the scenario. Years ago, a NBs fanatic, ran NBs tournaments at 3 Historicons. Given smaller scenarios the games took roughly 3 hours. To that end the last scenario pack printed by LBG contained 15 or so one on one scenarios which could be played in an evening. I suspect, but don't know for a fact, Captain intends to publish more of these while supporting competition gaming al la Flames of War.

Bob Coggins

The solution is to put an hour glass or timer on the turns.

But Bob,
The flip side of the example you give – where you (Corps commander) tell the division general to place a brigade, then to go rally someone else. He places the brigade and it stays there while he goes to rally the other. All well and good.

What happens if …
You order the division general to attack, 2 brigades move forward. One is routed by fire. The division general goes to rally it. Why does the other brigade have to stop once he is 301 yards away? (obviously, in game mechanics, if you wanted the attack to keep going you keep the division general with the attack and just let the runners go)

Phil

Phil

"What happens if …"

Surely would depend on the tactical situation? Could the attack be pressed with only one Bde – Ignore routers, lead attack with single Bde.

The same but the Corps Commander decides to try and Rally the routers.

Delay the attack, leave advanced Bde with "hold order" and move to rally the routers.

If it is part of a Corps "Operation" then the Corps Commander can allocate/ Coordinate extra assets to keep the attack going.

Tally Ho!

Valmy92 & nickinsomerset,

Thanks' for the interest in NBs, armies come apart as they did historically, from the bottom up. Brigades may be ordered, disordered, routed or dispersed. Routed and dispersed brigades count against "fatigure," depending on whether the army is based on the corps or division as well as army morale. Now dispersed brigades are beyond the pale but routed units may be rallied to recover "fatigue" or army morale. It therefore may be imperative to rally units to prevent the loss of army moral and thus the game as well as formation fatigue, which prevents formations at the "fatigue" level from advancing.

It is true corps generals may rally a routed unit in his corps but to do so he must be attached to he brigade and when attached he loses his command radius and the division generals in the corps must operate on their initiative at a movement disadvantage.

So rather than dying to the figure attacks simply fall apart due to the rout or dispersal of sufficient units to cause corps and divisions "fatigue," or the army morale and the battle.

I hope this helps.

Bob Coggins

it boils down to a simple idea of WHAT DO YOU WANT from your Napoleonic themed game, a disertation? a simulation? a playable game with various levels of suspended reality? its a personal choice really, so to say that "X" rules are horrible is not really helpful because "X" rules may be exactly what club "whatever" is looking for in a Napoleonic wargame. I like Shako (1st edition) but I now play C&C naps. I think both give a good napoleonic game. (at least my idea of one) does that make me a dunderhead? maybe. so what, – more wine Gascon'''''''