"What does a Napoleonic game NEED?" Topic

There have been a few recent threads that have focused on different aspects of Napoleonic warfare, i.e. columns versus lines, national characteristics, skirmish abilities and so on. Some of these discussions have got a little heated, but have also been very informative.

My follow up question is this; what important factor do you feel has to be modelled into your Napoleonic game for it to FEEL Napoleonic? What is the most important thing to you in a Napoleonic game, and what irks you the most if it is not included, or included inadequately.

Note that this is (hopefully) not a "my rules are better than your rules" sort of thread. Nor is there a right or wrong answer, I am just interested in what the learned TMP crowd has to say. The answer does not even have to be to do with tactics, it could be something more abstract.
Basically, every time I feel like I know what a Napoleonic game should be, somebody says something that I haven't really thought about before, and it knocks my prejudices into orbit (which is a good thing).

Lots and lots of figures.

Columns, lines and squares (not the rules; the formations).

Lots and lots of figures.

Not necessarily. Depends on the figure ratio.

Columns, lines and squares (not the rules; the formations).

Depends on the game level. You wouldn't have columns, lines and squares ina skirmish game or an operational level game.

The three arms: infantry, cavalry and artillery.

What distinguishes a Napoleonic game from other "horse and musket" era games? I'm not sure there is a lot. Yes squares were used as an anti-cavalry tactic, but that was mainly because armies no longer fought in long linear lines as in the 18th century.

To me, Napoleonics is about having the three arms as above, having weapons of the period – a musket with a range roughly equivalent to the frontage of a battalion, artillery shooting roughly six times that far, cavalry using the arme blanche. Depending on the game level then extensive use of skrmishers.

A rough balance between Infantry, Artillery and Cavalry. Nice figures in fancy uniforms. Even playing at Brigade Scale, LOTS of figures looks nice!

Napoleonic gamers are like economists, ask ten of them what the a napoleonic game/economy should look like and you'll get ten different answers.

My answer is simple, the level of abstraction and mechanics should match the role that the commander is playing. The game is playable in 3-4 hours with options for multiplayer.

Buttons…lots of buttons…

But seriously, combined arms (foot, horse, artillery) and coloumns, lines, and squares.

Did I mention buttons…

Every era has it's classic "bits" and if you don't have them, the game seems somehow lacking.

For Napoleonics I want skirmishers, infantry, cavalry and artillery…and for that artillery to be actually modelled on the table instead of being "factored" into an infantry unit's firepower. I like the basic unit on the table to be a battalion of infantry or a regiment of cavalry. Of course, having your units form line, column and square is a must.

Napoleon?

I am with the Major and Saber6. Infantry/Artillery/Cavalry in balance.

Dragons and Vikings!

I believe it depends on the scope and scale you want to capture.

For me, large scale Napoleonic combat – playing *as* Napoleon, Blücher, Charles, etc… or acting as a corps commander in a major engagement – battalion formations do not come into play. At that scope and scale it is the balance of arms required in timing and commitment combined with the strategic concentration of forces. For instance, Jena was lost prior to the battle while Friedland was lost based on timing of commitment (in my opinion).

When you drop to smaller scopes my expectation changes. If I'm running a brigade or division then I'd want to see and manipulate battalion level formations.

Further down the list, if it were a skirmish game I'd want the mechanics to drive me to use period skirmish tactics rather than allow me to succeed treating my figures as though they were WW2 rangers with slow firing weapons.

Cheers,

The Bandit

As few as ten? 10 economists can manage many more than that…

This is highly personal… which is no doubt why the thread might be interesting.

I think what distinguishes the era from 18th century is the division of the army into semi-independent sub units (corps, divisions, brigades) with their own subsidiary objectives – rather than the use of a dominant line of battle. As the era developed more emphasis is placed on depth and reserves and less on width and flanks. In wargames the problem is more that 18th C games start to look Napoleonic than vice versa.

A second distinctive characteristic is that skirmish infantry tactics can play a major role. One of the big challenges for commanders in the era was deciding how much strength to commit to the skirmish line, and when to stop replacing exhausted troops. Most rules don't reflect this properly at all – and that is something I want to put right in the rules that I develop. What we usually get is a token skirmish presence comprising a few specialist troops or elite companies.

Post Napoleonic, infantry firepower started to get a lot better – even for the muzzle-loaders. Battles became much more about shorter and decisive exchanges of firepower; cavalry becomes less of a factor. For reasons that I haven't fully understood, this meant the diminution of skirmish numbers (which actually become more like the typical representation in Napoleonic wargames). I guess it was easier for close order troops to defend themselves against skirmishers. Company level tactics become more important too.

And visually it is those blocks of troops in columns and lines in fine uniforms, with quite a bit of cavalry – including some massed cavalry formations.

Surprise.

Napoleonic warfare featured various tactics to disguise or screen intention. To me rules that lay it all out on the table for everybody to see from move one totally miss this key element. Without ruse de guerre I find games a bit dull, with it the period really comes alive.

What made the great generals of the era was their ability to out think their opponent. So to me it follows that Napoleonic games should be 'thinking games'.

Shakos.

That formations, unit type, facing and combined arms matter. Like to see command/leadership play a prominent role in what you can do with your various formations.
Balance in troop ratings. I am admittedly a francophile but I like to see Austrians etc get their due as good troops not just French and British.
One thing I've started to really enjoy more about the skirmish level games is the exchange of musket fire. So often in larger scale games units close up we role some dice and one side is sent packing. I really like so see where units are locked in combat (melee or a fire fight).

Not necessarily.

Yes. Necessarily.

You wouldn't have columns, lines and squares ina skirmish game or an operational level game.

Who said anything about skirmish or operational level games? We're talking about Napoleonics here.

Above all, it should model the period dynamics of command and control well. Also, masses of figures :)

(Lots of figures) Not necessarily.

Yes. Necessarily.

I beg your pardon? Are you saying that a skirmish game cannot be Napoleonic? Have you seen the "Sharp Practice" rules?
link

You wouldn't have columns, lines and squares in a skirmish game or an operational level game.

Who said anything about skirmish or operational level games? We're talking about Napoleonics here.

Are you really saying that a skirmish game or an operational level game cannot be Napoleonic? Have you read "Napoleonic Wargaming for Fun"?
link

Yes. Yes. No.

Yes. Yes. No.

??? Four questions and only three answers … I'm still none the wiser.

My apologies. I should have said: Yes. Yes. Yes. No.

I dare say you are still none the wiser. But at least now you are better informed.

My apologies. I should have said: Yes. Yes. Yes. No.

Thank you. At least now I know to which questions your terse answers applied.

So why cannot you have a Napoleonic skirmish game or a Napoleonic operational level game?

Now, I know I already answered this one. For Napoleonics you need:

Lots and lots of figures.

Columns, lines and squares (not the rules; the formations).

game it…

More boobies.

Lots of figures (Napoleonic skirmish gaming just makes no sense to me). Combined arms and historic formations.

Bricoles

"Napoleonic skirmish gaming just makes no sense to me."

Agreed.

I'll play skirmish games, games as division CO with columns, lines, etc, and operational corps and up, no distinct formations, even grand strategic with each corps represented by a single unit – though I've not seen rules for that last.

If you can remove the typical entrenched Napoleonic Wargamer from the equation then you've got a winner. The above is the reason I have now avoided Napoleonic gaming for a decade now.

They are worse than entrenched ancient gamers who think that,even though one of their models typically represents anywhere between 20 and 100 real soldiers, they still feel the need to push them into every little formation possible and falsely believing themselves to be Napoleon incarnate. When in reality, the only thing they have in common is bloated belly to match their ego and probably gout to boot.

So yes, in summary, Napoleonic Wargames require the removal and exclusion of the entrenched that consistently put off new entrants carrying no preconceived conceited views and no ego.
So Napoleonics also need fresh blood!

Beer and nibbles.

…erm, I'm just in it for the fun.

A 4, even 5 figure, figure count, as big a table as possible, a game that lasts all day, even two days, no American troops on the table, (the war of 1812 is NOT Napoleonic, to me, anyway), and lots of good natured, but savage, ribbing among the players, preferably 6+ players.
Thats it, for me.

John

Yes lots of figures! Preferably 28mm at a 1:20 figure ratio!

And the classic national stereotypes – Stubborn Russians, Doughty Brits and Portuguese, Plodding Austrians, Dashing French, Heroic Poles, Efficient Prussians…and for 1815, surprisingly committed and effective Netherlanders…

it does seem like what it needs is less huge egos. Then again considering the egos of the historical participants, that might be unrepresentative.

I was going to say for the creator of Empire to burn in Hell for a thousand years…

But that would be ungrateful…

To the other denizens of Hell.

Eric

Sparker,

Now that is how a Napoleonic's game should look like.

Sparker … I am so Jealous :-)

To answer the OP; you need the French! (with Bony on the table), of course! :-)

Thanks for starting the topic, I have a couple of rule sets on the way to me and already have the Polemos and Le Feu Sacre rules as downloads as I try to choose a system that meets my playing requirements.

At higher levels, I think of D'Erlons corps marching and counter marching between two battlefields, arriving on neither, or at Waterloo, Napoleon seeing in the distance that Prussian columns were heading his way and knowing that he still had a couple of hours to break the Anglo-Allied army in front of him.

At lower levels I think of the resilience and staying power of a formation in what is essentially still a close contact era. So unit rating and morale linked directly into the fire / attack process is essential, a status like wavering seems important as do some national characteristics.

Not all cavalry are equal and so I would like for arguments sake, light cavalry to be used within their 'role'.

"Napoleonic skirmish gaming just makes no sense to me."

Agreed.

Why does it make no sense? Didn't skirmishes happen in the Napoleonic era?

A fanatical devotion to the Emperor perhaps?

For me to be interested, it needs something to break up the boring uniformity of all those identical outfits and damnable regulations. Exotic units, skirmish-scale battles, naval or amphibious actions or sieges perhaps…ragged stragglers, settings such as the desert or Russian winter which broke down the order and discipline of the troops… throw in something like that, and then I'm interested.

A mix of arms and an emphasis on maneuver!

Games with edge-to-edge masses of figures, with the only real decisions being micro-tactical, simply do not capture the essence of the period for me. (Note I'm not saying that other people's tastes are wrong! There's no such thing as bad-wrong-fun.)

Not to pick on what is a beautifully presented game (and one which I don't know the background of), but for instance, in the photo above, what meaningful decisions could the French commander possibly make, and what use could be made of the cavalry piled up behind the phalanx of fusiliers? This might not be the case in the actual game above, but all too many games simply start from those positions, with all the real decisions already made.

Put another way, in my experience there is far too much emphasis on the sharp end, and not enough on the decisions that lead to where you stick it! ;)

Cheers,

Christopher

At higher levels, I think of D'Erlons corps marching and counter marching between two battlefields, arriving on neither…

Yes D'Erlon's Corps on the 16 June 1815 is a classic! Got really close to wargaming it once for a Quatre Bras game – kept announcing to the French Player, who wasn't familiar with the Battle, that the D'Erlons corps would turn up next move, no wait, theres been a delay, etc.

Unfortunately I couldn't take it too far as he had a bit of a dummy spit. At least he got a great insight into Ney's frame of mind though!

Of course a classic Napoleonic game needs the presence of the great man himself, the greatest soldier of his age, never defeated in battle…

Wellington!

:-)

The most important aspect of a Napoleonic game, is th fact that it is a game. As soon as amateur historians start chirping their usual nonsense, it just stopped being that. Play Command and Colours with miniatures on a hexed table and have fun! All three arms, lots of colour, no nonsense. Oh yes, crack open a few beers while you're at it. I also like SoB&H Naps, so I think I am a true heretic.

1)Maneuver warfare. The ability to defeat the enemy commander rather than the enemy army by using skirmishers, columns, and light cavalry to gain a localized tactical superiority.

2)French cavalry charges en mass.

3)Grand Batteries.

4)Battalion level game. I still love the big convention games vs. tournament rules.

And the uniforms are cool, too.

It's needs scale to have impact.

FWIW as I play in 6mm with one base= one brigade.

Grand-tactical manoeuvring and conservation of a reserve.

The effect of skirmish screens to enhance or disrupt attacks

Powerful concentrations of artillery without being all-powerful.

These are what seem to me to differentiate napoleonic a from the preceding 18th Century wars and the 19th Century wars to come.