"How big is your game?" Topic

I'm trying to get a feel for what a reasonable sized game. Whether it's brigades or battalions, there should be a sweet spot for the number of units for each player. Too many units and the game bogs down. Too few and you lose the feel of massed armies and there isn't enough variety of troops to keep the game fresh. A corps is a corps is a corps sort of thing.

At one end you have Empire with little tiny battalions that looks uninspiring on the table top, but you have lots of variety and big commands. The other end is less units, but lots of figures per unit. Looks great, but tactics come down to ordering the frontal assault now or getting a snack and ordering the same attack next turn.

I'd say the most definitive way to meter it would be by number of players frankly. Last night I played a skirmish game that had about ten players, we were each running maybe two units.

Someone ran a thread lately asking how many units a player can handle, most answers were something like 12. I disagree in part that it is really the number of decisions you have to make not the number of units.

What makes it hard to run Empire is that players all need to make decisions not only for their divisions but also their brigades and commonly their battalions. That is a lot of decisions. Ordering a division of many battalions to go that way and another similar division to go this way, that is easy, doesn't matter that there are a ton of "units" involved, you only had to make two decisions. It gets harder in Empire because you are encouraged to micromanage the battalions, which ones should deploy skirmishers, what order should they conduct their actions in? That is many decisions per unit and running a single division of twelve battalions will feel much more busy than running a corps of five divisions where the battalion actions are assumed.

In the Napoleonic games I play, it depends on the scenario as we typically do historical battles.

Cheers,

The Bandit

In my experience the "Magic Number" is @ 12 "things" (Units/guns/leaders). So for Age of Eagles roughly a Corps per player

In terms of span of control, the major 'things' a player should order around should probably number 2-7 (can you imagine a divisional commander individually ordering 12 battalions? no, they have brigades and regiments to push around).

From a two down command pov (assuming each 'thing' has 3-5 subordinate elements), that equates to around six to thirty five subordinate elements/units/things making up those formations which in turn may be made up of individual bits themselves.

The degree of slowness or not really depends on the level of granularity you have to manage those subordinate things at. Single stands? a bunch of stands which have different formations and statuses?

To echo the comments above, a dozen multiple stand units per player is plenty for an evening game, even if they are ordered around in bigger formation chunks. Ideally a lot less.

I disagree with the 12 units maximum. I play Le Feu Sacre and you can handle 30 or so units, more if you have more time but essentially around three infantry divisions plus a couple of cavalry brigades and guns is a typical game.

As the OP writes if you only have a division of infantry (let's say 12 battalions) the game can so easily simply become one of purely conducting a frontal assault.

I disagree with the 12 units maximum. I play Le Feu Sacre and you can handle 30 or so units, more if you have more time but essentially around three infantry divisions plus a couple of cavalry brigades and guns is a typical game.

Well, I think it is a question of practical averages across the cross-section of wargamers. Somewhere out there is a guy who feels comfortable handling 100 units and there is another guy who prefers to use two…

Cheers,

The Bandit

No limits from my part.
Depends of the Units which arrived at the battlefield.
Normally… four to six Divisiones each side.

Amicalement
Armand

Hello Joe Rocket!

It seems that your "sweet spot" is the rules you are or should be using. Empire and big unit rules seem to be at opposite ends of your dilemma. You seem to be looking for something that has the look of big units but the abilities of Empire. A sort of hybrid. Both types of rules that you are referring to are "old school". You need to look at "new school" rules such as Napoleonic Polemos by Baccus 6mm. These rules will give you the same scope as Empire, but without the baggage of administrating battalions. Although designed for 6mm you can use any scale, and you can actually use any size units as long as they are all the same. They are also very easy to amend to suit your own ideas, if your not happy with the original concepts. They are also two rule sets in one book. One for big battles and one for smaller ones.

We have playing Polemos style rules for almost ten years now and have never looked back. Players are always happy to play no matter what size their command is. It simply depends on the number of players that show up. Which is great as you never know for sure how many will attend a game.

Joe, I think your sweet spot is Polemos. Have a look at them on the Baccus web site and let me know what you think.

Best regards,

Glenn

Glenn

I'm not familiar with the rules, I've always been a battalion scale player. So let me kick you the soap box if you're willing to go into detail about regimental or brigade sized games.

What decisions are you making? What formations are there for a brigade? I'd guess line, double line, column, road march, mixed, and echelon, but that's guess. If you're not having battalions forming squares, how do you resolve cavalry combat?

I understand the basis for brigade games as a regiment is largely and administrative unit and a battalion commander doesn't have the authority to act independently of the brigade. Each battalion has its place in the brigade based on seniority. Having the brigade act as one makes sense… until it doesn't. It takes away the opportunity for a brigadier to micromanage his battalions, change position and formation of his battalions, etc.

Hello Joe!

Both rule sets are top down in design. Players are intended to be the C&C and or the senior commanders. So your basic decisions are simply which troops to deploy where, and with what purpose. When to commit them to action and if attacking in what sequence etc. The system forces you to think about four critical factors, size of force, deployment, commitment and timing. Although both rule sets are slightly different your forced into similar thinking patterns.

There are other control features such as "Tempo" which is a basic order type of system. It actually becomes a game within the game between the opposing commanders. Forces are encouraged to move together as "Tempo" controls movement, attacks, etc.

In the high level game a brigade is a single unit, but if you want more as we do, we use regimental units. A modest house rule. In the low level game every battalion and regiment in the brigade is used.

For 6mm the basic unit is a 60x30mm block, for the big games it's 60x60 or two 60x30. You can use any base size you like as long as both sides are the same. You just have to make a few minor adjustments in rule descriptions if your using custom sizes.

There is no need to actually show any formations as it is assumed that all units are always in their proper formation for the situation at hand. At first this sounds crazy for Napoleonic's but in reality it's better then the reverse which is a major flaw in "old school" rules. Our group is full of hard core Napoleonic players and nobody misses the formation dance.

Cavalry vs square is the same as in most rules. If the infantry is in good order the cavalry will lose (most of the time). If the infantry is not in good order they will lose (most of the time).

One of the best things about these rules is they force you to keep your commands together. However, you can also break them up if needed. It enhances the feel of the game as you move an entire brigade, Division or Corps together with a single purpose. Unlike "old school" games where basically ever battalion is on it's own and only paying lip service to the command structure.

Some people have found the rules difficult to master. There is definitely a learning curve, but it's worth the work. And it's really only a matter of patience as there is a Yahoo site that will answer any questions or just ask me.

There is more info on the Baccus site.

Did this help? If not just ask.

Best regards,

Glenn

Glenn,

Yes that does help. It addresses some of the issues I've had with some of the "Old School" battalion rules. The biggest of which was micromanaging battalions in the presence of the enemy. In theory the closer you get to the enemy, the less tactical flexibility you have. Momentum carries you. It's difficult to halt the troops, impossible to maneuver them.

That said what your describing is a brigade game. You're not managing the regiment, just deploying it and moving it. There's no tactical decision making in regard to the regiment's formation. It's a block.

It would be really interesting if the combat effectiveness of a regiment was built on the sum of it's battalion building blocks. For example: You have four battalions. Battalion formations are S=Square, L=Line, C=Column, etc. Then a regiment deployed as (SSSS) would have a maximum value against cavalry, but a poor rating in a fire fight. A regiment deployed as (LLLL) would be every effective in a fire fight, but brittle. A mass of columns (CCCC) would be very effective in close combat. A mixed regiment (CLLC) would be well rounded. A anchored line (SLLS) formation would provide some protection from cavalry and firepower.

Assuming you gave stats for a battalion as three numbers firefight/close combat/square vs cav. For argument's sake a line battalion would be 2/1/1 a column was 1/2/1 and a square was 1/1/2. The musketry value of a regiment in line (LLLL) would be 4x2=8, a close combat value of 4 and a vs. cav of 4. A mixed(CLLC) regimental formation would be 6 musketry, 6 close combat, and 4 vs. cav. A (SLLS) anchored line formation would be 6 musketry, 4 close combat, and 6 vs. cavalry.

In this way you get rid of the fiddly nature of independent battalions, but their formation is meaningful to the fighting value of the larger formation.

'Just an idea.

Fritz

Grande Armee makes a brigade a block. It assumes your brigade comnander is making tactical decisions. If he rolls all 1s that probably means he made the wrong decisions.

Crispy,

I have less of a problem with that than regimental formations. You're much more removed from the tactical decision of picking formations. More abstract. But, I'd wonder if there was more to the game than lining up, pushing lead, and rolling dice, however.

On the continuum of nasty rules and tactical skill (Empire or redheads, for that mater) vs. pretty and easy, but you lose interest quickly (let's say blondes) Grande Armee might be a blonde.

Love Carnage & Glory btw. The computer really speeds up small games. Not suitable for a big convention game. You lose any efficiency you gained by automation when you get above 50 battalions because there's one operator imputing data.

I need a brunette. Something sensible. Not too frustrating and not so easy that you lose interest.

Hello Fritz!

Well yes and no. The only thing that is really taken away is micro managing the tactical abilities of the battalions. You still need to manage their relationship with each other. Your really doing the same thing you did with individual battalions only at a higher level. There are times when it might be wise to have a line of battalions and others where deeper formations might be better. So there is really no need for your proposals.

The combat system is a little complicated in the higher level game, but it works very well with the system once you master it. One of the truly great things about the system though is it's very easy to change or add your own house rules if you want to.

Pretty much everyone who has played this system with us finds there is no shortage of decisions that have to be made. They also quickly realize that most of them are critical. It's a high pressure fast moving game. We played Friedland in 13 turns!

The other great thing about this system is you can scale the game to fit the battle and or the number of players. You have the small scale battalion level in one rule set and the brigade or regimental level in the other.

You also can't ignore the visual presentation. Everyone comments about how realistic the game looks. You can clearly see the groups of units in their long lines or deep formations.

Basically the system takes you to another level of play that forces you to think in a more strategic way and looks better as well. What could be better? Clearly your brunette.

Best regards,

Glenn

Thanks Glenn,

I'll have to look for a copy on Ebay.

I need a good convention style game players can pick up and sort their way through if they have some familiarity with the period. I'm a minimalist, so I'm sure I'll be chucking half the rules in no time. Most games are pretty reasonable to play once you strip off the administrative stuff designed to frustrate players. You need to line up right and have a good firefight, melee, and morale system and not much else. Brigade activation-nope. Command pips-nada. Messenger stops at a brothel on the way to your corps-who cares. Ammunition? Who needs it.

Thanks

With Empire I can easily and speedily handle a corps of three infantry and one cavalry division. Maybe that plus a corps of cavalry before it noticeably slows down. In games like Johnny Reb for ACW it is less, perhaps twenty units. If I have to take the time to place chits it is less that simply having a plan in my head and executing it.

Just spent the weekend fighting Dresden, ITGM, about (very approx) 100 btns 20/25 cav regts a side for 5 players a side

Good sized game for a whole weekend.

Absolutely not more than 12 'units' for me, and even then I tend to group units together and run them as a single entity (to get the number of 'units' I'm commanding down to 3-7).

To use a 40k example, even though I have 4 squads of Fire Warriors each with a Devilfish transport, I pair up the squads and have the pairs attack at the same place.

I'd probably run near-historical brigades in LaSalle, or any other player-as-division-commander game.