"Are any Napoleonic Scenarios a fair even fight?" Topic

I have played many a game over the years, but none ever were actually a fair contest due to unequal amounts of troops. So where is the gaming fun it that?

Few historical battles were a fair fight!

I find the early Peninsula to be a fair match. The troops initially sent in by the French were reserve formations and German allies, which make for interesting matches against the regular Spanish armies. It wasn't until Napoleon arrived at the head of his victorious 1809 veterans that the Spanish were scattered to the winds.

1807 veterans, the guys that fought from Austerlitz to Friedland. If I remember correctly Boney left as the Brits were retreating to Corruna in early 1809.

It depends on the level your game is pitched at.

The art of Napoleonic War is operational. Pin, outflank, mass to break the line in varying combinations.

Once you reach the battlefield the preceding moves have pretty much shaped the combat.

However at the battalion level things are more even. Warfare is attritional, knowing when to feed in reserves is the art.

With that in mind smaller bits of large battles can be even fights. As can very small fights.

Maida is a good stand up fight.

Salamanca can be if you don't start with the Peer ready to pounce on Thormieres.

Quatre Bras isn't bad either as it is very fluid but Ney has to act fast or he is badly outnumbered in infantry.

For a large battle Borodino is a good one, but the very thing that makes it balanced can make it boring. Large armies just slugging out. It is like the battalion battle in a large format.

Some of the smaller battles of the early 1812 campaign are also worth a look.

Teugen Hausen in 1809 is another candidate for balanced game. The Austrians and French meet with the Austrians having reached a ridge a hair in front of the French. Both sides receive reinforcement.

Any of the historical battles can result in a good game if there is some map movement ahead of things…but this can also lead to a properly imbalanced battle. This would tend to make the "game" about the map moves and the battle can well be a foregone conclusion, which of course is what the real commanders strived for.

Bob

What level of game are you playing? When I played Napoleon's Battles, Marengo was generally a nail-biter for both sides. Maida and Barrosa tend to be good at lower levels.

unequal amounts of troops. So where is the gaming fun it that?

There's plenty of fun in that, but some people don't see it.

The challenge of stunning your opponent with inferior forces, of accomplishing your mission while minimizing losses, of executing a skillful retreat against overwhelming odds, of using the terrain to negate your enemy's advantages . . . these are what make wargaming fun and interesting – not lining up equal forces on opposite sides of balanced terrain and then rolling dice until someone breaks.

If you want a fair contest with equal forces, play checkers.

I can remember few battles that I "recreated" on the tabletop that would be considered a "fair fight".
The funny thing is that if I run them a few times, using different rules, the outcome is 50:50.

I have run Guilford Courthouse, with the British getting repulsed by the first line of militia, who were expected to run away.
I have run the Wyoming Massacre with the settlers ATTACKING the Tories and routing them.

I will bet that Napoleonic regulars with their favorite battles can say the same thing.

what is your definition of a "fair even fight"?

just total numbers with no understanding of the strategic/logistic considerations? troop types? troop quality? gun vs gun? size? type of cavalry? quality/health of horses?

a lot of variables besides raw numbers.

If the victory conditions are well written then each player should have an equal chance of winning the game. Not winning the battle, but winning the game. But of course they aren't always well written…

If the numbers of troops are lopsided, you can create a "fair fight" based on objectives and not whether or not one side batters the other until the end.

A number of scenarios written in Chris Leach's book ?Fields of Glory" can swing either way.
link

Michael Hopper's "Rise of Eagle, 1805" is the same; great scenarios.
link

"nothing is fair in love and war"
but victory points can be made so that even an obviously outnumbered or otherwise disadvantaged army can "win" the game by defying the odds and lasting longer than that should.
For example: The Alamo. While we know the results, The Texians would gain points for a percentage of casualties on the Mexicans – greater the better; on repulsing attacks, or even breaking out (not the heroic version but an alternative strategic notion)
Yeah, the Mexicans will win….. but by how much?

For Napoleonics, if 'ol Naps WINS Waterloo? 25 victory points for him!

unequal amounts of troops. So where is the gaming fun it that?

,

There's plenty of fun in that, but some people don't see it.

The challenge of stunning your opponent with inferior forces, of accomplishing your mission while minimizing losses, of executing a skillful retreat against overwhelming odds, of using the terrain to negate your enemy's advantages . . . these are what make wargaming fun and interesting – not lining up equal forces on opposite sides of balanced terrain and then rolling dice until someone breaks.

If you want a fair contest with equal forces, play checkers.

Exactly.

I am disillusion with most gaming with their points values, the army lists used for mini-maxing advantage and their resultant games of 'head to head led'.

To me wargames should be an exercise exercise in shared story telling. I was first introduced to an uneven scenario 42 years ago. It blew me away as they say and I have been tracing that dragon ever since.

I no longer care if the game is winnable, I want it to present me with an intellectual challenge and a chance to tell a story.

If you want to play head-to-head lead games, fine. Just remember some of us are try something different and getting a great deal of satisfaction from it.

I really dislike games that say you gain more victory points if all your guys are dead by 3:00 PM instead of noon, which was the historical result.

Oh, I don't know … doing better in some quantifiable way than the commander whose role you have taken did historically seems a fair enough measure of success in a lot of circumstances.

I have no problem at all taking a losing command and losing with it … gracefully and clutching at the occasional historical straw …

Phil

John I am ok with the three extra hours can gain you victory points IF there is a good reason. Such as reinforcements arrive, a vital bridge is destroyed, etc some reason why holding out longer could have made a difference.

Otherwise I agree with you dead is dead.

Maida, Albuera and Quatre Bras are all small-ish battles which are pretty even.
Aspern-Essling, Borodino and Waterloo are also pretty even but are not small battles.

Lundy's Lane from the American War of 1812.

I don't think the Napoleonic Wars are unusual in this regard. Most battles and most games aren't completely fair.