"Grand Tactical Rules search" Topic

I'm looking for a grand tactical ruleset (both Napoleonic and ACW, but if there's a ruleset that handles both I'll certainly consider it!) with the following criteria:

- Element-based (200-400 men per element), with the brigade as the smallest tactical unit for morale etc. purposes, division as the lowest command level (if you know Black Powder, imagine Division commanders taking the role of Brigadiers in that system, and brigades the place of battalions, but with variable number of elements)

- Command friction and varying levels of commander quality

- Troop quality implemented to a satisfactory degree (on the brigade scale)

- element removal is optional in Naps, but preferred in ACW.

- Encounters decisive (at least in terms of ground given / gained) and not "sticky" as in Black Powder.

- Fast-playing, with the possibility of playing major engagements (Waterloo in a day, Gettysburg in a weekend)

- Of course, fun is paramount over historical fidelity, but both are appreciated.

Do these rules exist, or do I have to craft my own?

Thanks!

It may seem kind of obvious but have you considered..

Black Powder with Division commanders taking the role of Brigadiers in that system, and brigades the place of battalions, but with variable number of elements.

Just turn up the kill rate in BP by adjusting a few numbers until it seems right!

There's Sam Mustafa's new game as well, but it doesn't have the element count you're looking for, unfortunately.

I assume that you're familiar with Age of Eagles… maybe incorrectly. If not, then that's pretty much the game you're looking for. Fire and Fury is the ACW version. It fits your description exactly, and is probably the classic multi-element brigade game system out there.

Yes to forwardmarch. As I read your description, it seemed you were describing the Fire and Fury family. Age of Eagles is my go-to Napoleonics rules set.

Republique 5.0
wtj.com/games/republique

I think they sound very polished and playable. Has stand removal, and the basic element is a large, regiment or brigade.

G'Day

Grand Manoeuvre

It is an excellent game design and "MichaelCollinsHimself" is on this forum.

He is perhaps one of the only game designers that seeks to improve the game when needed…

"The infantry battalions, artillery companies & cavalry regiments are represented, but the rule set is primarily focused on the decisions of Army, Corps and Divisional generals & the emphasis is on the manoeuvre of brigade & divisional formations."

link

grandmanoeuvre.co.uk

He will also go out of his way to answer all questions.

Best Regards
Art

Forwardmarch, I've certainly considered modding up Black Powder , but I've found as my knowledge of the period increases the less BP does what I need it to do (for instance, it heavily propagates the "french attack column" superiority theory, has very sticky melee which are strictly battalion vs battalion with only combat resolution support from friendlies and thus doesn't lend to differently sized battalions etc).

Around here, house rules / self-made rulesets are an infinitely harder sell than rules someone else made (and published, too, for the credibility).

I'm familiar with Fire & Fury, and probably some of my ideas came from there. Maybe there were some reasons that didn't instantly click with me, though – I'll take a second look. However, it might be a bit too slow-playing in the end for multi-corps actions.

With that said, I could certainly compromise on these features, such as elements – I know some rules have a standardized brigade base, I suppose you could make those magnetic and place the right amount of stands/elements on those for the correct brigade size representation – it would mean Pettigrew and Archer would occupy the same frontage, which seems a bit odd – but it's doable, as long as the system represents the strengths of the brigades enough.

I should add, hovewer, that Black Powder style freeform movement appeals to me and keeps the game running fast – at this command level I don't want to worry about wheeling and such slowing the sweep of the game.

I played Bloody Big Battles at the club the other day ( crossing of the Alma ) and it seems to tick all your boxes… maybe something you could look at.
I never played fire and fury but the gamers that had said that this one felt very much like an evolution of the same concept…

I haven't tried grand manoeuvre so I can't compare and what I've read about that one looks great, so I'm just adding an option, not replacing :)

cheers

Francisco

Fire and Fury.

Many thanks for the recommendation Art and Francisco for the encouraging remarks !

I must say that for the game level that Zelekendel wants (with element of 200-400 men), Grand Manoeuvre does not quite fit the description.
As Art points out: "infantry battalions, artillery companies & cavalry regiments are represented".

Of course, the game attempts to comply with most of the other criteria listed; ease of play and fast play, the representation of command control and communiications of the period, historical fidelity (which can be tricky as it is often a point of discussion disagreement!), and well, even "fun" too (as that is something that I believe resides in the eye of the beholder!).

I`m afraid I can not make any recommendations myself, as I have only played Fire & Fury and NB`s and none of the more recent larger scale games.

Well, hopefully you'll come over for FBR soon, and Shiloh a bit later, using my V&B house rules. ;)

F&F and AoE are very good games, but much slower than V&B. Of course they also have a bit more detail, so there is the balance. I think the F&F family do better for some of your criteria (C&C system, element removal) but V&B does better on grand scope and speed/decisiveness of play. For what it's worth, simply having 3-4 players per side and enforcing "no table talk" makes for its own brand of C&C friction! Also, I have moved away from the "block brigade" basing for V&B and use linear stands of 1000 men each, so that each division has a certain number of those stands that it can then deploy as it wishes (including "in support" to simulate that V&B linear/massed difference). That simple change did away with most of my objections to scale in V&B, and introduced a simple way to simulate the most important tactical considerations (frontage or depth, use of local reserves).

Cheers,

Christopher

Fire and Fury (original) for ACW.

The Polemos Napoleonic and ACW sets will both meet your criteria. They are available either as download link or as hard copy link

Each gives you two levels of play to choose from, and the games do move along nicely once you get the base mechanics under your belt.

On to Richmond comes to mind. It has a simple Napoleonic variant so it could be used for both.

Fire and Fury as well. There are Napoleonic variants for the rules but there is also a commercial game called Age of Eagles based of this game.

Napoleons Battles is a fine game for Napoleonic warfare.

Republique is another large scale Napoleonic set.

I might also cautiously recommend Big Bloody Battles as it is supposed to be a very simplified version of Fire and Fury. However, my copy is still in the mail so…yeah….cautiously recommend that one. It may not be suited at all.

@CATenWolde: Do you have a copy of your VNB house rules that you are willing to share?

Here's another pitch for "On to Richmond." Maneuver units are multi-stand brigades with stands being removed as casualties mount. Neophyte players can easily control a division of two to three brigades while experienced players should be able to control a three to four division corps.

Here's a game we did last year: link

Jim

@79thPA – sure, no problem. Right now they are embedded in a rules summary document that I wrote up for myself, but I should be able to pull them out, maybe this weekend? I also fiddled with C&C (addition of "brigadiers" as a one-shot command resource that can be used to put brigades in command, and rolling for rallies), and artillery (limits on close range placement of on-table batteries, use of "generic" on-table battery types), but those change the RAW a bit more. The basing system can be used without changing the RAW too much, the others may not be to everyone's taste. ca at tenwolde dot us

Cheers,

Christopher

There seems to be a Napoleonic version of On to Richmond called "On to Waterloo"

Here runtus.org/page7.htm

For ACW, you just described Fire and Fury and Peter Pig's Civil War Battles…your description is spot on for these rules.

For Napoleonics, Age of Eagles is the Napoleonic version of Fire and Fury.

I all of these the basic maneuver unit is the brigade, and the game are designed for you to be a corps or army commander.

@Zelekendel,

I can't speak for the Polemos ACW rules, but the Polemos Napoleonic rules do cover your stated requirements.

Does anyone remember a set of Napoleonic rules from the stone age called "Imperial Guard" or the revised version "Imperial Guard II"? I think they were written by a guy named Ed Konstant. They were pretty simple rules with a little variation for each country.

Actually I don't think the Fire & Fury family (including AoE and BBB) quite fit your first criteria, "Command friction and varying levels of commander quality"

The commander rules are very one-dimensional, and friction mainly comes from the movement throw for each brigade – where it is difficult to factor in command quality.

They aren't a very good fit on varying troop quality either – you get three grades which affect just stamina, and then some special rules.

I've played both AoE and BBB and wasn't satisfied with either, mostly on the command side. BBB though is wonderful example of "Occam's Razor" in rule design – stripping down to the bare essentials. It doesn't cover ACW or Napoleonics though – no doubt easy to adapt.

V+B has even less in terms of command friction, which it asks you replicate using a multiplayer format – which I'm sure works if you can do it. It also uses a one hour turn, which builds in quite a lot friction. Christopher's mods make a lot of sense. Building in different command capabilities would be a tough call.

I haven't played Napoleon's battles, but I think it fits your requirements nominally. The original version has the reputation of being a bit slow, with too many mods. I think it has been revised recently.

Horse Foot Guns might be worth a look. If you strip out all the special situations (boats, camels, etc) they come down to something quite simple.

Go to the Charge magazine web site and Scott has a free set listed there that might suite you called "Give them the cold steel".

Mathew makes some good observations. The thing about F&F (both the original and regimental) is that the system is designed to make the movement and behavior of individual brigades variable, and to eventually reach a tipping point of collapse. It does this very well, *but* as Mathew says it isn't really modelling C&C – it's modelling cumulative battlefield stress. Age of Eagles (the Napoleonic variant) takes a step closer, as it introduces the management of reserves through different command structures.

Many, perhaps most, "modern" game designers seem to believe that simply by making things more difficult to manage on the front line, or goals more difficult to achieve, that they are modelling C&C. They read about the stress and chaos of battle, and the mistakes made and opportunities missed, and they think that the way to introduce that in a game is to *force* that chaos and lack of control on the player through the most obvious means available – either your units can't move, or won't move as you wish, or some random number won't move while others can, and so on. The problem with that approach is that it isn't modelling C&C either – it's just making the game more frustrating to play on the front line, usually through means with no direct link to higher level C&C, which is: the recognition of opportunity, timely reaction to circumstances, and creating and clarifying force objectives. Rules tend to make the game difficult at the level *below* the definition of force objectives, which is friction, not C&C.

Most of higher level C&C falls directly under player responsibility, and can easily be modeled by simply using written orders and enforcing "no table talk" related to game plans. Of course, this is with multiple players, and we might want to model specific generals or command systems that had a hard time recognizing opportunities and defining objectives. Again, simplicity is best, and it's easy to do this by, for instance, simply limiting the number of orders a commander can send to subordinate formations (e.g. Shako does this through the use of variable numbers of "couriers").

I suppose my point is that, for modeling higher level C&C, "less is more". There is no need for introducing a complex system to model a simple system (yes, it's the stimuli that are complex, not the system itself). You end up "playing the game system" instead of playing the battle, which is my complaint about many, many modern game designs with supposedly clever C&C mechanics.

One set of rules that hasn't been mentioned here is Altar of Freedom. It is a bit too abstract for my tastes, and its C&C system is unfortunately one of those "gambling systems" where you bet points to see if all your units can move, *however* it has some very interesting special characteristics that are used to modify individual generals' abilities to command their troops. If you're of a mind to steal ideas, there are some good ones there to mine.

Well, I've rambled on long enough!

Cheers,

Christopher

The commander rules are very one-dimensional, and friction mainly comes from the movement throw for each brigade – where it is difficult to factor in command quality.

Not completely true. Commanders also influence the command roll as well. In a very simple way, command quality does matter. So at this point you have to ask, how complex do you want your command rules?

@CAT: Thanks. When you get a chance, please send to: jcairo1 (at) udayton (dot) edu

Age of Eagles, Fire and Fury, and Napoleon's Battles would fall into your range of interest. I don't agree that AOE does not model command and control and leader quality. Commanders do have ratings, and their are several modifiers for troop types and quality abstracted into the charts. I played it a fair amount and am satisfied with what is there.

I would also vote for Commands and Colors/Battle Cry. However they are simple (gasp) boardgames using card driven systems. People call it luck, I call cards another way to model command friction. Some like it, others don't. It is only a matter of personal preference.

Looks like I have lot to go through, thanks.

Have played C&C Naps, while the card mechanism is pretty good, the combat system itself isn't satisfactory to me.

pbrd.co/1y8b78H

This how Pettigrew and Archer look with Altar of Freedom. Pettigrew is more than twice the size of Archer, but it doesn't show, and I have a problem with it, even on a higher command level.

You could, of course, compromise on the beauty of the brigade stand, make it a magnetic one and paint it green, and add the number of stands to it that correspond to the size of the brigade on a scenario per scenario basis, for visual fidelity and easy recognition on the capabilities of the brigades on the table.

This leaves the issue of the uniform frontage, no matter the size. You can sort of hand-wave that by assuming the brigade stand represents the maximum frontage a brigadier can control and just assume it's filled, however sparsely, by the brigade, with the excess making up the rear ranks.

However – multiple stand (say 2-6 stands of 20x10 mm) Brigades are fiddly, and would need to be on some sort of "movement trays" in order to play fluidly in any case – the difference being that you can vary the frontages and formations, and can feature element removal if desired.

What do you think about this issue? Maybe it should be its own thread, but here it is in any case.

That's the same issue I had with AoF basing – it took the V&B style "brigade block" style a step further than I was willing to accept. You could deconstruct the basing system the same way I did with V&B, and use linear stands to represent the frontage of the various brigades or a nominal amount of men (I use 1000). There are a number of arguments for this approach. Firstly, brigades often (I think *more* often) deployed in line of battle than in depth, and certainly it should at least be an option. Secondly, it encourages a bit of tactical choice without too much complication. And thirdly, in favor of using a nominal number of men per stand than hewing to brigade strength, the fact is that brigade strength on the front line was rather more variable than our paper OOB's tend to suggest, and that a division commander would have primarily been concerned with "how many men, in what space, deployed how". This is probably more true for the ACW than Napoleonics, but it still holds true.

However, while this was simple to do for V&B, AoF doesn't really explain the process of how they arrive at their +- adjustments. I get the feeling that it's more-or-less done by feel based on the average strength of a brigade per battle, with some personal choices on quality thrown in. The combat system relies pretty heavily on piling up these +'s to get definitive results, however. So, if you used stands with an equal number of men, you would be left with maybe a +1 or -1 for general unit quality (I think), and a slog.

By the way, if you think that 2-6 stands per brigade is fiddly, the F&F approach might be too much for you – brigade can often be more than a dozen stands.

Hi Zelekendel,

As the author of "Bloody Big Battles!", first a big thank you to those who have said nice things about BBB above. I won't get into the pros and cons of BBB on this thread – there are many good rulesets out there – I just want to contribute a small point of information.

We have found BBB works both for Napoleonic and for ACW battles. For ACW, there are scenarios available online for Gettysburg and Shiloh. We have fought all three days of Gettysburg in an evening. See the thread here:
TMP link

Good luck with finding the game that meets your needs.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
link

A lot of personal taste here. It's certainly worth trying the Fire and Fury system to see if it works for you! BBB may be the best place to start in light of Chris's comments.

As Christopher above says though it is more of a friction system which commanders can influence than giving the feel of a chain of command in action.

C+C is very difficult to do justice to in a fast moving game. One of the best systems I have seen is in Bruce Weigle's 1870 series. Each command (regiment or brigade mainly) is given an order chit (move, charge or reform), which is needed to do anything significant. These are rationed, though may last more than one turn. There is also an activation step. This allows different command strengths to be modelled quite well. But not as fast as BBB – and its simultaneous move system requires a certain amount gentlemanly play conduct.

1870 hasn't been adapted to Napoleonics or ACW. The 1859 version would be the place to start, since this still has smoothbore muskets. It would not be too hard though.

I always heard the 1859/66/70 games were absolute classics. I've never got around to doing them though- if I did I'd probably just use Nap figures anyways, since I have a few thousand 3mm figs laying around. I could use the ACE zouves for the French without too much difficulty, I'm sure.

Apparently the Yahoo club sites for my free ACW and Napoleonics rules have been shut down, or I'd suggest those.

Christopher,

I'd really like to not deconstruct the brigades as that's a layer of personality I'd miss. As for the variability, surely every brigade would be subject to the same laws of variability in battle strength each day – therefore variability is not an issue to me, and can go by the OOBs for each battle to establish the size relationships.

As for fiddliness, what I meant was the number of distinct stands / trays you have to physically move around by hand over rough and often undulating terrain – if those 12+ stands are all neatly on a movement tray / stand, no problem at all. However, if you were playing a dozen brigades of a dozen stands, that'd mean 144 little stands to move around each turn, and that takes up far too much time and energy (I started playing 23 years ago with Warhammer Fantasy Battle without movement trays – I'd know!)

Yes, I know what you mean about maintaining the "personality" of the brigades. I suppose it's easier for me since I also game at the regimental level, which is all about the brigade commanders. My house rules still have the brigadiers in there in a way, as they can be used as one-shot resources to put a stand in command or lead a charge. However, now that I think about it, why couldn't you use standard-sized stands and just label them by brigade instead of division? Brigades would round to 1-3 1000 man stands, mostly 2, so it would work.

Other than BBB (which I don't have but might fit your needs from what I've seen), good choices that I have and you can look at are RF&F (scaling it up to brigade level is better than the original F&F I think), Peter Pig's Civil War Battles (a great pre-game system that can be borrowed anyway, maybe too many bases per brigade), and Crusader Games' Rank & File. I don't know why I didn't think of R&F earlier – we had great games with it at the regimental level, and it has a sliding scale that would make it a great multi-stand brigade level game. If my particular take on V&B doesn't work for your own games, I'm sure one of those will.

Cheers,

Christopher

Bruce Weigle will be at Cold Wars running one of his classic European Horse and Musket scenarios. Ummmm, "scenario" is an inadequate term; his games are better described as "events". To those who have never participated in one, I highly recommend that you give it a try. To top it off, Bruce Weigle is one of the very finest gentlemen this hobby has to offer.

B

Christopher, those are very good suggestions, and I value your input here very much. I think it's going to be between those 3, your set and my own customized rules – and definitely I'm looking forward to checking your system out.

The big difference with my idea and yours is that you're resolving at 1000 men per unit always, and in my idea units would resolve with 500-2500 men per unit (meaning morale, movement etc), the extra stands are just there for staying power, attacks and in Napoleonics, possibly some formation hijinx (like massed columns on the flanks, line in the middle, that'd be cool to see done in "one unit").

There is one problem though, with what it is you're trying to do. If you're getting down to 500 men per base, you're not very far away form having each base represent a battalion. I've run into this problem a few times when messing around with my 3mm figs. Small distortions like that can lead to big problems in game design if they're not thought out carefully

What's wrong with each base representing a battalion-ish? The unit entity is still a brigade, similar to how in Black Powder, for example, a battalion is composed of several (6 by default) stands, about a company each.