KTravlos | 18 Dec 2015 2:47 a.m. PST |
A rather heated discussion over the "crappiness" of the Napoleonic Spanish army and too much free time has raised a question in my head that I think might be worth discussing. Is there a difference in miniature war-game design between Napoleonic gamers and 19th century gamers? Let me elaborate. I was thinking that the majority of Napoleonic rules I have seen tend to be rules that rely heavily on generic army lists that cover large periods of time, and less on historical scenarios and armies calibrated for their performance in those periods. Shako, Blucher, Paddy Griffith's Napoleonic War-gaming for Fun, Black Powder(technically all period, but essentially mainly played by Napoleonics), Polemos, fit more or less this generic attitude.
Indeed most historical scenarios for Napoleonic games tend to arise from rules that were forced developed with 19th century warfare in mind (?) like Volley and Bayonet or Fire and Fury. On the other hand most 19th century systems I have experience with tend to be Scenario heavy systems. Few have army lists and most rely on specific army builds for specific scenarios. Bruce Wiegel's Grand Tactical Rules, Volley and Bayonet, Fire and Fury, Altar of Freedom, Chris Pringle and Bloody Big Battles, even Neil Thomas 19th century rules, primarily rely on scenarios and calibrating forces for those historical scenarios instead of generic army lists. There thus seems to me to be a difference in game design philosophy exhibited in the two different periods. So some questions: 1) Am I just being led astray by my anecdotal evidence? Or have others noticed this also? 2) If there is one, why? Let us consider some facts. There is much more material for the Napoleonic Wars than for 19th century conflicts.True some aspects of the Napoleonic Wars, just as some specific 19th century conflicts, are not well covered, but still I dare say that there is more on the Peninsular War out there than there is on the Paraguayan War. Thus I am surprised a bit by the seeming preference for army lists over scenario based systems for Napoleonic's. If I am not making things up, which could be the case, I think this might have to do with the start of the hobby. It seems the Napoleonics were mostly started as miniature wargames in the 1970s and 1980s when there was a lack of historical information in general, and especially for the 19th century games. Thus creators had to make short-cuts and those were generic army lists. On the other hand I think 19th century wargaming picked up in the 90s and 2000s, an era with much more availability of information which has led to the rules designers working on them to focus more on scenarios. This is a supposition, but is there merit to it? 3) Alternatively could this be a result of a seeming preference for division level actions in Napoleonics vs. a seeming preference for Grant Tactical battles for 19th Century? Anyway just some thoughts, perhaps totally wrong. |
Dexter Ward | 18 Dec 2015 2:56 a.m. PST |
You are being led astray by anecdoctal evidence. Most Black Powder games are not Napoleonic. Most Napoleonic games are scenario driven. Most Napoleonic rules are not based on 19th century rules. |
15th Hussar | 18 Dec 2015 3:19 a.m. PST |
There is nothing to see here, move along. |
Texas Jack | 18 Dec 2015 3:21 a.m. PST |
This year I have played 7 napoleonic games, and only one (Waterloo) was scenario driven. This is not an unusual occurrence for me, so I would agree about napoleonics not being scenario driven. Others with different experience will disagree I am sure. I think one reason this niche of the hobby is driven by army lists is because of all the nations involved. There are many armies to collect (yay!) and so it is good to have a handy reference as to who had what.You wouldn´t need that in a war with one side against another, such as the ACW. This multitude of armies also makes imaginary battles so much more appealing. |
MajorB | 18 Dec 2015 3:40 a.m. PST |
Is there a difference in miniature war-game design between Napoleonic gamers and 19th century gamers? Napoleonic weapons were smoothbores. By the middle of the 19th century rifled weapons were being introduced. This fundamentally changed battlefield tactics. |
MajorB | 18 Dec 2015 3:40 a.m. PST |
Most Black Powder games are not Napoleonic. Most Napoleonic games are scenario driven. Most Napoleonic rules are not based on 19th century rules. This is all anecdotal evidence. |
Martin Rapier | 18 Dec 2015 4:10 a.m. PST |
If there is a difference, it is more likely due to 'nineteenth century' being a relatively new popular period compared to the hoary old classics of Ancients, Napoleonics and WW2 which have been through the full cycle of Charles Grant, then WRG et al, the horror of 1980s rules, tournament play etc etc. |
KTravlos | 18 Dec 2015 5:15 a.m. PST |
Martin Rapier that is what I also thought. The locking in of rules conventions for Napoleonics came in an era much before 19th Cent War-gaming, and one in which research would had been greatly hampered. I did forget the tournament play stuff etc.Again if there is one, as many posters question that. |
marshalGreg | 18 Dec 2015 6:37 a.m. PST |
The impact of weaponry as MajorB indicates and the speed of this weaponry's lethal improvement development came in more frequent waves in the 19th century had significant impact to tactics and drill. Also the differences in the armies became less (especially when looking at ACW with officers and methodology of warfare coming from the same/one source) so it lends its self more scenario/ period driven. a 2 cents MG |
Timmo uk | 18 Dec 2015 7:16 a.m. PST |
The Napoleonic Wars were during the C19th…that aside, yes you are being led astray by your anecdotal evidence. |
CATenWolde | 18 Dec 2015 7:45 a.m. PST |
Can I ask how long you have been gaming? I think what you are seeing is just part of the larger trend that started perhaps 10-15 years ago or so towards broader, more generic rules, as the gamist part of the wargaming pendulum swung to the fore. When I started in the 90's it was all about detailed simulation with 5-15mm figures, and you never saw a Napoleonic convention game that wasn't based on an iconic historical battle. With the swing towards gamism – and the simultaneous resurgence of 28mm "big figures / small battles" side of the hobby – those trends may have faded away in many places. However, of course it never died out (thank heavens!), and I think we can see the inklings of another pendulum swing coming on. |
KTravlos | 18 Dec 2015 8:24 a.m. PST |
Sure you can say my view is colored by the fact that I am gaming in the 2000s. Still even if you are right let us look at the last 10 years of Napoleonic and 19 Century Rules. I dare say there is a difference in design between the two groups. Compare Lassale, Blucher, Shako II to BBB, 1870/1859/1866 TimmoUK 1) When I refer to the 19th century I use the term in the Diplomatic History sense, 1816-1914. The fact that people do not cross-post Napoleonic topics into the 19th century indicates that, that is how most of us conceive it. 2) When I use the term Napoleonic I also include the French Revolutionary Wars, which by the strict chronological rules did not take part in the 19th century. 3) Hopefully that clarifies that. |
summerfield | 18 Dec 2015 8:44 a.m. PST |
In many rules where national characteristics are used are misguided. It says more about the predudice of the rules writer. Having been writing and researching books for over a decade, this has certainly given me a different perspective. The differences between armies were how they were used rather than their characteristics. Many battles were won and lost before a shot had been fired due to the logistic constraints or local superiority. Now a rating between ability with arms and maneouvre with that of morale is far more useful. Prussian Landwehr in early 1813 was very willing but poor in arms and manouvre. Yet by winter 1813 was as competant as the line due to battlefield experience. The French Army at Waterloo is another area of misunderstanding that still pervades the myriad written on the subject. Stephen |
CoolHistoryGamer | 18 Dec 2015 9:02 a.m. PST |
I agree with CATenWolde. The obsession with "tournament" style rules where players build a force based upon point values is fairly recent. In tournament play gamers face off against different opponents for several rounds of short games until one player is declared the champion. Although this may attract newer and younger gamers, I am not a fan of this style of gaming. I prefer historically based scenarios, where winning is based not solely on eliminating a certain amount of "points" from your opponent's army, but upon achieving a scenario objective. A good scenario provides a story with an opportunity to win even with armies of differing strengths and capabilities. It is difficult to have reasonable scenario objectives and "story development" in a game intended to be played in a single round of tournament play. Ultimately I don't like "tournament play" because I don't like hyper-competitiveness. I don't play war-games just to win, I play to enjoy the hobby. If you are having fun, you're winning! |
Timmo uk | 18 Dec 2015 9:07 a.m. PST |
KTravlos, Sorry I'm only being daft. However, you are selective and by no means comprehensive in the list of examples you give. I could give you two more examples where ACW rules were derived from the Napoleonic rules and all four sets are not primarily list based games. All have been created to allow gamers to explore historical scenarios and none are suitable for competitive play. I'd go as far as to say all have loyal followings, at least in the UK, are widely known and easy to obtain. |
KTravlos | 18 Dec 2015 9:23 a.m. PST |
TimmoUK no problem, I am daft most of the time. But I think you are making my point? Recent ACW rules (Altar of Freedom for example, F&F) tend to be more similar to other 19th century rules, as opposed to recent Napoleonic Rules. Again that is my impression from my small anecdotal evidence. |
Martin Rapier | 18 Dec 2015 9:44 a.m. PST |
"The obsession with "tournament" style rules where players build a force based upon point values is fairly recent. In tournament play gamers face off against different opponents for several rounds of short games until one player is declared the champion. Although this may attract newer and younger gamers, I am not a fan of this style of gaming." People were doing this in the 1970s too, that was the whole point of all the army lists, points etc in e.g. WRG rules. I didn't play a historical a game of Napoleonics until the late 1980s, before then it was all points based armies and hypothetical stuff. The only historical Napoleonics I did was boardgames, I don't think it even occurred to us that you might do Waterloo on the tabletop, division level rules tended to preclude that. |
Timmo uk | 18 Dec 2015 9:46 a.m. PST |
I thought I was presenting a slightly different view that two sets of ACW rules are very much based on two sets of Napoleonic rules and as such are close to them in broad conceptual terms. None are able to support your initial view presented that Napoleonic rules are generic list based games. The rules I'm thinking of are: Le Feu Sacre from which the ACW set They Couldn't Hit an Elephant were derived from and General de Brigade from which Guns at Gettysburg were created. The only lists in LFS are for particular historical formations on a given day in history. All have lots of historical scenarios available from their respective publishers. I've a feeling GdeB has a fairly loose points system in it but my own selective experience tells me I've never actually known or read of anybody using points based armies for any of these games. |
Sparta | 18 Dec 2015 10:51 a.m. PST |
With summerfeld and CATenWolde on this. All games at our club for the last 20 years has been scenariodriven. But the best scenarioes seems to come from campaigns where the players objectives on the battlefield are more or less determined by themselves in a greater scheme of things. |
matthewgreen | 18 Dec 2015 11:17 a.m. PST |
Having started off with army list type games (in the 1970s), I have come to dislike them. And especially those national characteristics lists for units and leaders covering large periods of time. I think it should all be driven by the scenario, which I strongly prefer to be historically based. But that might be just my age! The scenario approach is popular and helps keep the hobby alive. And I have used them happily in other contexts. I think it is because I have studied the Napoleonic wars in much more detail. I have recently played some 1866 and 1870 games, and found that there is a clear difference between these and Napoleonics – to the extent that I would not try to have the same rule system for both. Mainly because improved firepower had a profound effect on tactics. In Napoleonics (grand tactical level) a separate firing phase is of questionable value, except to deal with skirmishing and artillery. In late 19th Century you wouldn't do that… but you need less detail to handle cavalry. Though there is a difference between the use of peacetime armies (characteristic of later 19thC, except ACW) and armies from prolonged periods of war (characteristic of Napoleonics) – the main difference is technology. I don't know the 1848 conflicts well, but I suspect these are more Napoleonic in character. Crimea is on the cusp. |
CATenWolde | 18 Dec 2015 12:36 p.m. PST |
This is an interesting line of questioning, but unfortunately I think you have to accept that your sample set is too limited and too skewed to support your hypothesis. For instance, you name Lasalle and Blucher as examples of Napoleonic rules, but both are from a single author with a very particular approach, and there are so many other Napoleonic rules at both scales that have been released over the past decade that it would probably be an impossible task to even enumerate them. Also, there is the inconvenient fact that the same author also wrote Longstreet, the inclusion of which would rather skew your perspective back towards hypothetical gamism for that period. Of course, BBB is also based on F&F, but so is Age of Eagles, the extremely popular Napoleonic variant. As for Altar of Freedom, it is essentially a (very well crafted) case of what people have been doing for decades – wondering what gaming at the "Volley & Bayonet" level (a primarily Napoleonic set at its inception) would be like with C&C rules grafted on. As for the Polemos series, you can't use that as an example for one period and not the other, as there are sets covering both of these periods and more. I could go on, but as I mentioned, there are so many rules for these periods (but especially Napoleonics), written from so many different perspectives, that virtually any sort of equivalency could be established. As one example that could be chosen to strongly refute your premise, surely one of the most popular and successful Napoleonic rules sets over the past decade has been General de Brigade, which has no points system and actually has a dedicated series of historical scenario books. Also, I find your suggestion that Napoleonic rules are primarily tactical and 19th century rules primarily grand-tactical somewhat odd. I believe that horse & musket grand-tactical gaming started with Napoleonics, and continues to have a strong presence. One skewing factor towards tactical games is the unfortunate focus on the Peninsula, which is rather an odd fellow out when compared to the rest of the Napoleonic wars, but it shouldn't be taken as representative of the hobby. Contrawise, surely the ACW is the iconic 19th century wargaming period, and despite the strength of the grand-tactical wargaming tradition (represented by F&F) it continues to be a strongly tactical level part of the hobby (witness the endurance of JR and the success of RF&F). Finally, the very generic nature of recent gamist rules makes any comparison of gaming scale rather difficult, as Black Powder for instance can be used at either scale, or "bath-tubbed" to something rather unrecognizable as anything in particular in between. |
CATenWolde | 18 Dec 2015 12:38 p.m. PST |
|
KTravlos | 18 Dec 2015 1:04 p.m. PST |
TimmoUK: Ah I see your point. In my defense I have little experience with GdB, and the TFL have always had a unique approach to gaming. CATenWolde: You offer another indicator I might be seeing things. That said if I had the time I would sit down and do a Rapid Evidence Assessment of all Napoleonic, ACW and 19th century wargames sets since say 1980 to see the ratio of lists based and scenario based game (it cannot be harder than going through 300 articles and coding them). Ultimately only social science can resolve this. Need to find one of Sabin's students from Warwick and have them do this :) |
CATenWolde | 18 Dec 2015 1:25 p.m. PST |
Ha! I'd love to see that application. ;) For what it's worth, I think the general trend for Napoleonics and the ACW is about the same. In *VERY* general terms, the 80-90's seems to have seen the split away from the WRG/Newbury approach to the Empire/Johny Reb approach, i.e. away from points based systems as towards detailed tactical simulations for their own sake. The 90's also see the introduction of grand-tactical gaming as a popular element of both periods (Napoleon's Battles and Fire & Fury, and Volley & Bayonet). Both approaches emphasize the development of historical scenarios, just at different scales. Towards the end of the 90's and more strongly into the next decade, you get a swing away (never total) from the detailed simulations, largely from the desire for a quicker, more streamlined gaming experience. Some rules try to maintain the simulationist focus while doing this, while others "go old school" in terms of offering a more simplistic game, while others focus on incorporating purely gamist elements into wargaming to break from the complex/detailed approach. The first flag bearer for this approach was probably Piquet, with its chaos-driven card and dice system and its broad application to many periods. Depending on their focus, some of these (particular the more gamist focused rules) start to emphasize hypothetical games over historical recreations. All of these trends are still active today. We have rules like R2E which would have been at home in the 90's, more streamlined but still simulationist rules like March Attack, old school throwbacks like Black Powder, and Sam Mustafa's increasingly gamist line of rules. All of these approaches have benefited from the diversity of rules types the hobby has seen, but the "flash bang" effect of the latest gamist gimmicks just tends to attract the most attention – the other approaches are still there, strongly tugging along. I also think that the new emphasis on hypothetical scenario generation, especially when coupled with a campaign system, is one of the most potentially beneficial developments of the whole gamist swing of the pendulum. |
TKindred | 18 Dec 2015 1:40 p.m. PST |
Painting with a large brush, from what I've seen, Napoleonic rules are played/written by those still fighting the wars. 19th century rules are played/written by those still watching Hollywood movies about the period. |
Old Contemptibles | 18 Dec 2015 2:25 p.m. PST |
Ignoring that 1800 to 1815 is part of the 19th cent. • I generally begin to build armies for scenarios and may add extra stuff later. I do this for mid 19th Cent. and Napoleonics or any period for that matter. I think it depends if lean toward being a collector or if you lean toward gaming. Both works for me. |
Blutarski | 18 Dec 2015 5:19 p.m. PST |
Army Lists go hand in hand with rules intended for tournament play. They ostensibly serve as a guide for what types of units might have been available or not available over a given period of historical time; but they also are from time to time abused as a sub-rosa means of forcing an artificial "balance" by juggling point values and troop classifications and characteristics. Phil Barker was, over the several decades of our hobby, probably the most egregious practitioner of this black art. B |
McLaddie | 18 Dec 2015 6:57 p.m. PST |
I was thinking that the majority of Napoleonic rules I have seen tend to be rules that rely heavily on generic army lists that cover large periods of time, and less on historical scenarios and armies calibrated for their performance in those periods. KT: For a moment, let's assume what you say is true. It can easily be explained by other considerations than a philosophical take on game design. 1. As you point out, the Napoleonic wars lasted twenty years. The longest 19th Century wars were the ACW and 1870-1871. There is a lot information to cover, far more battles to compare… 2. Unlike every war during the 19th Century, the Napoleonic Wars involved more than two dozen separate states with different uniforms, often training and experience besides alliances, depending on the period. That is far harder to cover with a scenario-only approach where you have two to four separate armies. That complexity lends itself to army lists… almost a necessity. You don't need an army lists for 1859/1861/1870--certainly not extensive ones. 3. Because there were shorter wars in the 19th century, there were fewer battles, often of one kind. So, scenarios can more easily cover those wars than the Napoleonic wars. So you seen scenario books covering 1805-1807 or 1809 or 1813-14 or 1815 for the Napoleonic wars. Not 19th Century wars. One scenario book… The ACW often goes by Theatre rather than years. 4. Most of the 19th Century Wars involve one or two languages between combatants. The Napoleonic wars deal with a dozen. More information deposited in language-boxed sources makes for a different kind of approach. Then there is the fact that most 19th Century wars were closer to our time than the Napoleonic wars… at least somewhat more accessable. Personally, I don't see any favoring of game scale or approach bewtween Napoleonic and later wars. For every type, I am sure folks can find a similar example in the others. Skirmish, Simple, scenario vs army lists etc. etc. From what I can see, game design philosophies run across those historical eras rather than 'clump' in one or the other. Just my opinion. Bill |
McLaddie | 18 Dec 2015 8:55 p.m. PST |
1. As you point out, the Napoleonic wars lasted twenty years. The longest 19th Century wars were the ACW and 1870-1871. There is a lot information to cover, far more battles to compare… To clarify. If you added up all the months fought by European and American armies during the 19th Century, it would not come close to equaling the months that Europe was at war during the Napoleonic Wars. |
Lion in the Stars | 18 Dec 2015 10:00 p.m. PST |
And we haven't even started to break into the differences between major power and colonial battles… Personally, I prefer colonial battles. Can our brave soldiers and modern weapons triumph over the hordes of natives beating the drums of war?!? |
Timmo uk | 19 Dec 2015 5:11 a.m. PST |
And once we start to look at Colonial battles the whole dynamic changes again. |
KTravlos | 19 Dec 2015 9:49 a.m. PST |
McLaddie I disagree with some of your temporal points and language points but see the point of others. Won't address them here though because it would be off topic. |
McLaddie | 19 Dec 2015 3:56 p.m. PST |
That's fine. I do think that any differences have to do with the unique character of the Napoleonic wars versus later wars, including their respective length of the various conflicts. I don't see a general difference in game design philosophy or preferences between them. |