"Has anyone used C Wesencraft's 'full battle' Naps Rules?" Topic

I recently picked up the reprint of Charlie Wesencraft's "Practical Wargaming" and I've enjoyed reading it. The book provides 2 scales of Napoleonic Wars rules – one which uses multiple bases per regiment, and a 'full battle' modification that uses 1 base per regiment. I'm most interested in the 'full battle' version.

Has anyone played either of Wesencraft's Napoeonic wars rules versions?

If you have, did you enjoy the experience? Also, what hiccups or problems do the rules have?

I like the ideas behind the rules, but want to hear others' opinions before I jump in.

I have played the multi based system for 30 years. Still my favorite and all my figures are based to his convention. The rules are very simplistic but very fun. I have tried other rules but I keep coming back because I can work the system in my head.

Thanks for the comment.

I think that kind of simplicity in the rules is what I'm looking for!

I'm also curious to know more about the single element "full battle" Napoleonic rules. Does it play like a DBx game in essence?

After seeing this thread, I pulled this book off the shelf and read through the single-element "corps" level rules. They do look intriguing – maybe for 10mm? And if I'm reading them correctly, there aren't separate rules for melee or infantry fire – just engagement between units?

Frank,

I'll be using my 6mm figs – I think 10mm would also work really well with these rules.

That's correct about the combat, it is all resolved within 'engagement' along with morale reactions. Only artillery units have distance fire capability. To me, given the scale (12 inches to the mile, and units representing entire battalions/regiments), that approach seems entirely reasonable.

CATenWolde,
It is similar to DBA in that combat is resolved between full-size units, and the combat ratings are fairly simple, but the specifics are a bit different and don't use an opposed die-roll system.

The combat resolution has 3 phases – 1) roll for the effect of defensive fire by the unit being attacked, which may result in the attacking unit halting or falling back before contact, being destroyed, or facing the fire and closing. 2) attackers that close roll their attacks and may force the enemy to be destroyed, retreat, or fight back; 3) if defenders hold, they fight back, and may force the attackers away. There are a few modifiers for better or worse positions, but not many, and the combat outcomes depend on the type of troops.

I haven't played yet, but it seems to me that this system would do a very good job at capturing how larger formations (brigades and higher) contest ground. To be successful, the player would have to position formations so that the units can retire when needed and reserves can move into position.

Definitely a c-in-c level game, but that's what I'm looking for at the moment!

PM, one other observation/question. As far as I can tell, these one-element "corps" level rules appear to be self-contained – they don't seem to draw anything from the other set of Napoleonic rules. Is that your impression, too? There are still holes, it appears. For example, a unit is supposed to "fall back" or "run" on the right die rolls – but what do those terms mean? How far? Facing the enemy or turned away? But a quick look at the other rules doesn't reveal missing definitions.

Or do you have a different take?

Frank,

We're on the same page – there are definitely details that aren't explicitly spelled out.

My take on the "fall back" and "run" results is to adapt them from the definitions from the multi-stand unit Napoleonic period rules. I think (I don't have the book in front of me) that a unit loses 50% of its movement when making any turn that is not a wheel (so about-face or face-left or face-right).

If that's the case, I would assign a 'fall-back' a distance of 25% of the base move (the unit loses 50% to turn, and 50% of its remaining movement to face-front again – thus has 25% of its distance to actually shift position). In fact, the 'real' unit probably wouldn't actually about-face twice, they would edge back or fall back in short rushes, but to me the net effect feels about right.

For 'run' it is simpler, they about-face and move 50% of their base distance – ending the move with their back to the enemy. Penalizing them 50% of the move might seem a bit harsh, but I think it is reasonable, given that the unit is still trying to get away while maintaining enough cohesion that they are still an effective fighting formation. No easy task!

Another issue that I'm wondering about is whether/how to apply the "control" rules (I think they're in chapter 2 – right before the weather guage/effects). To me it seems like Wesencraft intended that the 'control' rules be applied to all of the sets for the specific periods, since he put the rules next to weather, which also applies across periods…

To me the problem is that it could become very tedious in the Corps-level game making a control roll for every stand each turn.

I think I would either ignore the control rules (even though I agree in principle with his reasons for including them) so that the game flows quickly OR I would have the control rolls done for each Brigade to keep the number of rolls at a reasonable level. Also, with Brigade-level control tests the Division commanders and C-in-C could be represented with figures and move from place-to-place to assist in control, as the existing control rules allow for 'officers'.

I think that before I actually play the game I'll make judgement calls on these vague points and write out a set of "standard interpretations/clarifications" for myself (along with putting all of the charts on a single QRS)! I'm lucky that the guys I game with are a reasonable bunch who will help figure these points out.

I appreciate the thoughts. No arguments here. I have some GHQ 10mm Napoleonics that I'm not using for any other projects – I think I'll paint and base what I have on hand and try the game mechanics. I'll report back!

Frank,

I'm looking forward to hearing how using these rules goes. And how you like painting up the GHQ 10mm figs – I painted a few of their French about a year ago when I was trying to decide what scale to go with. The GHQ figs are beautiful sculpts, but in the end I decided to go with 6mm.

I'll also report in when I've played a few games!

Thanks – Frank and Pattus – for the information and discussion. I'm going to pick them up and take a look, as I'm currently toying with rules for games of a similar scale and level of abstraction.

Cheers,

Christopher