"The Holy Grail - The Best Napoleonics Rules, Part One" Topic

Being a total rules geek, I played out 5 popular and well-weathered Napoleonic rules sets in order to rate and compare them to each other. This entry, Part 1, covers the first of the games played, with the rules From Valmy To Waterloo.

Part One can be found on the blog:

madmacsattic.blogspot.com

I rated and compared each rules set according to 1. Playability and 2. Realism/Historical Accuracy. I also played a common scenario for each.

Besides FVTW, subsequent blog posts will cover Carnage and Glory 2, Le Feu Sacre, Black Powder, and General de Brigade (Deluxe Edition).

I selected rules in which each unit is a battalion and UGO-IGO. I know there are many more….maybe I'll get to more later….this project took a while as it is. (I meant to add Shako II, but never got around to it).

A warning: all of the opinions and ratings are purely my own and not to be construed as an all-out attempt to insult any other gamer's favorite rules set. (Besides, I had fun with each and every one of them !)

Which is your favorite Napoleonic Rules set and why?

General de Brigade

Enjoyed this post very much and look forward to the rest of the analysis.

After playing several different rules sets over the years, I settled on Shako 2 (with some minor tweaking) as my favorite "battalion level" set. It generally gives good historical results while remaining playable and it is intuitive enough to introduce new players without undue difficulty. It is definitely a game for those who prefer a lighter touch on their command and control rules.
I hope you find the time to include Shako 2 in your "experiment". Again thanks.

Hasn't been written yet.. never will be…

Our house rules, Strategos N (aka Soldiers Win Battles). We've been playing (and refining) them for nigh on half a century now.

Excellent look forward to next review :)

Age of Eagles, though it at a higher level

Thanks for the kind words guys. Although I prefer battalion-level games, I actually think Age of Eagles is the finest of the brigade-level games that I've played…….great game…..just a different scale.

So…….I rated From Valmy to Waterloo a 6.5 out of 10….5 for Playability, 8 for Realism/historical Accuracy.

Next is Le Feu Sacre….Part 2

Didn't see Shako I or II in your lists. Good battalion level game.

Madcam

Yeah madcam…….I was going to add Shako 2 but never got around to it…..you are the second person to mention it……might need to get going on it.

OK, so as I understand 1-10 scales, a "5" means "average," right? Or "normal," or something like that.

I'd be hard-pressed to find a more complex Napoleonics game than "From Valmy to Waterloo." I mean, it's got a separate booklet just for all the tables and flowcharts. You commented on that several times in your blog.

So if that's "average" or normal… what is the context? Are you only looking at games that are at least 25 years old? I'm not asking this to be a jerk, honestly, I'm curious. Because surely if compared to games published in the last decade or so, FVTW would have to rate a "1" for complexity or playability – compared to the rest.

Or, to put it another way: If FVTW rates a 5 for playability, then what would be an example of a "2" ?

Well said Garth. I own VtW, and the errata "package" is huge! I would rate it very complex. I found Empire easier!

Err, LFS isn't really IGO-UGO, divisional activation is randomised. And which edition, 1&2 are essentially the same but 2 is much better written, 3 is subtly but significantly different?

And they aren't a divisional set of rules – Maida is really below their command level. Much, if not most of their purpose will be lost in an engagement of that size.

I really don't think Maida's a good test case for several of the rule sets you've selected. You really need to compare rules designed for a similar command level at that level.

Not trying to pour cold water on your exercise and I'm sure you'll have fun, I just think you'd have more fun if you matched the game scenario to the rules command level a bit better.

Lasalle for instance would be a much better game for Maida and would compare nicely with GdB at that level.

I'm still looking after 40 years not found them.

You might also want to add Lasalle to your list.
We played Maida using those rules quite recently, and it gave an excellent game.

Hey Garth…….Playability in my mind isn't just about complexity, but how the game flows. A lot of rules , when played, seem so disjointed and fractured when actually played on the tabletop. In other words, the mechanics just don't work.

I'm pretty fluent in FVTW, even with its complexity, and after a steep learning curve, find that it actually flows well on the tabletop…..it is successful in telling a "story" when played. Also, it is the oldest of the bunch that I reviewed.

Hey Zippee…….every set of rules shines at different scales…..granted LFS is more suited to larger games, but I've always been interested in the rules and wanted to put the mechanics to the test.

I did mention the grand tactical scope of LFS, but since a large battle is made up of many separate divisional engagements, I felt that there was no harm in testing these mechanics out with a smaller battle.

Also, I realize that LFS is not IGO-UGO……I should have defined it more clearly as "no simultaneous movement"

Another thank you for doing this! For myself at this level I play Black Powder, and for higher level games Age of Eagles and I've been pretty happy with them for a few years now. But as wargamers, we always wonder if there isn't that perfect set of rules still out there just waiting for us to discover it!

From this AAR, I did particularly like both the opportunity for a commander to be bumped off, and the consequent paralysation of the Brit command. To me, that is a good thing to have as part of the system.

Looking forward to your next review!

Hi Colin…..thank you for your words…….one thing I've noticed in this journey is that there are very few "bad" rules……we are all lucky in that we have so many rules to pick from……..and everyone has a different view in what they want these rules to portray.

I've always wanted to do this, and finally had the chance to make it happen….it's been a lot of fun and very thought-provoking.

Thanks again !

I look forward to your thoughts – this is a real time commitment and much appreciated.

I think it's great that you're including Valmy, and your views are fair. It was my first real set of Napoleonic rules, and for years I played at conventions with Keyser and his crew. One of my local gaming buddies referred to playing Valmy as "going to war school". ;)

When I moved to Finland (!) I lost the audience (and space) for such complex games, but I do have to say that IF you play regularly the playability can go up to 6-7. This is always a factor with more complex games, but the much derided chart booklet helped enormously, as does a familiarity level that lets you just "throw the die and eyeball it". I actually find the more popular General de Brigade more of a turn-by-turn grind.

I have to say that it's been a decade since I played them, but something does seem off about the artillery being fragile – I remember it being just the opposite, especially in canister range, when all hits caused "blue" disorders if I remember correctly …

Although I do appreciate more abstract or streamlined rules as well (I played "Napoleonic Command" at the same time as Valmy!), I have to admit that I occasionally find myself wishing we could back to a bit more involved rules that required more than "throw a d6 and chuckle".

Cheers,

Christopher

Always enjoy your posts so I can't wait to see how your C&G game goes. I've used it several times at conventions because it is very easy to pick up though you really have to manage game flow as it can bog down with too many players or if any one player gets too indecisive.

Surprisingly, I find that grognards don't seem to like how historically accurate the game is. They are not used to systems where fatigue and ammo usage is accrued. They get frustrated that their units can't just blaze away on every turn at long range and march up and down the field changing formations at a whim.

The only issue I ever had with a newbie was when he wanted his green rated unit in road column formation to charge across a bridge and then take a fortified position. The computer replied that the unit had stopped while the commander sought a clarification and confirmation of the order. It took a few minutes for another experienced player on his side to explain that his troops did not wish to commit suicide and the system was doing him a favor by allowing him to change formation first and that perhaps he should give his unlimbered artillery a turn to soften up the target.

For Franco-Prussian war, the 1870 rules are suggested for the historical research and scenarios, even it you never use the rules.

Do you think "From Valmy to Waterloo" is in the same class? I don't play complex rules any more. Is it worth buying the rules for the research?

Aside: Maida will be very short in LFS. It will be IGO-UGO since each division moves on a card and there's one division per side. You might break it up so each brigade gets a card, which will slightly slow the game too.

Well has to be "Napoleonic Command II" from War Artisan:

warartisan.com/rules

Not for everyone. Indeed the author set that out clearly here

PDF link

I wish more authors would do this.

agree, Napoleonic Command 2 is a very good set of rules with thoughtful authorship.

Hi Christopher, thanks for your comments……I agree….once you "get" FVTW, it gives a good game…..it's just that the learning curve is steep……I really respect William Keyser for what he did with those rules…..I remember playing it when William first released it at Hcon 90 or 91.

Hi Vincent, I'm not familiar with 1870…..not a period that I regularly game…..but I can tell you that FVTW is a very educational read…..especially the compendium that comes with the rules.

The rules , philosophically, are based on the Impulse system, which is described as flexibility of training, battalion commander initiative, and the ability of a unit to react to a specific tactical situation. One of the main reasons that the French were so successful, especially in the early years.

Good stuff !

Hey David…..yes the CG2 game was a doozy…..LFS is next, followed by CG2….thanks for the words!

Is FVTW for sale anywhere? I can't seem to find it. And I'm off to the beach for a couple weeks on Sunday…

I got a new copy on Ebay last year…..hard to find, but not impossible

I always enjoyed Ned Zuparko's 'Vive L'Empereur'. Any other greybeards out there used them in the past?

You might add "Field of Battle II."

I think 6.5 is a little generous for Valium to Waterloo.

I would definitely add Field of Battle 2nd edition, myself. My rules of choice. As has been said, we have an embarrassment of riches.

Third vote for Shako 2.

I still play 'Guard du Corp' from 1981.

a pity that FVTW isn't any longer available, I am still undecided what rules to use – there I am from the very old school, Bruce Quarrie rules, I don't mind a bit more complex rules, for course Kriegsspiel may be always an option

Surprisingly, I find that grognards don't seem to like how historically accurate the game is. They are not used to systems where fatigue and ammo usage is accrued. They get frustrated that their units can't just blaze away on every turn at long range and march up and down the field changing formations at a whim.

I think you are misinterpreting why some grognards don't like C&G. One of its benefits, hidden administration and record-keeping is also something some don't appreciate. Because so much of the 'realism' and basis for the events is hidden by the computer program and/or umpire-operator, it can feel so much 'mystery meat' to gamers who like the calculations and event causes overt.