"Operational Napoleonic 3mm terrain" Topic

1809in3mm.blogspot.com

Another giant post on my blog, this one is about how to create a novel kind of war-game with 3mm figures that opens up the possibility (I think) of a new sort of war-game experience: the operational war-game.

Now this I may name as true wargame! Not just wall to wall clash.
Very well done!

In your blog you describe generating uncertainty about where units may actually be rather than where the figures are. I think it will be necessary to come up with ways of reducing the effect of the "helicopter" general that becomes more marked at this scale.

For example include dummy units and consider double or triple retreat/pursuit moves if the C in C is some way distant from the action.

Been playing operational level wargames for years.

Glad you guys like it! Writing some rules for this scale would definitely be interesting. There are a lot of options as far as what each player might do- blocking positions that can be set up, places to anchor flanks and water features to defend. On a bigger board, say 12 x 6 it would become even more interesting- you could concievably play out two or three days of maneuver on such a bosrd.

I'd thought of a bunch of different rules for canceling out helicopter view over the years, which is tricky to do and never quite pulled off by anyone. Then yesterday I had an idea that really changed my mind about the issue. Basically, instead of fighting helicopter view, why not embrace it? At the same time, shift the players role from that of being the general to….this will sound weird… a role almost like the Greek gods in the Illiad. So, you're more of an invested witness to whats happening below, as is the opposing player. You intervene and influence, but you don't actually control. If anything, your role is to entertain the other player and yourself. The rules would reflect this further, by focusing on what the corps commanders know and what they can actually see to limit what they can do.

Not so weird but you will then be creating a simulation rather than a game between players. The challenge would be to allow the players input (by making decisions and issuing orders) at an appropriate level and having detached commanders behave according to some algorithm. Perhaps use a limited number of cards to allow the player to override the automatic outcomes.

There are plenty of boardgames that address the operational level (eg TLNB from OSG) that use notions such as command spans and initiative to limit the freedom of action of the subordinate commanders. Something perhaps to consider.

Love the terrain you made for this. It looks awesome.

Yes, it would be somewhat of a simulation. It'd be a game too, but with some simulation aspects. But really it's just a concession that I've spent too much time trying to overcome what's probably an inherent problem in model war-games and I should probably just get over it and move on!

Algorithms might be a good way to work the corps commanders decision processes, at least until the army general shows up. Thing is in the operational level game most of the action will be determined by the corps commanders decisions, so I don't want them to be too computerized- there'd have to be a happy medium. Like, if the commander can't see the enemy and isn't in communication with another corps commander (meaning military communication, not missives) then he has to keep a substantive reserve- the player doesn't get a chance. Basically there would be an SOP that the independent corps commanders adhere to. Like an OODA loop. Heck, it could just BE the OODA loop. Why re-create the wheel?

Mor thoughts on this in a bit… I have to get ready for work!

6mmACW- thanks! You should try it out, it only cost me $12 USD for the cloths and chalk, $6 USD for the balsa wood houses and then whatever it was for the four bags of clump foliage. The cool thing about the chalk mat is that it's cheap, easy and fast for a decent return.

I am utterly bewildered by the idea of 3mm figures. Why not just use rice, or unrolled hair curlers? They'd do for any army in any era surely?

You have to see them in person to get the full effect. That's one reason I wanted to set them up at HCON, so people could see them. I think most people who've seen them will agree that they really need to be seen in person to get the full effect. When you see thousands and thousands of them, all organized in correct field formations, at the correct deployment distances, it's really quite impressive. It looks completely different from larger scale figures because the ground scale is correct.

Great ideas. Keep posting. Id like to see more on this. I use 6mm but the ideas are universal.

I played a rule system once that had a nifty mechanism you might think about. Each division had an objective, and every turn it had to move toward that objective (the game was square based). If you had to hold the hill, the objective was on the hill with your division. if you got kicked off you had to try and take it back.

Likewise, using your map as an example, that heavy cavalry brigade's objective might be that BUA in the middle of the mat. Every turn it moves toward that BUA. Easy and no need for complicated written orders or route arrows. Changing the objective, of course, took an order / command / initiative roll or however you do that. So unless that cavalry commander (a) sees something new like an enemy division or (b) gets word from his superior, that unit marches on, following orders.

P.S. Would be interested in taling rules concepts off line with you…

mark@scalecreep.com

Hi Mark-
I like the basic rule you're talking about- it's sort of what I'm working on. I'll email you in a bit here, would love to discuss the rules I'm developing for this scale. I have some ideas I'm really excited about, so it'll be interesting to bounce them off of you.

TWC- I was sort of hard to find at HCON, sorry! I'll send you over an email too. I think we exchanged an email or two a few months prior to the convention- I ended up getting really busy with some things so I apologize!

The game looks great, and the rules sound interesting! Thanks for sharing and keep us updated.

@TWC:

Yup, your neat little "order chits" are another way to do it. They're more oriented to the actual battle of course, but easily adapted. You could make up a "route column" card and mark the way points if needed.

@Forward March:

Look forward to it. One idea I've thought about is similar to yours – unusual movement to limit the "helicopter" general. Basically you mark units with a march marker for every turn they are expected to march. So if your objective is 4 turns away, for four turns you mark the column with a route marker. During each turn there is a random element that "activates" a unit. You then move the unit the number of march markers. BUT movement is a little random. So the column might be on schedule, ahead or behind. There's also chances for taking a wrong turn etc. These can be reduced by expending command assets. Could be a good fit for what you want to accomplish.

Seeing your mat makes me want to build one (but re-scaling to use my 30mm brigade stands).

Thanks for a thoughtful blog post and nice terrain.

I suggest the 60mm base move you're thinking of is way too small. It means that even if you do 'steal a march' and surprise the enemy, the march is so short that the enemy will be able to react to it. Your idea of accumulating moves until they are 'tripped' is an interesting one that could solve that one problem but cause others. In particular, I can see it being rather difficult to resolve the retrospective hidden movement of multiple opposing units.

If you just make the base move much larger and have a command and control system that means activating a given unit is never guaranteed, then you can introduce the uncertainty you are looking for and counter the helicopter general problem to a significant degree.

There are many fine rulesets out there which do what you are after to some degree. The rest of this message is a plug for one in particular, but you should look at others too.

Operational-scale multi-day battles of the kind you're talking about are exactly what the "Bloody Big BATTLES!" rules are designed for. There are about 60 scenarios available now, mostly free online. For instance, a couple of months ago we fought Leipzig in a couple of hours:
link

BBB games are not traditional line-'em-ups. You get the approach marches you want, on battlefields 10 or 20 miles across, but on a normal 6'x4' table. You fight historical scenarios with multiple objectives, over historical terrain that matters.

Standard infantry movement is 12", so you don't spend all night to get into action. Command and control is simple but subtle and represents differences between armies effectively. The activation system means the helicopter can't always do what he wants, so precautionary flank guards and reserves remain useful.

BBB is one way of doing it. There are plenty of others. Good luck in finding/ creating one that is to your taste!

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
link

Thanks for sharing – the look of the game is impressive, although there do seem to be an awful lot of roads given the number of BUA.

There are a number of operational games out there and I enjoy them myself, but this is the first time I've seen a Napoleonic one using figures. Well done.

Here's one my group organised recently. Double blind map movement until contact was made. link

BA- Thanks! Glad to see you found it amusing. The roads are mostly secondary roads. On my next blog post, which will be coming shortly, I make some changes to show the differences between major roads and dirt ox carts through farm fields. ScaleCreep gave me the idea for drawing the difference, and he and you are 100% correct. In the post you've seen there's no such distinction, which obviously is an issue. I'm going to do a little more research in the future when I sketch out my road networks to make them exactly correct. In fact, my next experiment is going to be a re-do of Wagram at this operational scale, where I'll use period maps to draw up the roads. The nice thing about using these chalk-drawn maps is that you're never stuck with a mat you can't use for anything else!

ChrisBBB2- I'll have to check out your rules when I get the chance. I've been looking over a few different sets recently.

As far as my own rules, I've been doing some experimenting and actually writing them down in a form other people could follow, so hopefully in the future I'll do a blog post to show where I'm going with them.

I think people will be really excited- what I'm doing now is a complete departure from the current trend in rules today. Without giving too much away, I use a series of simple analog computers set up on the table-top with each commander that track time and activity, which makes it possible to resolve many units moving around at once. It creates a fog-of-war while also allowing you to keep everything in real time. It's more of a simulation of command than a traditional war-game. I think it's pretty cool, but then that's just my opinion. :)

Who know's, maybe in a few weeks or months I'll be in need of some play testers!

Sounds cool!

Chris

Nicely done terrain for this scale project. I confess I wasn't convinced by the figure footprint alone of 3mm vs 6mm, but with this level of terrain representation you see the potential.

Although not originally designed for this scale game, I think the basic concepts of Napoleonic Command would work well.

Cheers,

Christopher

forwardmarchstudios:

Is there some reason you are having units move 1km or 1000 yards in 20 minutes? Are units moving to get where they are going with that movement rate, particularly for an operational scale game?

The concept is intriguing and opens up lots of real grand tactical decision-making that can't happen at smaller scales.

CTW- Thanks!

McLaddie- It's actually 1km in 10 minutes, at least for now as I work on the proof of concept. That's 30 miles in 8 hours, which is pressing what is possible on the march. This isn't really a problem though because there's no guarantee that troops will cover that distance over a given period of marching in my system. Likely it will be significantly less, which is realistic. 24 miles in 8 hours is a US military standard today for infantry battalions.

One could easily set it to 2km in 20 minutes though also. This is what I'm thinking for a "fast play" version. The key thing is that time and distance have to be pegged together. For now, while I work on it, it's better to keep the time scale as fine as possible until I've proved the concept.

I'm going to do a big blog post this week at some point where I go through the rules concept step by step. Once everything is set up it really goes along quickly. Also, units would only literally move 1 km (60mm) in a turn when they're very close to to the army CiC. More likely they'll be moving much further in any given move. Even when the corps are "standing still" on the table the players will actually have a general idea of how far they're going, although not perfect. The fun part is that the other player has no idea what the units are doing, nor necessarily where they're starting at.

forwardmarchstudios:

Thanks for the clarification. 1km in 10 minutes or 2 in 20 is far more reasonable. Most writers of the period such as Scharnhorst and de Vernor stated that 3 miles an hour was reasonable, though they put 20 miles a day as an expectation/norm.

units would only literally move 1 km (60mm) in a turn when they're very close to to the army CiC.

Why is that? The CinC's magnetic personality pulling on them? Charisma can be a bitch.