"The Holy Grail - The Best Napoleonic Rules, Part Three" Topic

Part 3 covers the computer-moderated rules, Carnage and Glory 2. Here are the results:

madmacsattic.blogspot.com

At this point, CG2 has received my highest marks for Playability as well as Realism/Historical Accuracy…..so far.

Thanks – interesting

An interesting read to date.

It would be nice if you added some more modern rulesets to your list aside from BP. ?Lasalle, Field of Battle, Republic to Empire, Rank and File to name a few.

Great idea to use Maida.

John

These reviews are very informative and enjoyable. Having been interested in C&G for a long while, I've seen these rules demo'd several times at conventions. The results seemed fairly "realistic", and the players enjoying themselves, but the games seem a bit more subdued (less interaction between opposing sides) and there seemed to be a bit more "player detachment" from what was happening by those involved.
I attributed this to the lack of dice rolling and the usual interaction , banter, taunts and complaining which accompany the roll of the dice.
This was just my impression as an observer, and it has nothing to do with the game per se.
Thanks again. Really enjoying this series of reviews. Keep them coming!

An in depth review of the rules that is appreciated. I think for me it would be a set of rules I would avoid as it seems like there is too much information having to be entered into the computer. Having a computer calculate things turns it from a physical wargame to a computer game. I enjoy the old Talonsoft series but it isn't a replacement for real wargaming. So these rules wouldn't work for me but I can understand why others might find it appealing.

Hi John, Actually, this little "experiment" was so much fun and has elicited a lot of great debate, that I am going to continue it past the 5 rules sets that I picked….it'll just take some time to properly test them all out and write it up…..I appreciate you checking it out.

Hi Keith,

I think you have a point when it comes to a bit more "player detachment"….especially at conventions, because most people don't generally know each other…..it is one of the biggest complaints about the system from those who love to roll the dice…..the game really centers around rolling those dice and beating the odds (or the alternative)…..for me personally (and my gaming group), the system actually allows us to be even more social and drink beer, etc, because we don't have our noses in a bunch of charts…..everyone has their different priority in gaming. There will never be a perfect system that pleases everyone….but isn't it great that we have so many options now?

We played it years ago and thought that while it was an interesting concept, it was far, far slower than a traditional game in which everybody could participate more or less simultaneously and move the game along better. And I pity the poor referee who has to sit there, glued to his computer the whole time.

Hi PeninsularWar, thanks for checking out the review. Actually, most of the data input occurs before the game is even played…..I just input a small ACW scenario last night that I'm getting ready to play and it took about 45 minutes. During the game, not everything needs to be input. Only those actions that cause fatigue or casualties need to be input. Examples of this are: formation changes, charges, moving thru disruptive terrain, firing, combat, and rallying. Other than that, all normal movement occurs on the tabletop smoothly and without having to tell the GM in most cases. I would suggest checking out a game at one of the cons and play through it….

Thanks for the comparative reviews. I'm a big fan of C&G2 and also play Shako and Napoleons Battles. I run various War of 1812 games using C&G2 and the ability to input training, firing abilities and such to reflect the strength and weakness of the adversaries is a real benefit. These are smaller scale actions with the US usually outnumbering their opponents; yet the higher quality troops generally come out on top as they did historically. Just one of the reasons I really like the rules

Thanks for checking it out Peter…..it really is uncanny how the final outcomes in CG2 games consistently mirror historical results.

I really appreciate your reviews and look forward to seeing more. Comparing rule sets to a few central parameters is a great idea allowing us who have played few rule sets to make a better choice for the next.

Nice report and observations. The main issue I have with computer moderated rules is that there is only one point for inputs and outputs. One point for input isn't too bad, if you have GM. But if there was a way for each player to receive information via their phone or tablet that would open up more interesting possibilities and perhaps players would feel more involved.

Computer moderated rules are the purist form of gaming in my opinion. No crappy arguing about rule interpretations and loaded dice. Just get on with the game.

I have never played a computer moderated game, but have watched several at a convention. I see the followingthings as problems.

Only one set of data is worked on at a time. In the games that I run (or work existing rules into house rules) I divide the board on every turn/phase into different segments and let the opponents have at it simultaneously. Sometimes the Game Master has to intervene and decide that some actions have to be done before others can be completed, but most of the time this is obvious and the players work it out themselves.
……
People familiar with the rules can run through the modifiers very quickly in their heads and come out with the conditions. With the computer games the sequence is [keyboard operator asks a question], players think and respond, [computer operator types in some numbers] c[computer operator reads out the next question] etc. repeat the cycle multiple times for EVERY action on the board.
………..
The games are kept small or they never get completed.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see these as interesting me until there is a lot of parallel processing going on.