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

Here's my take on the popular rules Black Powder….I know many people either love them or hate them, so I'm going out on a limb here……or putting my head in a noose.

madmacsattic.blogspot.com

A very nice review in a very nice series of reviews.

You pretty much hit it on the head- BP is a gentlemanīs game meant to give a reasonable result in a reasonable amount of time. They may not be for everyone, but they are most definitely my preferred set of rules.

Good review. As you said it is a toolkit and gives an enjoyable game. I've found that those who hate them, do not read the introduction where Rick Priestly clearly sets out the 'gentlemanly' aspect of the rules. They expect more than the rules are intended to give. The supplements give more depth to specific eras.

I hope I'm not opening up a can of worms here, but I'll just say that we enjoyed BP much better (and Hail Caesar as well) when we simply ignored the existence of the command system. The rest of the game ticked along fairly well, although it wasn't enough to hold us.

A fair and balanced review. As a game system it's well thought out and solid. The 'Gentleman's Game' thing is great as long as all players have the same idea of what that means.

I struggle with the command system which replaces the fun element with frustration as there's not much sense to it. Depending on your point of view, ignoring or replacing the command system would make it either a much better or a much poorer experience.

I have to ask: did the dreaded column phalanx, a.k.a. "two columns attack one line" problem come up in your playtest? We were only halfway through our first playtest game when we looked at the obvious math and decided to limit attacks to one unit per facing.

Hi Christopher, no, I didn't have an issue with 2 columns on one line in this particular game……probably because I seldom allow it in any of my games, unless there is a trade-off with game mechanics. For example, General de Brigade (in the deluxe edition) covers this with the massed columns charging rule. Players tend to set up Columns of Division with more depth than they typically had historically, allowing the multiple melee to happen more easily than it did. I personally set up columns of division in more of a square box formation (the rules Republic to Empire cover this well). I then separate the columns by at least an inch (something we just started doing to account for greater frontage)….the bottom line is that Attack columns had more frontage than people realized….so it was harder to gang up on a line…..unless the line's frontage was very wide as well (Austrians come to mind). In Carnage and Glory, we allow single company columns to charge the same target, but there is a trade-off in that musketry seems to be more powerful against these columns. Another mechanism that I include is that multiple units charging have to be from the same brigade, as the command and control was too unwieldy to allow coordination between units. Unfortunately, Black Powder doesn't seem to allow for this, so a "house rule" is probably very appropriate. I'd be very curious to see how other players limit or allow this type of situation.

The 2 column attacking a line has vexed me as well in Lasalle. I like your solution to it, requiring the extra room for the column. I think this solves the problem of the geometric simplification of how we base and represent units in formation. Also the requirement for them to be of the same brigade is a good one.
Good discussion of this issue and a good review of Blackpowder. Looking forward to more.

Excellent review. I think the comments are spot on regarding the gaming experience with BP. Thanks for the effort you're putting forth to do this. Please keep the reviews coming.

Excellent set of reviews, much appreciated

I am beginning to wonder, is it the "Holy Grail", or maybe it should be the great white whale ?

John

My main beef with BP is melees that can drag on for many turns. I've seen small cavalry units hold up larger forces for three or four turns.

+1 to Daler 240D.

The two columns ganging up on a fresh line and blowing it away with some lucky dice rolling is what prompted me to give up on Lasalle and move on to Drums and Shakos Large Battles for this level of game.

Mind you, I love Sam Mustafa's other rules, Maurice, Might & Reason, and Longstreet.

I am from the hate-camp. ;-)

- The "gentlemanlike style" is only talkative inaccuracy.
- The command system is no command system. It is only a control or friction system. There is no problem simulated, that real generals would have.
- The combat system is all about close combat. You dont win with shooting. That doesnt work for the musket period.
- Some aspects of the combat system are silly. (Example: a good unit hitting on 4 has the same chance disordering the enemy than a bad shooter hitting on 6.)
- The phases a la Nottingham do not work. For example 1870 is silly in BP, because with a good roll you cross the Chassepot range.

One of the problem with reviews of rules is that is generally done by someone who has played the game only a few times (sometimes no playing experience at all.) Most good sets take some significant playing time before really understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the system. I would say that it took me at least 50 games to appreciate the subtly of Impetus and probably another 50 games to master it.

Black Powder is our favorite rules for multiple periods. Frankly we don't have the time or patience to remember all the complicated, supposedly historically accurate rules out there. The command system is the heart of BP – troops don't always do what the 100 foot tall, all seeing general wants. I can't see playing without it.

as far as "two columns attack one line" – BP requires a charging unit to move to contact the center of an opposing unit to maximize frontage. No room for another column except as a supporting unit adding to the victory results.

"One of the problem with reviews of rules is that is generally done by someone who has played the game only a few times (sometimes no playing experience at all.) Most good sets take some significant playing time before really understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the system. I would say that it took me at least 50 games to appreciate the subtly of Impetus…"

With all due respect, I hear that a lot on these boards. Is that really true though? I mean 95% of the rules out there are really theme and variations on very similar mechanisms, some lean more heavily in one direction or abstraction of another. There are really only so many ways to dice up what are essentially control, movement, firing and melee. I don't think it is too much of a stretch of ones imagination that one might be able to read a set of rules and have a good sense of how the pieces are going to fit together, especially if one has experience playing lots of other rule sets. I,of course, agree 100% that actually PLAYING a set of rules gives even more insight, but we are not talking about interpreting arcane ancient texts here. (although some rules are of course written very poorly). It kind of reminds me a bit of the high end stereophile community ( I was involved in at business many years ago) where certain people would deny the validity of ABX blind listening and contend that you HAD to live with a particular system/speaker/amp for you to really hear the differences.
My main concern would be that a person just reading and reporting might miss a detail or point that does actually have a larger affect than he might have imagined when he just read over it. This though is possible with anyone that is careless and not detail oriented.

I only needed to try once to agree completely with the below. None of theese concepts will change by playing it more.

"I am from the hate-camp. ;-)

- The "gentlemanlike style" is only talkative inaccuracy.
- The command system is no command system. It is only a control or friction system. There is no problem simulated, that real generals would have.
- The combat system is all about close combat. You dont win with shooting. That doesnt work for the musket period."

Gentleman rules – sort of like: I did not care to make the rules but still want your money!

If he is being serious, I'm envious of Daler. In a REALLY good year, I might get in 20 games. Typically more like 12. So it would take me 7 to 9 years to play 100 games, and since they wouldn't all be the same period or scale (by which I mean scale of play, not figure scale) it would take at least twice as long to play 100 games of a single rules system. So I consider it unrealistic to expect a reviewer to play a game even dozens of times before writing a review. Also, unless crashing errors have been made in interpreting / following the rules, first impressions are often best.

Daler, do you have a family?

No, Rawdon, I think you misunderstood. I was quoting Marcus Brutus in the first paragraph. (I for the life of me do not know how to show a quote on this forum). I then argued against his point. I am with you on your point.
:)

If you could come up with a consistent terminology you could probably define all rules and their mechanisms.

Simultaneous v alternating play, alternating by whole or part of army.

Command by limited capacity, ie random pips or command points, command by moving anything, command by card activation in turns

Troop representation by individual stands, by unit, by units of variable size.

Troop status shown by fig/ stand removal, by tracking hits / with counters

Can hits be recovered etc etc.
Etc

With all that defined you should have a pretty good idea how a set plays, there are only so many ways to skin the cat, and you've probably played something similar in whole or part.

Regards

David F Brown

I found that if you deconstruct black powder, you just get a big dollop of stupid. I did it to try to work out what was so weird.

A) the main one..trying to hit skirmishers and hit a column is the same chance. ….basically 1 in 6 shots is a hit on columns and skirmishers. Not surprising when the 'to hit' and 'to save' values are a reverse mirror of each other.

line formation is 50% more vulnerable than both. i.e. 1 in 4…..oops!

B) Because of the saves and the support system, It is better to defend in 2 columns side by side than in line with a rear support. yes, you only get 2 shots rather than 3 , but you also only get hit 1 in 6 shots rather than 1 in 4 so you have cut down the speed of hits to shaken and it is shared over both units…and no bouncethroughts.
.
C) As Skirmish screens do not actually help(see A above), it is tactically better to not put out any skirmish screens when attacking with infantry as they effectively reduce the range you are being fired at by your opponents firing and mean you get hit over a longer approach path. You will give your opponent extra shots at you. perversely, it is better as defender to deploy skirmish screens from your columns, but not from dedicated light infantry as the hits are shared! Those marvelous dedicated light units themselves are also best deployed as columns, preferably behind cover!

D) As stated in B) above, The best tactical defense is to defend on a short frontage with a row of columns…It also means that shots and damage can be spread over two units rather than one and that you can take 2 hits each without anyone being shaken , but 4 on one unit is morale testing. You have the marvelous option of deploying into line just before you reckon you will get hit. The columns deploy into supporting lines with the least damaged one is at the front obviously.

As I said, if anyone actually looks at how the mechanics actually work, they will find that all the above is true, even if it seems completely non intuitive it would work like this because you have never noticed before through all the marvelous true gentleman talk and funny quips about smoking jackets and the right sort of fellow doesn't keep Port in anything other than a decanter…allegedly

One up for KevanG.

"gentleman like style" Possible in most rules, just a matter of who you play with. Have done it with Empire.

I Always woner if someone has so many comments on rules, which rules he himself uses?

Hmmmm. I've only played BP a couple of times and enjoyed it, bit food for thought.

I'm the meantime, probably a free more GDB games ahead.

I like BP for Naps, but use these to add more flavour

link

A great free download resource, so I m always happy to spread the love for them.

these "houserules" are longer then the original rules!!

BP (and it's descendants) are great for people who already know the period. Not so good for someone just trying to get in.

Lasalle does a much better job for introducing all you need to play the game for the Napoleonic noob.

As I said, if anyone actually looks at how the mechanics actually work, they will find that all the above is true, even if it seems completely non intuitive it would work like this because you have never noticed before through all the marvelous true gentleman talk and funny quips about smoking jackets and the right sort of fellow doesn't keep Port in anything other than a decanter…allegedly

Former TMP member John D Salt reckoned that the best use of computers in wargames wasn't to create computer-moderated rules hybrids, it was for game designers to model what they were doing to avoid stuff like this.

Duc – agreed, but the basic rules always were just a toolbox, so I found the add-ons really good. YMMV. But they gave me the "flavour" I wanted that the vanilla BP didn't. Horses for courses of course.

And TBH, the extra rules are "big" because they include a lot of explanatory text/designer notes.

for me, BP gives me a game that I can play with non-Naps fans, as the core mechanics are simple, whilst the add-ons give me the "feel" of a Naps game.

I would never claim they are perfect (I quite like GdeB), but for my Friday night group, they work well. SO well that one decided to buy and paint a Prussian Corp, despite being a big 7YW fan.

Try Over the Hills through Caliver books