Sho Boki | 23 Aug 2016 2:45 a.m. PST |
Many topics about napoleonic rules appeared here lately. Most of them are not interesting for me, because of concentration to very quick and small games and/or to use of very big figures of soldiers. I am more interested about – are there rules for Napoleon's level but with napoleonic flavor, capable for playing on diner table? Napoleon's level – you play big battles as Napoleon or Army or Corps Commander. Napoleonic flavour – battalion level beautifully painted uniforms, clashes, skirmishers, volleys etc. Diner table – 4' x 6'. |
acatcalledelvis | 23 Aug 2016 4:01 a.m. PST |
Blucher by Sam Mustafa are probably what you are looking for |
Whirlwind | 23 Aug 2016 4:04 a.m. PST |
What does battalion-level mean in this context? Does it mean each battalion represented by a single stand, or by multiple stands (for the column/line/square stuff)? |
Sho Boki | 23 Aug 2016 4:21 a.m. PST |
Yes, each battalion represented by one or two stands. And these stands are part of smallest game unit. And this unit must probably be smaller than Brigade. |
Rich Bliss | 23 Aug 2016 5:25 a.m. PST |
Why smaller than a Brigade? Surely at Napoleon's level he was concerned with divisions, not battalions. Take a look at Volley and Bayonet. It's designed for Corps level and above and can be played at "half-scale" on a 2x3 surface for most battles. |
Extra Crispy | 23 Aug 2016 5:26 a.m. PST |
|
Saber6 | 23 Aug 2016 5:26 a.m. PST |
Age of Eagles. Units are brigade/regiments stands are @ a half battalion. |
1ngram | 23 Aug 2016 5:54 a.m. PST |
Grande Armee by Sam Mustafa are the best Corps/Diovion set of rules but they are pretty complicated. His later attempt Blucher goes backwards in my estimation sacrificing much chrome for simpler(and duller) play. A combination of the two would be interesting substituting the Blucher command dice approach to the diversity of unit types and commander values of GA. |
Sho Boki | 23 Aug 2016 6:22 a.m. PST |
"Why smaller than a Brigade?" Because of napoleonic flavour. Napoleon may command Corps and Divisions, but through telescope he must see well painted skirmishing batallions. Under "For most battles" you mean Waterloo, Borodino, Wagram.. ? So far the recommended rules are.. Blucher Grande Armee Volley and Bayonet Et Sans Result Age of Eagles
Are they free from "Decision-Result" syndrome? Are they free from "scissor-paper-rock" syndrome? Are they free from disputes about distances and geometry? Are there fighting resultates cumulative from smaller units than Brigade? Are reserves play there crucial role? Are they free from "national modifiers"? |
Whirlwind | 23 Aug 2016 6:26 a.m. PST |
Okay, using your criteria (and I haven't played all of these personally): ARMY (1 bases = 1 bn): Paddy Griffith's army-level game in his Napoleonic Wargaming for Fun Crusader's Great Battles CORPS: (1 base = 1 bn, so no Bn formations) Polemos General de Division Field of Glory Napoleonic Et Sans Resultant CORPS: (1 bn > 1 base, so with Bn formations) Crusader's March Attack Empire Shako La Feu Sacre WRG 1645-1845 Black Powder With the exception of March Attack and Empire which should have no problems anyway, then all these rules can handle Corps actions as long as you get the physical set-up right (i.e. have physically small units, maybe 4 x bases of 3-4 cm per unit). I hope that helps |
Rich Bliss | 23 Aug 2016 6:30 a.m. PST |
I'm not sure what you mean by Decision- Result syndrome but the answers to the other questions for Volley and Bayonet are No rock-scissors-paper Disputes would only be related to movement path but the rules are very clear on how to adjudicate Fighting results are accumulative based on strength points (1SP=500 men) Reserves are very critical to success. Maybe the single most important factor There are no national modifiers. |
Sho Boki | 23 Aug 2016 6:45 a.m. PST |
The "Decision-Result" syndrome may be described by this way.. Player makes decision and give orders, and these orders have immediate effect. And thank to great speed of units (only 2-6 turns to moving from one edge of table to opposite edge) there will be absolutely new situation on table at the beginning of every next turn. |
Sho Boki | 23 Aug 2016 6:54 a.m. PST |
Shako for large battles is one of few rules I know. I hosted Borodino internet game by Shako. In the middle of battle players refused to play, after they see the advance of Compan Division. Therefore I support the idea, that fighting results must be cumulated from smallest units than Brigade. Napoleon must see the fight of battalions. |
Whirlwind | 23 Aug 2016 6:56 a.m. PST |
I wasn't thinking of Shako for large battles but "normal" Shako. That can handle 30+ units, sufficient for a "Corps" game. The key problem is making the unit bases small enough to make a 6'x4' work. With a small number of 15mm or smaller figures on small bases, it would work, no problem. |
Rich Bliss | 23 Aug 2016 7:22 a.m. PST |
Well, Napoleon was directing an entire battle. For a reasonable game length, you're going to need relatively long turns, say an hour. So, could the situation change in the course of an hour? I'd say the answer would be 'yes', but not every hour. And please explain how Napoleon could be aware of the results of every battalion combat. He simply would not have that kind of information. |
True Grit | 23 Aug 2016 7:32 a.m. PST |
|
Sho Boki | 23 Aug 2016 7:38 a.m. PST |
Normal Shako not classified. I talk about Napoleon's (multicorps) level (multiplayer) rules, which may be played as Corps contra Corps too. And all this with battalion level flavour. |
Whirlwind | 23 Aug 2016 7:56 a.m. PST |
Normal Shako not classified. I talk about Napoleon's (multicorps) level (multiplayer) rules, which may be played as Corps contra Corps too. And all this with battalion level flavour. Okay, since in the OP you mentioned: Napoleon's level – you play big battles as Napoleon or Army or Corps Commander . I included some Corps commander level games in my recommendations. If they aren't what you are looking for, I'd have a look at the first two (Paddy Griffith & Great Battles). |
Ed the Two Hour Wargames guy | 23 Aug 2016 8:20 a.m. PST |
Morale Napoleon is made for this. link
|
Sho Boki | 23 Aug 2016 8:29 a.m. PST |
"And please explain how Napoleon could be aware of the results of every battalion combat." Napoleon may not be aware, but Corps Commanders may. More important is, that without battalion level at all, there will be no napoleonic flavour. And I don't speak about battalion level exactly, but abstractly at some level below Brigade. Brigade is level, about what Napoleon cares. Remember Napoleon's order at Borodino about Brigades. Also in this level of game mechanics the one hour turns are too long. Such "one hour turns" caused "Decision-Result" syndrome. |
Rich Bliss | 23 Aug 2016 8:37 a.m. PST |
I think you are trying to "have your cake and eat it too". You want the players to have the full scope of the entire battle while still managing the Division General's fight. Good luck, but I'm afraid you're going to end up with a unsatisfying results. How long do you expect a game to last? |
Sho Boki | 23 Aug 2016 8:54 a.m. PST |
"I think you are trying to "have your cake and eat it too"." Yes, "all at once". ___ "How long do you expect a game to last?" Twice of real battle, max. |
Sho Boki | 23 Aug 2016 8:59 a.m. PST |
At first glance "Morale Napoleon" looks fine at Napoleon's level, but lack flavour. |
ThePeninsularWarin15mm | 23 Aug 2016 9:22 a.m. PST |
Another vain quest for the Holy Grail. You've been given a list of rules and you either dislike or dismiss them all. "Flavor" tends to be a code word for complex rules that stifle playability. You can't realistically play army commander and colonel at the same time and think it will be enjoyable. Just write your own rules. |
Whirlwind | 23 Aug 2016 9:50 a.m. PST |
|
Sho Boki | 23 Aug 2016 9:51 a.m. PST |
"You can't realistically play army commander and colonel at the same time." Probably true. Question is – what is acceptable scope? |
Rich Bliss | 23 Aug 2016 10:24 a.m. PST |
Any scope can be acceptable, you just have to pick one, not two or three. In my mind, the key is to match the scope of information with the scope of control. If those things are at the same level, you can have an effective game. Just keep in mind that "flavor" depends very much on the level of command. Davout's flavor is very different from a battalion officer's, for example. . |
Sho Boki | 23 Aug 2016 10:53 a.m. PST |
I think, that the best scope for napoleonic game is triade: corps commander – division commander – brigade general. Where division and brigade generals are command ressource for corps commander. |
vtsaogames | 23 Aug 2016 11:01 a.m. PST |
Corps Co – division – brigade says to me that brigade will be your lowest level unit generally. If you bring the lowest level down to battalion, then your 3 levels will be division CO – brigade – battalion. 3 levels of command is what usually works. |
marshalGreg | 23 Aug 2016 11:22 a.m. PST |
For Triad Then as mentioned already… Age of Eagles Grand Armee/Blucher Es San Resultant Volley and Bayonet are ones you can find numerous players who have played these. MG |
zaevor2000 | 23 Aug 2016 11:49 a.m. PST |
Personally I still prefer Napoleon's Battles. Units are brigade sized, plus d10 and mods gives more granularity than d6 which allows more differences and more flavor. Combat is resolved in 1 roll with both sides rolling against each other which keeps both players involved. Very, very good rules set for fighting large battles in an evening. So good in fact that I've pretty much shelved my 6mm collection and moved to 10mm. Since Napoleon's Battles is designed for 15mm. I use the game distances, but use a 2/3 range stick ;) This 2/3 scale (1"=150 yds) enables me to use a 6ft x 4ft table to fight anything short of Wagram or Leipzig on ONE table. 15mm scale requires a Ping-Pong tbl (9ft x 5ft). Me and my group are very happy! Boki… I truly admire your artistry and would dearly love to see you do some of your sculpts in 10mm. 10mm is big enough to see facings/details at a distance but still small enough to game on a normal table. |
Sho Boki | 23 Aug 2016 12:45 p.m. PST |
vtsaogames I see on such way.. Batallion is too low unit to be represented independently, if we want to play Napoleon's level games. But batallions must be represented inside the Brigade subunits, if we want to cover batallions with painted figures. Brigade himself must usually have more units than one, because Brigade in triade corps-division-brigade is not lowest game unit, but lowest command level. Corps commanders are players with units on table. Napoleon and Army commanders are players without units on table, they give orders to corps commanders. |
cavalry47 | 23 Aug 2016 12:48 p.m. PST |
I am with zaevor2000 Napoleons battles allows you to play at corps / army level. Smallest Unit is the Brigade, below that Napoleon would not be micro managing. Good set of Rules proven over 25 years and updated now on 4th Edition |
robert piepenbrink | 23 Aug 2016 12:48 p.m. PST |
I think we sometimes ask too much of a single set of rules. Surely it is not unreasonable to use the same stand to represent 80 men with one rules set and 480 with another? We don't have to be the Duke of Wellington and Tom Picton at the same time. I lean more and more these days toward small figures on constant-frontage bases for large battles and larger individually mounted castings for more intimate affairs. And I've lived through too many rules to take any one set very seriously. |
Sho Boki | 23 Aug 2016 1:14 p.m. PST |
Thanks, Zaevor2000. I never say never, but at moment I chosed 8mm insted of 10mm. Similar detailing but less space. Robert Piepenbrink We don't must be the Wellington and Picton at the same time. We may use Picton as Wellington command ressource.
|
Extra Crispy | 23 Aug 2016 1:37 p.m. PST |
You are going to run into a real ground scale problem. If a battalion is represented by two stands stand 1" wide, that gives you a ground scale of 1" = 50 yards or something like that. That gives you a table that represents 2400 yards deep by 3600 yards deep. That won't even let you do all of Waterloo and that was a pretty small battlefield. If you drop to one stand per battalion you're at 1 inch = 100 yards or thereabouts. Now your table top represents a bigger space but even at that scale you have a small field and very limited room for maneuver. |
Sho Boki | 23 Aug 2016 2:06 p.m. PST |
Yes, battalion may be represented by two stands with 6-8mm figs, 1" wide in total. Enough for Waterloo and Borodino on dinner table. Waterloo and Borodino actually haved almost similar area of active fighting. Wagram is much bigger. |
ubercommando | 23 Aug 2016 2:43 p.m. PST |
My recommendations would be using Black Powder for 15mm by using metric measurements instead of imperial. Blucher is a game I don't really like a great deal, but it is very serviceable for Corps/Army level games. Although not specifically Napoleonic, both Principles of War and Bloody Big Battles also suffice. |
CATenWolde | 23 Aug 2016 3:02 p.m. PST |
Most of the rules mentioned are (if I understand you correctly) abstracted to the brigade level and probably won't satisfy your desire to see the battalion level of action. There are only two rules I am aware of that do what you are looking for, but luckily for you they both do it very well: Napoleonic Command by Jeff Knudsen, and March Attack by Crusader Games. Both abstract combat and morale a bit differently, but a single player can command a corps of battalions in each (without their head exploding). I think the new rules Et Sans Resultat are supposed to operate at this level, but I don't own them. As for scale, at 1" = 100 yards ground scale, your average battalion is going to be about 40mm in width, so with your 6mm figures you could field 2x 20x20mm bases and still portray all field formations. Cheers, Christopher |
forwardmarchstudios | 23 Aug 2016 3:24 p.m. PST |
If you want to do a full battle at the battalion level the largest reasonable battalion foot print tou can go with and still show battalion formations is 60mm, if you assume 100m frontage French/450-500 man battalions. If you check out my blog I have some pictures up that show correct field formations at up to division strength- I think you can do this with your 8m figs. |
Ed the Two Hour Wargames guy | 23 Aug 2016 6:05 p.m. PST |
At first glance "Morale Napoleon" looks fine at Napoleon's level, but lack flavour. Yes, you're a Napoleonic gamer. Don't read the rules, but "know" how they work. LOL. I'm sure you'll find something. |
Sho Boki | 23 Aug 2016 7:20 p.m. PST |
CATenWolde & Forwardmarchstudios I don't want to see batallion level actions, commanded by player, this is too much for Napoleon's level. I want to see batallions in action, independently from players, as Napoleon may see through telescope. This is totally different animal. Then front does not depend on battallions as such, but on total amount of troops in battallions. So average 600 men batallion in composition of smallest game unit may separately take 1 inch front on table. Ed the Two Hour Wargames guy No, I don' said that I "know" how they "work", but how they "looks". I like the look how "Morale Napoleon" works at Napoleon level, but I didn't see the battalions (flavour) there. As Rich Bliss says – I want to have my cake and eat it too. The Wargaming Company The 200 yards scale looks very intriguing. I especcially like the "fate of generals" section. |
CATenWolde | 24 Aug 2016 1:59 a.m. PST |
So … you want to "see" the battalions on the table, but the actual game mechanics should be on a level above that … but not the brigade, because you want to see more tactical articulation than the brigade being a single stand/block? That's actually not so hard to do. There are basically two types of brigade level rules: the type that models the brigade with multiple smaller stands and allows you to assume multiple formations (line, supported line, etc.), and the type that models the brigade with a single, larger stand. The iconic rules for each are probably Napoleon's Battles and Age of Eagles for the multiple stand type, and Volley & Bayonet for the single stand type (not to say there aren't others). The multiple stand type already allows you to model individual battalions on the tabletop and different brigade formations. You might have to fiddle with the stand size and/or ground/troop scale, but it's perfectly workable. The V&B type also allows you to do this: for instance, I play the ACW with V&B by using two linear stands per "brigade" (actually, each stand is 1000 men in a division) instead of a single brigade block – if you take an approach like this with Napoleonics, you could easily model the individual battalions on the linear stands. So – basically pick a brigade level set of rules you like, and then tweak the scale or modelling of the unit as you like. Unless you somehow want the battalions to operate on their own, according to some scripting type rules? That sounds too complex and arcane. |
Ed the Two Hour Wargames guy | 24 Aug 2016 6:44 a.m. PST |
No worries, you'll find what you want, there's lots to choose from. Take care, Ed |
forwardmarchstudios | 24 Aug 2016 12:20 p.m. PST |
One thing I'm experimenting with is reducing the combat of divisions to a few simple dice rolls with very basic rules about how to place the individual battalions within the battle space. It would almost resemble a few rounds of warhammer 40k close combat, or a few rounds of CV rolling as in Grande Armee. So abstracted but with bigger visual appeal, which is what I think you're going for. The concept works great when dealing with the actions of distant units (say several miles away, with information on outcomes coming to the CiC via reports, but becomes problematic once the action is more localized. There are some solutions to the issue that I think will work. It would definitely fall on the gamey side of the game--simulation continuum. |
Sho Boki | 24 Aug 2016 11:49 p.m. PST |
"reducing the combat of divisions to a few simple dice rolls" If you mean divisions above brigades, then I look for exactly oposite solution. Even combat of brigades must have cumulative result from its sub-units. Abstraction what I love, places above batallion but below brigade. So we have all high command flavor and see on table all batallions level flavor, but are free from batallion level management. |
CATenWolde | 26 Aug 2016 2:14 a.m. PST |
So … You want to see the battalions on the table, but not have to "manage" them, and the basic unit should be something above the battalion level, but below the brigade level. The only way this makes sense is that you are playing with the basic unit being the regiment or "demi-brigade" (approx. 2-4 battalions), and that the modelling of the individual battalions is purely aesthetic, and a matter of modelling the unit's base. As I said, you can play V&B that way, with 2 "linear" bases per brigade. There are no battalion level formations – the base is a base, but you can model the battalions on it as you see fit. Although I haven't played it, Morale Napoleon also seems to fit the bill – units are regiments, theoretically of several battalions, but the bases that make up a unit could be modeled in any way, and the "unit" can assume several different formations. I think Principles of War also works on this level. Why didn't those solutions satisfy you in terms of "flavor"? And by flavor, do you mean tactical flavor, or the aesthetic flavor of "seeing" the individual battalions? Is this correct? Because you seem vague on what exactly you mean by "not managing" the battalions but getting "period flavor". Or are you picturing moving bases that represent individual battalions – but not having to change formations with them – and then conducting combat on some multi-base level (below the brigade)? |
Sho Boki | 26 Aug 2016 3:43 a.m. PST |
Well, as I said, I want all at once. So I want both – the tactical flavor and the aesthetic flavor of battalions. I want batallions skirmishing, shooting, charging, taking losses etc. but, as all players are in General' s level and battles are gigantic, without any decision/order on colonels-majors level. So batallions don't take formations by himself but share the formation of its parent game unit, which is not Brigade. And I see, that I don't mentioned yet, that I want distances (front, depth etc.) close to realistic. That I may play on historical map. There was one of suggested rules for hexagon game. I don't seek rules to immediate play with, I only wonder yet, are there rules like this. |
CATenWolde | 26 Aug 2016 4:01 a.m. PST |
I'm still not clear (and maybe you are not): do you want to see individual battalions change formations? But, perhaps, not have that decision be individual, but rather that all battalions in a regiment (for example) would adopt the same formation, and combat would then be resolved on the formation level? I still think that Napoleonic Command comes closest to what you want. Individual battalions are shown and change formation, but combat is resolved by adding up the Threat and Cohesion of larger level formations (brigade or division, depending on what scale you pick), and depending on the Threat vs Cohesion balance battalions might weaken or be eliminated, formations might be pushed back, and formations accumulate Fatigue. It's the only set of rules I have ever known to do this. You should check it out, as it might help you clarify what you actually want and what is possible. Cheers, Christopher |
Sho Boki | 26 Aug 2016 5:36 a.m. PST |
Yes, Napoleonic Command battlefield looks wery well and there are majority of elements, I look for. Like "span" for example. But I want much quicker combats with the same level of details and complexity. In gigantic battles with hundred of brigades we cannot afford 40 minutes to every brigade contra brigade combat. So simultaneous moving must be present. |