"Clash of Arms "La Bataille" games?" Topic

Hello,
Has anyone ever tried using rules from these series of games on the table top?

The first problem that you would have with that is determining which version you should use! On CSW and BGG there are endless discussions about what the current version is, what it should be, which rules should be changed, etc. Having played the series once or twice my advice would be to look elsewhere. This system is for gamers who do not want to paint miniatures and want every detail of tactical napoleonic warfare covered in the rules. A major battle could take you days with these rules.

Hi, some of the local lads play those games a lot. Playing every Monday night, it can take 6 months.

Once they did a miniature conversion. Didn't work.

Personally, I lost interest in playing those games as they are too complicated for my tiny brain.

Dallas Gavan (an occasional contributor here on TMP) talked about this some years ago (mainly over on ConsimWorld). I don't know what progress he made but he may pop up here with an update if he sees the subject heading.

Allan

I played the old La Bataille de la Moskova game when it first came out. After that I played their Austerlitz game. While the system is enjoyable once you get used to it the rules changes were enormous as the series went on. Now I do not even recognize it.

Lovely counters. I suppose if you used hexes instead of a tape measure it actually would work out fine. I think you would need to use 10mm or less for the large battles. Anything over the size of Austerlitz would take a very large table.

In this day and age Computer Rules, such as "Carnage & Glory" are the way to go. They are now reliable and sophisticated.

Thanks for all the comments!

G'day, Chasseur.

As AFM (how's things, AFM?) said, I did this about 10 years ago. It wasn't easy and, being honest, didn't produce that good a game. Even writing a Visual Basic programme to do most of the calculations, etc, still led to a slow, tedious game system. However, if you want to try here's some suggestions:

1. The morale system works well, either in "base 6" (11-66) or converted to percentages. But every unit, even 1er Chasseurs and Grenadiers de la Garde, need a morale number and the chance of breaking. Sacrilege perhaps, but unbreakable units become the game's 1940 panzer divisions.

2. The French and British movement and combat values are inflated to give them the superiority which was actually gained through better C&C from army level down. Pick an army (I chose the Prussians as a "middle" force, with a good morale spread to reflect the different levels of units' capabilities) and use their movement and combat values (which are related to the counter morale values) for everyone- and you'll avoid red/blue steam-rollers. Let the player's skills and luck reflect the battle's C&C.

3. Limit skirmishers. Don't allow more than 30% of skirmish-capable battalions deploy into skirmish order at any one time. Skirmishing doesn't convert from Les Batailles to miniatures very well at all.

4. Converting the figure scale to something less than the game's 1:100 INF/ 1:50 CAV gives you more troops on the table, but slows the game further. Similarly, trying to make the system represent a smaller time increment than 20 minutes also causes problems.

Good luck with it. Don't be surprised, though, if you end up with Empire III on Valium. If you do get it to work, please let us know.

Cheers.

Dal.

Very interesting Dal. Why do you think that skirmishers don't translate very well to the table top?

In play it's the frontages and that skirmishers can be overpowering (as they can be in the board game).

Most of the skirmisher companies are 1 or 2 SP counters, which translates into a few (4 figures at 50:1) figures to cover the front of a battalion. That's where they usually meet other skirmishers and, using the normal skirmishing multipliers, the skirmishes are short and bloody. Winding back the multiplier too much can make them useless, but having multipliers of "3.5" or "2.3" for the fire factor annoyed some players.

As I said, using the average 4 or 5 fire multiplier means that skirmishers are quite powerful. A French Regiment Legere that's allowed to go to 100% skirmishers (six counters with separate voltigeur companies) will be nearly unstoppable, even with artillery.

The other thing is the "feel" of how skirmishers played. Their effect was more like modern infantry than early C19 skirmishers. Too powerful, too mobile and too independent. Adding rules about how far from parent units they could go, etc, just added more complexity and delay.

Cheers.

Dal.

As AFM (how's things, AFM?) said, I did this about 10 years ago. It wasn't easy and, being honest, didn't produce that good a game. Even writing a Visual Basic programme to do most of the calculations, etc, still led to a slow, tedious game system. However, if you want to try here's some suggestions:

1. The morale system works well, either in "base 6" (11-66) or converted to percentages. But every unit, even 1er Chasseurs and Grenadiers de la Garde, need a morale number and the chance of breaking. Sacrilege perhaps, but unbreakable units become the game's 1940 panzer divisions.

2. The French and British movement and combat values are inflated to give them the superiority which was actually gained through better C&C from army level down. Pick an army (I chose the Prussians as a "middle" force, with a good morale spread to reflect the different levels of units' capabilities) and use their movement and combat values (which are related to the counter morale values) for everyone- and you'll avoid red/blue steam-rollers. Let the player's skills and luck reflect the battle's C&C.

3. Limit skirmishers. Don't allow more than 30% of skirmish-capable battalions deploy into skirmish order at any one time. Skirmishing doesn't convert from Les Batailles to miniatures very well at all.

4. Converting the figure scale to something less than the game's 1:100 INF/ 1:50 CAV gives you more troops on the table, but slows the game further. Similarly, trying to make the system represent a smaller time increment than 20 minutes also causes problems.

Good luck with it. Don't be surprised, though, if you end up with Empire III on Valium. If you do get it to work, please let us know.

Cheers.

Dal.

I'm keeping well, Dal, and trust you are, too.

I'd forgotten you had got as far as writing VB for it.

'Empire III on Valium' – must remember that one ;-)

Cheers!

Allan

G'day, Allan. And all the best for the New Year.

I'm doing well, mate, though disappointed at failing retirement and ending up back in Defence. But it pays well (I'm a contractor now, not uniform or APS) and it gives me a purpose beyond my hobbies. Still, I miss coffee on the beach of a morning. :-)

Empire on Vallium was the only term that fits. Les Batailles works brilliantly for a boardgame, but Just didn't work for me as a figures system.

Cheers, mate.

Dal.

Is this the (a?) series where the counters are intended to represent the historical unit uniforms? I sometimes wonder if they'd be worth getting (cheap) for that reason alone.

G'day, wryeone. The counters resemble the uniforms, sometimes quite closely, and it makes for a very impressive-looking game. If you can find one of the older, smaller games at a decent price then I'd get it. Auerstadt, Quatre Bras or Albuera may suit as opposed to $150 USD+ for Moscowa (Borodino).

Cheers.

Dal.

I have never used the tactical system on the tabletop, but I have used the strategic system for campaigns, and that worked quite well, actually.

Dal:

The fundamental problem with the Clash of Arms, Moscowa system are the numbers on the back of the counters. That is where the game balance is manipulated.

The first publication of Auerstadt is a good example. The French counters have three times the combat factors as the Prussians as well as enjoying a larger number of counters. guess who wins every time, even with Prussians enjoying a 2:1 advantage?

There is no tactical fitness involved, just sheer combat power. Considering the French lost some 40% of their force in the battle, even though Brunswick was killed early in the battle and the entire Prussian effort was mismanaged, there was more going on than sheer combat power.

I have not played any Clash of Arms Napoleonics since Auerstadt and Moskowa, so later games may have readjusted such things in subsequent games.

Even so, those fire and melee factors on the back side of the counters trumps any tactics in most cases I have seen or heard about concerning the game system.

Rob, I haven't tried using the strategic system for campaigns. I only had the one game- -, but never got to play it.

Bill, I agree about the early games, hence my comment on "red/blue steam-rollers". The new games use fire multipliers based on unit strength (up to 4 SP per hex- first used in Auerstadt but now with less unbalanced multipliers than Auerstadt) to calculate the fire value in line.

Cavalry still tend to be overpowered in melee, and the British and French melee values are generally stronger than Russians/Prussians etc, but it's a matter of degree, not the game decider, these days. Nor is melee automatic, requiring the attackers to pass a roll-to-close test for a melee to happen. Based on morale, these aren't easy to pass for anyone- though cavalry usually can. A lot of infantry roll-to-close results stop the attacker and turn into a musketry duel, which is more historical.

French and British still got better morale values, including the unbreakable Garde, but generally line troops from all the nations will be close in values. No more disappearing divisions as there were with Moskowa.

The C&C aspects remained the main problem, as modelling them is always difficult. I sold off my collection a few years ago (it went back to Austerlitz- sob), but I wouldn't be surprised if Ed has since adapted the quite good BAR C&C rules for the Les Batailles system. The new Moscowa and Ligny are sorely tempting me. If I succumb I'll let you know the changes.

Cheers, gents.