"If Black Powder had been produced by a French company...." Topic

….would the rule set be so slanted in favor of the British (I.e. First fire, Steady Line, etc.)?

Thoughts?

It would have had "French advancing in columns, skirmishers in front of advancing units,Napoleon within 12,etc"
As much as it is heralded, I am afraid I do not believe it is naturally within human nature to be objective? 🤔

Regards
Russ Dunaway

Poudre Noir?

They might have gotten the blanket rolls on the French line lancers correct over the right shoulder.

There's an old saying that you should always play the army on the front of the book :-)

Poudre Noire

Schiesspulver in German according to Gurgle.. Almost as bad as the Behind Omaha rules, abbreviated in forum posts as BO. Although maybe apt for wargamers.

Often the bias, both in Napoleonic games and literature, is not British vs French, but British & French vs the rest of Europe.

For Brits, I have always felt that if you want to see how British accounts of the Peninsular War appear to the rest of the World, read American accounts of the War of 1812 particularly how the British Army is portrayed.

There's an old saying that you should always play the army on the front of the book :-)

Thats definitely true with regards to warlord games rulesets!

As much as I like Black Powder, to me the British army is the Tiger Tank of the Peninsular war, without the constraints.

The French move really fast and two attack columns piling into British in Line ain't pretty …

I dont think Ive ever seent the French actually get close though.

On the other hand the Peninsular War British have nothing on the Devils Playground Swedes.

Its no cooincidence that they are dressed in Ultramarine colours, they get machine guns and power armour too!

"The French move really fast and two attack columns piling into British in Line ain't pretty"

Oh – succes of the dreaded Napoleonic phalanx – the first sign of rule failure!

The French move really fast and two attack columns piling into British in Line ain't pretty

The rules seem to be ambiguous at best on whether or not two units can hit at the same time. I'm seen multiple arguments on this but no clarification in errata.

I agree that allowing two French attack columns to hit the British line at the same time is in the spirit of the French rules, but British inclined players adhere to the requirement to fight one and then the other.

When did it happen?

It happened at Waterloo when DeErlon ran right over the British like a big fist and routed the entire British army.

Regards
Russ Dunaway

Now there's an "Alternative Fact" for you all! :0)

It's a tool kit. I have looked at it for AWI and the list of Special Rules for British Units seems to run to several large volumes.

I prefer to just fiddle with the basic stats to differentiate Hessians from shaky state militias. Fortunately I have been able to and the Warlord Police have yet to take me away. Oh wait, who is that at the door? Rick Priestly with nun-chucks! AHHHHH…..

…there might have been an index!

The problem, and there is only a "problem" if it bothers you, is that when you have a game based the notion that some troops were set apart by special traits or talents, then the French must have better special traits than everyone else, because they always win…unless they are facing the British in the Peninsula so somehow the British must have even better specia traits than the French.

If you base the rules on generic levels of training or experience, than for most of their run the French were better trained and disciplined than most of their enemies except in the Peninsula were their second string troops faced the British, a small, volunteer force that was well trained and motivated. Or in other words the best troops of all nations are equal, the difference is in the proportion of trained troops in a given army at a given time.

And again it must be stressed that its only a problem if it is a problem in the beholder's eye.

It's a slanted as you make it.

My brits only get first fire as their benefit. And cavalry that can disappear of the table. The French get their +1 to order roles when in column. I don't see how that is favours one over the other.

The only other advantage the British have over the French is the access to riflemen. But the other nations all have this too.

Sorry. Typed that while half asleep. Terrible typing and grammar.

the French were better trained and disciplined than most of their enemies except in the Peninsula where their second string troops faced the British, a small, volunteer force that was well trained and motivated.

The French in the Peninsula that the British fought were not really second-string on most definitions of that. Napoleon brought large numbers of soldiers the Grande Armee with him to Spain, the vast majority of whom he left there.

Yes but they were usually short of everything, unable move about in small groups, and leading a generally uncomfortable existence compared to their brethren elsewhere.

Suffering more from attrition they would have gotten less well trained replacements when they got replacements at all.

I suspect under those circumstances their elan would have dissipated fairly quickly especially as nothing they did would catch the Emperor's eye on a field of glory.

Well,the rules do say upfront that they are simply an excuse for old Grognards to get toether and push some figures around,doesnt say anything about being an accurate simulation of anything. It does what it says on the tin.

We refought the morning of Lutzen today and so far have had a really close game. The French have poor quality troops but are defending the villages, and it has been a great struggle. So, personally, I think they can work quite well for Naps. Some tinkering of stats has provided us with some very "realistic " troop types

I was not aware that there were British troops at Lutzen?

Regards
Russ Dunaway