"Just purchased Et sans rιsultat!" Topic
16 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board Back to the Napoleonic Product Reviews Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Darken92 | 06 Feb 2018 3:51 p.m. PST |
Et sans rιsultat! Impression Love the strategic feel, using maneuver elements this is a game about how you maneuver and commit your divisions, not how the battalions interact with each other. Once you commit your divisions you need to watch fatigue and use reserves if your line is faltering. Love the idea of skirmish combat built in as a phase. Would have preferred the skirmish ratings be assigned to the battalions directly as it adds a level of granularity that would be helpful rather than an all-encompassing straight value based on the year. The divisional commanders directly modifying unit combat values is great way to provide combat bonus to better led troops. For example, the idea that French en-masse cavalry are better by having better commanders in larger units but would be less effective regiment to regiment. Does feel a little unpolished as it seems like there should be more examples, building armies and basing etc. It just reads as if not as much care with wording and proof reading was done compared to other rule sets. What are people's impressions of actual game play? Has anyone tried using another rule system basing, and if so did it work? Questions Cavalry squadrons It is not clear but do you base squadrons separately? Otherwise a single squadron seems just as effective as 5 or 6 squadrons. Is the reserve area an actual defined area or just the space behind the last of your waves? Attaching corp artillery to divisions through commit artillery battery order? And if yes through the corp commander? And does that mean they need to be committed again to be deployed My two biggest questions Basing under the rules you would need to change your base size every time you played depending on the scenario. Although I notice in the 1809 and 1812 Campaign guide there does not seem to be any reference to unit sizes. Clearly it affects base size and is a clear combat factor in the game, fighting larger bases sizes gives you a -1. A 500 man battalion has a -1 against a 600 man battalion Having just purchased GDA, would their idea not make more sense, Units are average, some would be large, such as some Austrian and English at the start of the campaign and in some rare instances, others be small for one reason or other. Does Commander tactical ratings being added on top of unit ratings make elite troops super elite? The best commanders tend to have the best units. Friant's division in 1809 has its battalions at CR 7, 8 on the charge, meaning they have a 75% chance of defeating an average Austrian battalion, 66% of defeating a well led Austrian (Divisional commander with +1). This looks to me like a problem with several rule sets, why would you not lead with your elite units. French players should always commit the guard early, lead with the best Cuirassier units etc. Why bother weakening the enemy, wearing them down and punching through at the right moment, just smash everything in the way. It also makes less effective units even less effective. Could the Prussians Landwehr really push the young guard out of Plancenoit in these rules? Overall Would have liked to see a fraction more polish, especially for the price I paid. Would like to see some real AAR's, not just some pictures, and see how the game works and get a better feel for some of the rules and phases. Stands out for it's very strong Command and Control emphasis while maintain the use of battalions. |
Puddinhead Johnson | 06 Feb 2018 3:57 p.m. PST |
It's a very novel, interesting set of rules. He focused very well on keeping the player in the general's seat with respect to decisions to be made. A lot of rules say they do that but really don't. |
Puddinhead Johnson | 06 Feb 2018 4:04 p.m. PST |
Does feel a little unpolished as it seems like there should be more examples, building armies and basing etc. It just reads as if not as much care with wording and proof reading was done compared to other rule sets. There are many examples of play in the rules. But it's mechanisms are so unusual that it probably could have done with more. The information regarding basing is in there. Not sure how you missed it. If you just bought the basic rules they don't include army organization rules. That comes in the player's handbook (or whatever it's called). I only bought the basic rules and haven't had a problem working out armies. Also, he publishes a number of campaign volumes. I have the campaign book for the Austrian campaign of 1809. There is extensive information, including extensive uniform information, in that. I don't think it's any worse in terms of typos than many rules sets I've bought. The author is very responsive to questions. There is a Yahoo Group that can offer some answers. If you haven't played through a game yet I'd suggest trying that as it will help you figure out the rules. |
Puddinhead Johnson | 06 Feb 2018 4:09 p.m. PST |
Cavalry squadrons It is not clear but do you base squadrons separately? Otherwise a single squadron seems just as effective as 5 or 6 squadrons. Each base is a squadron. Is the reserve area an actual defined area or just the space behind the last of your waves? It's behind your waves, but I'm pretty sure it says how far behind in the rules. Remember, distances are given in paces (or yards, can't remember) not inches or centimeters, to accommodate different ground scales. Basing under the rules you would need to change your base size every time you played depending on the scenario. Although I notice in the 1809 and 1812 Campaign guide there does not seem to be any reference to unit sizes. Clearly it affects base size and is a clear combat factor in the game, fighting larger bases sizes gives you a -1. A 500 man battalion has a -1 against a 600 man battalion Having just purchased GDA, would their idea not make more sense, Units are average, some would be large, such as some Austrian and English at the start of the campaign and in some rare instances, others be small for one reason or other. There's nothing preventing you from playing it that way if you just want to make things more simple. |
Wargamorium | 06 Feb 2018 4:21 p.m. PST |
Hello I purchased these some time ago but after a few play tests we were exhausted. I posted about 30 queries on the Yahoo page and I must say the author responded very quickly and patiently each time. This however led to a large home made errata and addendum file which had to be updated after each query was answered. They are easy and exciting to read but not so easy when you get down to playing. We had so many questions and discovered quite a few typos and inexactitudes. In the end we had to rewrite the entire command section and the orders just to be able to get past that phase. Proof reading and a good editor could have picked up a lot of these before printing. I also found the main rulebook to be very cumbersome and unwieldy and had to dismantle the binding to break it down into more manageable volumes. We used one base (3 figures) per cavalry squadron and 6 figures per infantry battalion and we did not re-base. The melee factors allow for bigger battalions. The Reserve area is immediately behind the main part of the Division/Corps. It is a little bit nebulous but moves with the units just like the Reformation Area. Both are good concepts but a major pain in the game. Your experiences might be different of course and it would be great if you posted again after you have tried the rules. You can check the Wargamorium blog – click on the Napoleonic Wars in the Category Section on the right hand side – you will see that my initial reaction was very optimistic as well. thewargamorium.wordpress.com Regards |
DaleWill | 06 Feb 2018 4:34 p.m. PST |
ESR is my go to Napoleonic rules. Cavalry is represented by squadron groups. Just make sure all the bases represent the same number of men. If you want each base to be 200 men and the regiment of 4 squadrons only had 400 men, the regiment would have 2 bases. |
Lieutenant Lockwood | 06 Feb 2018 7:18 p.m. PST |
Agree; I play it solo, steadily modeling some pretty big battles in 2mm. They take some thinking, but I love the scale, and the concepts. Regards…..Mark |
4th Cuirassier | 07 Feb 2018 6:49 a.m. PST |
I have one of the scenario books, Roll Up That Map, which I find very useful for uniform and set up information. It is as promised largely agnostic as to what rules you use since the information is expressed in yards and in units, so you would slot in whatever you've got. I've not bought or played the rules because the high level isn't my thing. If you abstract out columns, lines and squares, then I question whether what's left would look recognisably Napoleonic. An ACW battle would look like an SYW battle would look like an ECW battle would look like a Napoleonic battle. Of course some want the command of an army and to ignore exactly those things so it makes sense that rules should exist. |
Garryowen | 07 Feb 2018 7:38 a.m. PST |
Having wargamed Napoleonics since 1959 or 1960, I have played lots of rules. In the past couple of decades I have been searching for a set where each player can command a corps, with the tactical unit being no larger than a regiment, and finish the game in about six hours of play. The rules must give the look on the table, and the feel of, a Napoleonic battle. These rules fill the bill the best of any I have tried. ESR is the only Nap rules set we use at my house now. I have great guys I game with, but it can be very hard to get them to buy rules. Then it can also be hard to get them to read them. More of my group have bought these rules than any other we have played with, regardless of period, in years. The last two guys to whom I introduced the game played it without ever having having seen the rules. They caught on very quickly. I can run games in six or seven different periods. This game is the one for which I get the most requests. Darken, doing the skirmishing the way these rules do eliminates the need to check a roster for each unit in order to calculate the skirmish points. I like it myself the way it is. You could always add that though. My group really enjoys the rules and so do I. The mechanics are quick. Combat is resolved much faster than any rules I have played that have battalions and squadrons as the tactical unit. My figures are based for Uncle Duke's Napoleonette and they work fine. To be honest, my base sizes are narrower and deeper than the rules suggest, but that has been non problem. I know they are off scale, but it looks good and it works. ONe of my players is very much into the correct footprint of the unit. He hasn't said a word. I have run 1809, 1812, 1813, and 1814 games all with the same basing. For 1813-1814, I just use fewer battalions per regiment. I thought the rules were very well written. I find them to be consistent. The phases and steps within a phase are laid out beautifully on the QRS. We have found that many questions are answered simply by understanding that those phases control what happens when. Initially I was concerned about the same thing 4th Cuirassier has said. I thought I would miss the columns, lines and squares. But I realize I can't have a player be a corps commander and have that detail. None of my other players find it a minus either. The key is that the table still looks very Napoleonic. I love them because you definitely get a Napleonic look and feel without being bogged down in minutia. Tom |
marshalGreg | 07 Feb 2018 8:06 a.m. PST |
Yes the The Complete Players Handbook is the copy to have to answer or give guidelines to the Army building. I have played 4 times now and with running my own game at Historicon as a mini campaign which was my "defining Moment" with he rules.. The action was that of April 18&19's opening moves. Amazing the Players followed pretty much the same as the Historical commanders, even though they had much latitude. I found it best to not to vary base size to exact sizes to strengths but follow more the small, medium and large. large being units of the 850+ size ( Austrian) and Medium being >600 that worked with my current basing scheme. Cavalry fell into two sizes Normal and large. Normal would be the typical large sqdn or " sqdn division" of 2 small sqdns at ~220. SO for example 7th Hussars would be 3 units. At 15mm I would have 3 groups of 4 figures ( 2 stands) present for that regiment. This could also be a 3 figure stand depending on your current mounting scheme. Just set a standard and set all the other relative to it, per the footprint scale you are playing. IE. I use the 1 " is 75 yards scale so the Austrian 900 man battalion is 3.5" sabot/playing base and set every thing else against that. Agree with 4th Cuiassier, a grandtactical game, that is playable in a reasonable amount of time, will present the forces more generic against all periods. So the compromise needs to hit some where in between. ESR is very close to that center. IF too much battalion formation activity is present, the game slows down… just to even move the magnitude of stands, since each player should be commanding somewhere > 35 units, let along any typical tactical play we are accustom to in tactical level games! But unlike the other GT games, the battalion is present in and has presence to the tactics in ESR. The multi colored dress of specific regiments is thus still present, still making of a Napoleonic Era field. I have put in the errata into my play book. A pain yes, but the investment has paid off with easier play. David will address in later revisions/printing runs, I am sure. Place yourself in his shoes, as the amount of effort to have done what he has done for the period/hobby so far, in just a few short years! Remember we all do this for the hobby and his passion is clear on that front. No one has got it perfect and satisfies everyone's needs or desire. Is it the GT Napoleonic play holy grail?… not sure… time will tell. It is the only rules where I have played a miniature game of some 45,000 to 60,000 size Armies per side (and at some >2000+ figures on the table) in about 5 hrs or less and had clear result as to who lost! I certainly could not do that with Empire V, unfortunately, which I had become very proficient with. Good luck and be patient with them! MG |
Murvihill | 07 Feb 2018 10:38 a.m. PST |
I've played a few times, and my only real issue had to do with 'onesies': At Quatre Bras there was single battalion garrisoning a town with no artillery support and no where near the rest of its divisions and two French divisions payed 3 fatigue points each bypassing it. The other is when you have one or two cavalry stands attached to a division they are pretty useless as you lose a ton of fatigue points for unleashing them. Austrian light divisions are the worst, in fact I think they are the bane of all grand-tactical games as they are a hybrid animal with both inf and cav and I haven't found a set of rules that shows why they were created. All that said, I'm a 1:20 player at heart. |
Darken92 | 07 Feb 2018 10:21 p.m. PST |
Thank you everyone for all of the responses, I do appreciate it. They certainly look to be my go to rules for large battles (You may note I purchased 2 of the campaign guides meaning I have already spent >$300 AUD on them, and will purchase the 1813 book when available.). It is just a shame I need to add house rules – at least for unit sizes. Still not convinced that the game tends to create super units, but all rules tend to do that. @ Murvhill – By adding cavalry to Austrian Light Divisions you negate the enemy Skirmish values for infantry battalions (Rule 5.1.3). However you remove the ability to react with them, so a trade off in the rules. @ The Wargaming Company – Thank you for the response, however by AAR what I would really like to see is a detailed battle, going through each step and how it affected game play. @ Wargamorium – I agree about the binding, different from other rule books, almost as if you are meant to take it apart. |
138SquadronRAF | 08 Feb 2018 7:57 a.m. PST |
Austrian light divisions are the worst, in fact I think they are the bane of all grand-tactical games as they are a hybrid animal with both inf and cav and I haven't found a set of rules that shows why they were created. All that said, I'm a 1:20 player at heart. Interestingly enough War Artisan's "Napoleonic Command II" perfectly reflects the workings of an Austrian light Division where these couple of squadrons of cavalry are an excellent force multiplier. |
Pete Fry | 08 Feb 2018 8:03 p.m. PST |
I tried these rules with my group in Portland – overall they liked them and want to try again. My main takeaways: The rules writer is awesome – post any questions here or on the yahoo group and you will get a detailed, patient answer within a day or so. This is a steep learning curve – especailly if no one has played them before. We managed about one turn an hour although things were speeding up by the time we had to pack it in for the night. My army is 25mm and based in a way that lends itself to 8 figure battalions and 3 figure squadrons on 60mm x 40mm bases – so 75 yard scale. At this scale it looks OK (although the nerdy part of me likes my 24 figure battalions with the right ratio of plume colours) – in fact quite grand with 100s of figures on the table… however the consensus was that smaller figures would be better – either for greater figure density at 75 yard scale or to accomodate a larger scale. Even though we had a big table I felt these rules must really come into their own whwn you have both a big table and 150 or 200 yard scale. To your point I'd love to see a complete example of 2 divisions clashing head on with all the deployment, artillery and terrain considerations demonstrated. I found that the players were easily getting the hang of the tables and how to employ all the modifiers but some of the other mechanics (where do I physically put my deployed artillery? Do they just jump there?) Were more opaque and it was hard to answer questions quickly We are even considering videos to demonstrate – maybe someone already has… it would be very helpful. Finally – I'd love to see a 100days campaign book – perhaps with some ahistorical scenarios using 100 da?ys armies as there weren't many battles and some wargamers seem to have quatre bras fatigue. |
|