"Age of Eagles-the end all, be all of rules?????" Topic

I have never personally played it but notice at convention's a lot do. From the web site seems to have a large group of supporters.
So, is it the best all around rule set available. Anyone familiar with it see any thing that it doesn't seem to do a good job at, anything you don't like vs other rule sets? Or does it seem to do the best job at being accurate and the easiest to learn and cleanest mechanics? Just curious. My understanding is, it is based off the Fire & Fury rule set that assume would have the same level of good & bad??? Thanks.

No set is the "best". That's totally subjective.

Who is the prettiest Country singer of all time?

Never played them or seen a game out western USA. I know of a group north of me that uses the rules (Santa Clarita). I read the AAR's on the game. Seems to play well…. and sort of like Fire & Fury with muskets and cavalry. But to be the best…. not a chance. One of many dozens of commercial and private rules in print.

No such thing. There are a lot of rules with devoted followings that I don't care for at all.

The answer to Winston's question is Lyle Lovett.

Well I admit the question is kinda loaded. If a gamer likes a rule set comes down to personal taste I full agree with that. That being said I guess I was curious from some that have played it does it stand out or does it focus on some mechanics at the expense of others-like most rule sets I have ever seen, for any period do?
Is that a better way to phrase the question:)

Ummm…Carrie Underwood…pffft…easy.

For multi stand brigades style rules. I like AOE over NB, however. Just my preference, but i would play either.

First off, it is a very good set of Napoleonic rules and we gave up Empire, From Valmy to Waterloo, and others for AOE years ago and have never looked back. It is a higher scale Fire & Fury system, which allows you to fight the larger battles of the period. That sounds strange at first, but when you see the scenarios it is amazing how many forces were deployed in such a small area! Also, the idea of having a reserve zone that feeds the front line operations really lets you handle troops much the same way as commanders of the period did.

If you're into 1:20 type games you will probably have issues with this kind of system. However, if you like to see brigades as the primary maneuver units, fight large battles, etc., then AOE does the job pretty well.

Emmylou Harris

Odd question when posed without any context.

AoE is a brigade level set of rules which means that for anyone that likes playing with brigades as the lowest level tactical unit then they are certainly good rules.

If you prefer to play with battalions of infantry, regiments of cavalry as your tactical unit size then AoE would NOT even be considered.

Kind of obvious really.

So to Gamer1, what type of game scale do you prefer? and then we can better respond to your question.

?If you're into 1:20 type games you will probably have issues with this kind of system. However, if you like to see brigades as the primary maneuver units, fight large battles, etc., then AOE does the job pretty well.

The thing is, AOE plays just like the 1:20 games. The only difference is that it calls each unit a brigade as opposed to a battalion.

AoE is a brigade level set of rules which means that for anyone that likes playing with brigades as the lowest level tactical unit then they are certainly good rules.

AOE, is ok, but they're not really "brigade level rules." The decisions you make and activities you perform are no different than those in a battalion level set of rules.

I like them, and have used them since the playtest set. Like aegiscg47 we ditched other rules and re-based for AoE.

They are easy to learn and give histroically reasnoable outcomes at the end of the battle.

I've run con games with all levels of experience and usually can sit back and watch the action after turn 3 as the players have a good handle on the mechanics. each player can usually handle a Corps of 2-3 Division.

If you want to worry about where that skirmisher stand is, these are not for you. If you want to plug that gap with a division or commit that last reserve to push through, these are the rules you want.

No – it doesn't cover WW2

Lyle Lovett or maybe Linda Ronstadt.

gotta go with Winston on this…Emmylou, even currently, she is still stunning. Back in the day, more so. Of course, I think Helen Mirren still has it going too! not that anyone asked…yeah.

Well the rules I made ten years ago and use at Cons is battalion level and I have always had very positive feed back from folks that play it. My question was interest in if it was worth a look, offered anything new or different, why some preferred it over others, etc.

Thanks.

Played my first game using these rules last week. Have played F&F for a couple of years so the basic ideas were easy to pick up. We were trialling a locally modified version as the person running the game thought the way the rules handle cavalry does not have a napoleonic feel.

Gave a fun game that "felt" right.

They are no question a fun set of rules

I also think that there are many different best rules as there are gamers

You do not necessarily need to re-base to play the rules! I do not have my collection mounted as such and played many a AoE.
key is… as with any rules… is both sides mounted the same.
If you are to join existing play/group, with the troops mounted as such, then yes there is that need to conform.

Yes it seems to be popular and well suited for convention venue – open game play. There is a lot of folks out there also who have played it/ familiar with it, making it inviting to run such a rules at these conventions.

Get a copy used and try them out. Good investment.

If you feel the need to stick with "more to having battalions in play" while still play at the same grand tactical level ( big battles), try looking at Es Sans Resultant. thewargamingcompany.com/esr

They have been achieving multi corp "in play" games with a resolution, in 3 hrs or less.

Good Luck
MG
MG

Emmylou Harris, as Winston says…

Martina McBride

While you guys are playing your 8 hour AoE game, I'll be playing 3 or 4 Commands & Colors Napoleonics games in that time. Different strokes for different folks. It all depends on the level of detail that you want your rules system to have. I am more interested in the commitment of major formations than where to send those 2 skirmisher stands that are attached to Friant's Brigade. :^)

It is a bathtubbed set of rules that looks like a battalion game but using brigades instead. The ranges of fire combat are silly. Just ignore reality and play- it is simple, easy to learn and play and okay for conventions and for people who are playing a lot of periods.

Johnny Cash!

Coopman, where to commit reserves and major formations is most of the AOE games. Anybody that read them will attest to that.

And, there are no skirmishers stands.

I ordered the AoE rules right after my post above. What can I say…I'm a rules junkie!

Its not the first time a set of ACW rules have been morphed into Napoleonics.just before I logged on I was skimming my old OTR set and had forgotten about the FPW and Napoleonic variants in the back.

1968bf:

Curious to know why you think AoE's fire ranges are so skewed. The designer is clear that there is a basic musket range, but that this gets pushed well out to allow for the increased radius provided by Brigade Skirmishers – where they are present.

Add to this the extra variability implied by 30-min turns, and these ranges seem reasonable enough to me.

In fairness, the ranges allowed for heavy foot artillery actually strike me as rather mean.

Finally, aegiscg47 mentioned the Reserve Movement mechanic as a highlight of the AoE system. This is designed (I understand) to reflect the decision-loop advantage of Napoleon's style and C2 system, particularly in the early years of the Empire. But this advantage fades as his opponents learn to copy the Napoleonic system, and as AoE turns into AoV the Reserve Zone is pushed off the table by the increase in battlefield weapon ranges.

This feature was never part of AoE's F&F parent. I also note that, with his 1871 update of the 1870 grand-tactical series, Bruce Weigle has removed his own comparable mechanism. So my question is: how many AoE players dump the Reserve Movement element altogether, and effectively play F&F with weapons and ranges adjusted for Napoleonic or European conditions?

In fairness, the ranges allowed for heavy foot artillery actually strike me as rather mean.

Don't have a copy hand, but anything over 1000 yds was against SOP and considered a waste of ammo. Heavy guns had 2 uses, longer canister range (out t0 500 yds) and battering things down.

Willie Nelson 😂😂😂😂

my question is: how many AoE players dump the Reserve Movement element altogether, and effectively play F&F with weapons and ranges adjusted for Napoleonic or European conditions?

I have dumped the Reserve Movement. It adds complications to the rules that I have never understood. I haven't seen a rationale for them from Col. Bill. Certainly reserves were important and the weren't always prompt in moving, but in general, they were no harder to get moving than any other troops, maybe less as they weren't in the line of fire when ordered.

I just don't see what the Reserve rules add to the game. Movement is slow enough as it is and the Maneuver table takes care of any Friction issues.

Interesting, McLaddie. My own position is agnostic, since I figured that the good Colonel must have thought about adding them. But this did strike me as adding an extra degree of gamey artificiality – witness the need to work through Reserve Movement before standard Tactical manoeuvres. Then I was also struck how RM was dropped from later scenarios.

Until '1871', Bruce W's rules simply awarded Reserves well beyond range of enemy fire an increased Movement Allowance. As I mentioned, he dropped this in the interest of simplicity and noted that this extra Allowance was scarcely used. But I wonder whether this would make a sufficient nod in the direction of Bill's original thinking, combined with Dicing for Initiative according to the CinC's rating.

No wish to derail the thread, but I believe that it is these mechanisms – more than the provision for troop types and weapons and the adjusted ground scale – that truly distinguish AoE from F&F.

As to the OP's original question, I can't see any rules ever being crowned as the be-and-end-all, but I am comfortable with using F&F/AoE as a basis for tinkering, resting on its/their tried and largely trusted reputation. Since the 19c battles that interest me most are at the small army/large corps level, I'm curious to fiddle with F&F/AoE to allow individual Bns to be shown within Brigades, borrowing ideas from Weigle and March Attack. Et Sans Resultat may also hold good ideas, but I'm hesitating in view of the fairly heft price tag.

Laretunue:

I should add that I think AOE does a good job in many areas and Bill has done an above-average job of supporting his rules with the history it is supposed to portray.

Et sans Resultat is another very good historical wargame with some intriguing mechanics not seen elsewhere.

I simply haven't seen any history or an explanation from Col. Bill about what the Reserve Movement mechanics are supposed to portray. i.e. I don't know why it is shown that way and haven't seen any history that I can relate to them.

Obviously, troops are going to move quicker without any opposition to worry about. So, why would it be difficult to get a reserve to move once ordered? As for orders, the reserve is easy to find [having been placed by the CinC] and certainly is anticipating an order… So?

In other words, why is there an initiative roll for reserves when it isn't seen as necessary for troops facing the enemy? I don't know.

As to the OP's original question, I can't see any rules ever being crowned as the be-and-end-all,…

I agree. I would think that is obvious. There is a lot if history that can be represented on the table. There are hundreds of effective ways just one small part of that history can be captured with game mechanics…

Which means there are a myriad of ways to design historically valid and interesting wargame on the same subject matter and never run out of alternatives.

The only question is how well the wargame does what is what is was designed to do… and that obviously includes how well it simulates those aspects chosen among the myriad to be recreated--and is it fun?

Reserve movement in AoE represents the differences in the abilities of the staff of the various nations involved, and how comparatively likely they were to be able to get formations to the battlefield when needed. Original F&F doesn't suffer from not having it because by the 1860s the principles of good staff work were known to everyone.

AoE is a very good set of rules. They're straightforward, easy to grasp and there are few tables to look up and in keeps the corps/wing/army commander out of the weeds with regard to the management of his brigades.

Reserve movement in AoE represents the differences in the abilities of the staff of the various nations involved, and how comparatively likely they were to be able to get formations to the battlefield when needed.

holdit:

Okay. The question for me is what is reserve movement meant to represent historically? When did reserves fail to move[and whatever other delays that could affect responding to orders] because of the abilities of the staff?

I can think of examples of staff problems, such as those suffered by the Allies at the beginning of Austerlitz, but that wasn't with their 'reserves' and it wasn't a brigade-by-brigade issue.

The AoE reserve movement is applied by brigade with an 'average' 50-50 chance of successful movement. 'Average' is the success ratio without without any command modifiers, but still… A 50-50 chance of failure to respond every half hour?

AoE is a very good set of rules for all the reasons you mention as well as others including the historical rationales that Bill has very consistently provided over the years

@McLaddie

As I understand it, it's the abilities of the staff and their methods, for want of a better word. This is why the Prussians have a -1 penalty for reserve movement, whereas the French with Napoleon/Berthier in charge get a +3. The Prussians weren't known for rapid decision-making.

Austerlitz is actually a good example. Looking at the map accompanying the AoE Austerlitz scenario, you can see that, apart from Kienmeyer, all Austrian formations start in the reserve zone, i.e. greater than 18" away from the nearest enemy unit. Reserve movement can be applied to all brigades in a formation with one die roll, as long as the cumulative modifier would be the same for each brigade.

Also, it's not as simple as just a 50:50 chance; a unit/formation gets a positive modifier for each turn that it fails reserve movement, up to a maximum of +4, and a unit that has successfully used reserve movement in the previous turn gets a +4 also. So a unit that is slow to get moving becomes more likely to do so as time passes, and a unit, once moving, is likely to keep moving. There is also a positive modifier for reserve movement on the first turn of the game.

AoE takes the view that once in the tactical zone (within 18" of an enemy unit), the playing field is more level, although impulse and columnar infantry are likely to get going more quickly than linear infantry.

Col Bill himself would probably make a better job of explaining this, but he is recovering from recent heart surgery so I imagine he has other priorities. :-)

Holdit:

Thanks for the explanation. I know it isn't 'as simple as 50/50 chance." I was saying that it is presented as a baseline for all the other modifiers including additional modifiers for subsequent turns until successful.

AoE takes the view that once in the tactical zone (within 18" of an enemy unit), the playing field is more level, although impulse and columnar infantry are likely to get going more quickly than linear infantry.

Yes, that is the conclusion to be made from the tactical/reserve zones movement rules. Don't see why that should be though. It suggests that it is harder to move troops outside of enemy influence than in.

Austerlitz is a good example. None of those formations were 'reserves', and that isn't semantics. They all had orders of the same kind to move at the very same time Kienmeyer did. Placing Kienmeyer closer than the other formations actually represents the results of previous formation missteps and all formations reached their appointed stepping off points on schedule….

The odds [on the maneuver table with command/staff modifiers] make sure that doesn't happen in the game.

Col Bill himself would probably make a better job of explaining this, but he is recovering from recent heart surgery so I imagine he has other priorities. :-)

Yes, to say the least. I am sure Bill would have a lot of cogent things to say on the subject. He is recovering well so far from all reports. I know we all wish him well.

Hi Bill,

(Just recognised you from the Yahoo Group)

I think the designer's intention is not that such movement is limited to units designated as reserves, but rather to refer to units that are far enough away from enemy units not to be reacting to them and hence dependent on direction from above, and/or an absence of "friction" in carrying out orders already received e.g. commanders squabbling over who has right-of-way.

I'm not sure I'm grasping the nature of your criticism with reference to Austerlitz, could you clarify?

(I've never played out Austerlitz myself, so that might be why.)

Gents (McL and Holdit),

My thanks to you both. I am also waiting avidly for more AoE players to share their opinions and experience. I still have yet to be persuaded that RM is a justified refinement, at least in my case. To explain better:

It does seem to be a feature more pertinent to the campaigns of the early Empire – I note you are both taking Austerlitz as the model example to demonstrate opposing views. Bill Gray introduced RM as a mechanism to illustrate the advantage of Napoleon's command and staff system in the face of outdated practices, but by 1812-13 many of his opponents had run to catch up. (RM was subsequently applied to the 16c campaigns of Age of Honour.) By the time of the Wars of Liberation, only the Austrian and Russian armies were left behind, and accordingly they suffer AoE battlefield penalties. By the time of the Hundred Days, in AoE terms at least, the French C2 advantage becomes marginal at best.

I am also interested in how Age of ~ models warfare in the decades that follow. Age of Valor does away with RM altogether, arguing (i) that no belligerents in its campaigns (those treated to date at least) possessed any advantage (hum: Prussia 1870?); but also (ii) that the Tactical Zone has expanded to that point that Reserve Movement no longer applies.

Well, this new AoV regime starts with the Crimean War. Surely field artillery range was substantially the same in 1850 as it 1815 (I acknowledge it swiftly increased thereafter)?

Not trolling the RM faithful, still less Col.Bill (blessings on his head). But like McLaddie, I still struggle the identify the tangible process that RM replicates, and part of my scepticism is that I can't see why if it is valid for one period, it abruptly ceases to be for the next.

This is not a question of religion, so I hope the debate can remain cordial.

Isn't it strange how we all take different things from these rules. I like the mechanism of RM as it enables the faster reacting French to concentrate forces for the decisive push, whilst the more ponderous allies may get caught up with the tactical battle and not be able to bring there reserves into play as easily

But it is just a mechanism. I don't really worry too much about the history of it. Just as with WW2 I like the battle group rules – even though they contain "mechanisms" more than pure historical justified rules

But great discussion guys

@laretenue

I think Marc the Plastics fan nails it in his post. Reserve movement is the way AoE represents the advantage obtained from the highly organised and professional French approach to planning and communication. I don't own the later versions, but I imagine it was retained as a means of differentiating between the quality of opposing army commanders.

I wouldn't consider myself "one the faithful", by the way. I do most of my Napoleonic gaming with Napoleon's Battles, but I have played Age of Eagles several times and I think there's a lot to like about it, and I certainly wouldn't put someone off buying AoE if they had a mind to.

I don't want to give the impression that I don't like or don't play AoE and Age of Valor. I enjoy them both. They do a lot of things right--enjoyable representation of history--history that Bill had related in generous detail. He has been very clear about his design goals and the history he has chosen to represent. [If he has done the same for the Reserve Movement rules, I haven't seen it] It is his game and so he is the one who knows the what's and whys of the design. I actually provided some ideas on the 'grande band' rule which Bill used, just to show that I do think AoE is a worthy effort which I have followed for a long time.

The idea that the Allied armies were 'ponderous' and somehow 'Friction' was a greater issue for the Allied armies than the French [particularly 1805-1809] needs to be reviewed…and whether the RM mechanism actually represents the kind of delays [for whatever reason] that occurred during the period.

The Allies at Jena, Auerstadt, Austerlitz or other battles weren't 'ponderous'. They moved just as fast and the French had Friction issues of their own. It all came down to the various subordinates.

At Austerlitz, One cavalry column made an error that physically disordered three other infantry columns… yet they moved just as fast as the French and were able to get into position within the Allied time schedule dictated by the plan. The response to the French moves what rapid save for one column…that commander simply decided that changing the direction of his attacks wasn't something he could do…he followed orders and received none to the contrary.

At the same battle Bernadotte's Corps did not move rapidly or as ordered so didn't participate in the battle as planned. Lannes and Soult had a heated argument the night before…Lannes challenging Soult to a duel…the Allies didn't suffer that kind of 'friction.' The French generals expressed as much doubt about Napoleon's battleplan as the Allied officers did theirs.

At Jena, the Prussians moved as ordered and as rapidly as the French. Any 'hesitation' was created by Hohenlohe, not his subordinates. Ney, against orders engaged part of his Corps in the middle of the French battle line and Napoleon had to spend time saving him.

At Auerstadt, The Prussians engaged the French very quickly, more quickly that was prudent. The early wounding of the Prussian CinC Brunswick hampered Prussian coordination…because the King [the real CinC] didn't react. In the meantime, there were at least two mistakes by the French divisions during the battle that Davout had to correct.

I could go on. The points being:

1. "Reserves", however you want to define them [including by the distance from the enemy] were no slower to react than frontline troops on either side.

2. Most problems/hesitations/lack of orders were created by the Allied CinCs, while Napoleon's were subordinate behaviors.

3. Even though the French were the most experienced, best trained, most professional army on the Continent, they seem to have had as many subordinate SNAFUs as the Allies. The issue seems to have been what the CinC did or didn't do about it [And yes, *could* do about it.]

Randomly keeping troops from moving doesn't really represent either the source of most of the Friction problems at the scale of AoE or what the CinC could do about it.

That approach strikes me as a watered down version of the McClellan rule for Antietam. Because the CinC made bad choices, players are forced to make the same choices by not moving troops.

Just my opinion. I do believe the use of Reserves is important and needed to be addressed by Napoleonic wargame rules… I just don't think the AoE mechanism does an adequate job.

Just my opinion.

Of course Mc. But what would you like to see? Your approach suggests commanders' skill, or lack of. So do we go back to limiting players with poor commanders? That could work, but potentially frustrating for the guys given the poor commanders.

So it is a " pick your mechanism" thing really. What we do on the table never really gets close to the actual battles of the period – not that we shouldn't stop trying of course.

Look at Black Powder and it's random orders dice and blunders. Not historical, but sometimes it provides those pivotal moments that the real world exhibits – the British cavalry charge at Waterloo. In mostrefights, the French player sees it coming. A BP blunder roll of charge the enemy springs a surprise. But I would be the last to look for historical justification for it.

So I am genuinely curious where you think rules should be heading, if the idea of RM doesn't work for you. And I say this not as a fanboy of AoE, I personally prefer the GdeB/Gd'A rules approach

Marc

Marc:

No, it really isn't a "pick your mechanism" thing. The question is what is the 'mechanism' designed to represent and then does it do an adequate job.

An adequate job in representation is whether the mechanism produces the identified situations with the accompanying command decisions, circumstances and opportunities found in the historical situations. Not all of them, not perfectly, but definitely in the ball park. I gave my reasons to think the ball park was missed.

What do I want to see? The mechanism dynamics recreate similar situations to what they are designed to recreate. If the history suggests that the problems were subordinates, then that is what should be represented.

For instance, Black Powder does have random order dice and blunders. The question is whether those mechanisms create similar command situations for the players [and historically similar rates of 'randomness'] Randomness for randomness sake is historical only in the broadest sense, if that.

For instance, Gd'A has brigades 'hesitating' with a base of 1/3 chance of hesitating. David was up front about the rate he chose. He decided on it because it 'worked' in the game.

Even with 'hesitating' representing a variety of situations, do brigades fail to move that often without 'encouragement?'

And maybe AoE has RM because it "worked" in the game.

I feel I am arguing too much here, which wasn;'t my intention, so I will go back to lurking and see if this conversation leads anywhere new now. Thanks for the replies

Marc

Perhaps the use of "Reserve Movement" was the not the best here.
If you look at it as engaged and not engaged then the mechanism is more to getting troops moving to battle period
(front Line troops yet to make contact)and the command control friction of that (committing troops). It is not a complete C&C mechanism, clearly, since only addresses those moving towards the enemy and not that of re-positioning or pulling ones out, for those "already engaged". From this though it makes sense why he settled to the use of RM.

Indeed, MarshalG, the terms you suggested terms come closer to my understanding of what is meant. Although to be semantic, the question is less whether these forces have been Engaged (i.e. brought under fire) than whether they have been Committed or remain Uncommitted.

But apart from what words are used, the question remains as to what processes are modelled. All the arguments upholding RM seem to reason in terms in of outcomes, rather than processes. All fair enough, if you think that way. But still not quite right – to my way of thinking.

And yes, I am well and recovering, but please play on as the conversation is enlightening.

Colonel Bill

I join others who've already wished you a full recovery. Delighted to see you back in this board.

Colonel:
Glad you are recovering well. Thanks for letting us know.