Achtung Minen | 28 Dec 2019 7:51 a.m. PST |
Salut, I am new to Napoleonics but not wargaming in general and I am looking for some rules. I'll describe how I'd like the play to look and feel and then please ask for your kind recommendations. 1) I want the battlelines to be extremely dynamic and change regularly during the course of the battle. The rules should facilitate the formation of salients, encirclements, breakthroughs, retreats to reform and just the general dance of warfare. If battles tend to be fairly static or the rules do not have an emphasis on maneuver and counter maneuver, then they will not be able to hold my interest for long! My model game for this is something like Warmaster Ancients. 2) Either Division or Corps level and works well with 6mm miniatures. I would like to command a healthy force that includes infantry, cavalry, cannons and so on without stretching the credibility of historical troop organizations. That said, the formation should be represented with a manageable number of stands: I would like a game that doesn't require so many figurines on the table that the battle-lines stretch halfway across the table. A mostly empty table (with a fair amount of nice terrain, of course) leaves lots of maneuver and deployment options for a force with a relatively small footprint. 3) Points values and balance are not important. I would prefer a game that forces the players to do historical research and come up with unique scenarios, even if they aren't "fair." To that end, I would love a ruleset that puts an emphasis on an impartial referee and equips him with a whole toolbox of historical options to tune-in the right feel for the engagement. I am less interested in a ruleset where Imperial Chasseurs always fight exactly the same… I'd like to be able to tweak their effectiveness up or down or give them different traits that capture their performance at different engagements. 4) The rules may be complicated, but they shouldn't take longer than 3 hours to play a normal-size game. Also, I am an old heart when it comes to wargames… I like tables, charts and so on. I do not like some of the newer game mechanics that you see in some wargaming genres these days. Innovative mechanics are fine, but the most important thing is capturing the spirit of the period, not competing with other players by optimizing an "army list" with a slew of nation-specific special rules. Play, balance and special cases should be largely left up to the imagination of a referee. What fits that bill? If you give a suggestion, could you please describe both where that ruleset excels and where its faults lie? |
Mike Petro | 28 Dec 2019 8:39 a.m. PST |
Do like we all do and buy and read twenty different sets, until you find something acceptable. You will get a ridiculous # of suggestions here from gamers who enjoy THEIR preferred set. Trial and error is the only way. |
Extra Crispy | 28 Dec 2019 9:33 a.m. PST |
I have written detailed summaries of many Napoleonic rule sets here: link I would strongly recommend you look at Age of Eagles. Each unit is a brigade. I have played it several times and it definitely fits point #1. There are some charts but not too many and the charts are well done and efficient. I like that morale is really part of activation/movement. It would be very easy to "tweak" and use fewer stands than recommended, or even single stands with rosters and a few formation markers. The rules count bases not figures so are scale agnostic. Another plus – there are a good number of scenarios available. Plus it is a variant of an ACW rule set, and there is another variant for 1700-1789. |
79thPA | 28 Dec 2019 10:51 a.m. PST |
I think your expectations regarding point 1 are rather unrealistic, and more suited to modern mechanized warfare as opposed to a Napoleonic army that slogs about on foot. By the time the troops hit the table, the battle lines have been drawn. Put your artillery will they will be able to fire with affect, maintain a reserve, And use your cavalry to exploit advantages. Are there real life examples that you are thinking of that may help me understand what you are referring to? |
lkmjbc3 | 28 Dec 2019 10:55 a.m. PST |
For club and convention games I suggest Volley & Bayonet. For one-on-one Age of Eagles is great. Joe Collins |
Sho Boki | 28 Dec 2019 11:29 a.m. PST |
Yes, I know the rules, that almost "fits that bill". Almost, because these are not for Division or Corps level only, but for entire Army level. Also there are only few tables and charts on lists of paper, because most of data are placed on table as markers. NCO shows available ammo, drummers shows good order etc. Stands are battalions, units are from regiment to Division, depending the number of battalions in Unit. On paper there are only chart for artillery fire and universal formulas how to calculate troops movement, fire and fight. Data for these formulas are on table with units but not as written text. Faults? Sure, there must be some faults. I need to find these. |
pbishop12 | 28 Dec 2019 12:48 p.m. PST |
I didn't see where having fun is a requirement also. |
Achtung Minen | 28 Dec 2019 12:50 p.m. PST |
@Extra Crispy, thanks I will check this out. @79thPA, I mean primarily maneuver warfare. I am no expert on Napeoleon's wars, but am thinking of battles like Leuthen (1757) where both tactical and grand maneuvers are continually used throughout the engagement to knock your enemy off balance. @Sho Boki, do your rules have a name? |
Pattus Magnus | 28 Dec 2019 1:04 p.m. PST |
What about focusing on scenarios that centre on cavalry actions? Those would likely have more scope for maneuver and breakthrough, regardless of what rules system you use. Sahagun in the Peninsula is too small for what the OP is interested in, but there must be some larger actions where cavalry divisions came into contact as part of wider battles. (I'm no period expert, so can't really suggest specific examples) |
Sho Boki | 28 Dec 2019 1:07 p.m. PST |
Yes, the name is EMPEROR. But you don't find it. I maked EMPEROR Rules not available, until I produce enough 6mm and 10mm units, especially designed for these rules. |
MajorB | 28 Dec 2019 1:22 p.m. PST |
I am no expert on Napeoleon's wars, but am thinking of battles like Leuthen (1757) Clearly not. The Battle of Leuthen (1757) was fought during the Seven Years War, not the Napoleonic Wars. |
Saber6 | 28 Dec 2019 1:53 p.m. PST |
Listen to the mouse. I've run Age of Eagles at conventions and most players are running on their own by turn 3-4. |
Mike Petro | 28 Dec 2019 3:26 p.m. PST |
+1 to 79th PA. Some people have complained about wall to wall troops and lack of maneuvering. Not many huge maneuvers when the enemy is within 1,000 yards, unless you want an enemy division in the gap you left. In most our table top games the die is cast and what is in front of you is the opposition to overcome. |
Rudysnelson | 28 Dec 2019 4:05 p.m. PST |
We did Guard du Corp back in 1981. An old style matrix system with plenty of data on unit sizes and numbers per country. Evaluation of melee and morale. The maneuver unit is a battalion. One innovative feature is the urban built up area/zone. The zones act as a sponge for troops committed to it. Good reading even if you use another set. |
Achtung Minen | 28 Dec 2019 5:58 p.m. PST |
Clearly not. The Battle of Leuthen (1757) was fought during the Seven Years War, not the Napoleonic Wars. I never said the Battle of Leuthen was fought in the Napoleonic Wars… Napoleon hadn't even been born when that battle was fought! |
Dexter Ward | 29 Dec 2019 4:55 a.m. PST |
If you want extremely dynamic battle lines, then maybe Napoleonics is not the right period. Most Napoelonic battles feature a lot of attrition. Warmaster Ancients is a great game but bears very little relation to ancient battles, which mostly featured very little manoeuvre. |
MajorB | 29 Dec 2019 5:22 a.m. PST |
I never said the Battle of Leuthen was fought in the Napoleonic Wars… Napoleon hadn't even been born when that battle was fought! Why use it as an example then? |
Sho Boki | 29 Dec 2019 6:03 a.m. PST |
I think, he used this as example of maneuvre. That there must be enough space on table to perform such maneuvres. And he is right. Not particulary for such kind of maneuvres but space for much bigger maneuvres must be there. |
Achtung Minen | 29 Dec 2019 8:37 a.m. PST |
Why use it as an example then? Precisely because, as I said, I am not very familiar with Napoleonic War battles, which is why I used Leuthen as an example instead. I mean, I know a little bit about several famous Napoleonic fights, but I do not feel confident about my knowledge of these enough to use them as examples. As I said at the top, I am new to Napoleonics. Are you implying that warfare changed dramatically between 1757 and the early 19th century, such that tactics used at Leuthen were something that was never seen in the Napoleonic Wars? That could be the case, I am no expert, but I would be surprised… In any case, I was pressed by 79thPA to come up with an example of the kind of scenario I was envisioning and I came up with something with which I was familiar (rather than take a stab in the dark and be wrong about a Napoleonic battle of which, as I mentioned, I have only basic knowledge). |
Achtung Minen | 29 Dec 2019 8:44 a.m. PST |
I think, he used this as example of maneuvre. That there must be enough space on table to perform such maneuvres. And he is right. Not particulary for such kind of maneuvres but space for much bigger maneuvres must be there. Precisely, thank you. The term I am more familiar with is from WW2: operational scale maneuver. As far as I understand, this is called grande maneuver in Napoleonics? I am not sure if there are important differences, but essentially the tabletop is not the battlefield itself, but contains many, many options as to where the battle(s) could be fought. Does such a ruleset exist in Napoleonics? |
Stoppage | 29 Dec 2019 10:07 a.m. PST |
Most of your dynamic operational requirements would be met by a Napoleonic campaign-level wargame – such as 1814 France or 1796 Italy, etc, etc. There is probably a number of board games you could try – have a look at boardgamegeek.com: link For dynamic tactical requirements then perhaps smaller wars would suit – Russians in 1798 Switzerland, HEIC in 1803 India, etc, etc |
Whirlwind | 29 Dec 2019 10:16 a.m. PST |
There are a few things you might look at: Snappy Nappy (seems most suitable) the original Kriegspiel (enables the kind of movements you require) Black Powder (activation system gives possibility of sweeping movements using a division or two) Horse, Foot & Guns (ditto, but with a Corps or two) Paul Leniston's blog is worth checking out since he specializes in the short time-frame campaigns that you seem to be talking about link |
Timmo uk | 29 Dec 2019 12:17 p.m. PST |
You could look at Napoleon's Battles by Avalon Hill. If you use 6mm figures and adjust the unit footprint and movement rates you could have a table with an awful lot of open space in which to make strategic movements. I think it'll take you longer than three hours to resolve such an action though. It might be worth having a look at the games of Bruce Weigle if you aren't already familiar with his approach. He plays a later period but it'll show you what grand tactical rules can look like in 6mm. If I was starting the hobby afresh I'd probably now do everything in 6mm. |
Stoppage | 29 Dec 2019 2:27 p.m. PST |
Caution Mine: This book has wargames rules for many different levels of warfare: GRIFFITH, Paddy: Napoleonic Wargames for Fun 1980 link |
MajorB | 29 Dec 2019 3:24 p.m. PST |
Are you implying that warfare changed dramatically between 1757 and the early 19th century, such that tactics used at Leuthen were something that was never seen in the Napoleonic Wars? Yes. |
Stoppage | 29 Dec 2019 3:54 p.m. PST |
Selected changes between 1757 and early 19th Century: Military Organisation: --------------------- Development of Army Division of all three arms (horse, foot, and guns) - this broke the purely linear warfare of 18thC - gave responsibility of flank protection to organic elements (such as artillery and cavalry) Development of Army Corps - this allowed larger armies to move across the country - this allowed more dynamic campaign movements - this allowed feints and concentrations Concomitant development of grand tactical manoeuverings - allowed rapid employment of troops from reserves - forced greater cooperation between organic elements (eg coordination between divisional artillery and infantry brigades) Artillery: --------- Infantry guns served by trained artillerymen (Russians) Infantry guns removed from many arms for concentration in batteries (Austrians, British, French) Grouping guns into batteries and attaching to army divisions. Grouping larger guns into batteries and attaching to army corps General improvement of ordnance: - lightened, shortened and easier to manoeuvre equipments Artillery training schools. Development of iron shot in canister versus lead shot - increased range and lethality Other stuff: ----------- Development of light infantry tactics - allowed small numbers of troops to engage, and fix, larger numbers of close order troops Development of cavalry reserve corps and divisions - no longer confined to army wings versus enemy horse - Cavalry used as grand tactical asset I'd like to type more but have been told to go to bed. Bawwww!
|
Achtung Minen | 29 Dec 2019 8:35 p.m. PST |
Thank you for the very useful info Stoppage (and thank you for the recommendations Whirlwind and Timmo)! |
colkitto | 31 Dec 2019 7:44 p.m. PST |
This might be the sort of thing you are after? He makes it look good and sound like fun: link |
Darken92 | 01 Jan 2020 9:31 p.m. PST |
ESR 1) Dynamic battlefields – Does not use individual units but each unit makes up a major maneuver element – check 2) Corp Level – each player can command a corp – check 3) No point values – use the historical formations – check 4) A new game mechanics for mass formation combat to allow large battles to be played in a reasonable time frame (and uses charts) – Check While I have 1 or 2 minor issues with these rules they tick all your boxes and would be my go to for that scale. |
ChrisBBB2 | 02 Jan 2020 4:07 a.m. PST |
Recent TMP discussion of another relevant option here: TMP link |
MrZorro | 05 Feb 2020 8:20 a.m. PST |
About DBx systems. Can DBN be played without having or reading DBA before? Is DBA 3.0 is compatible as a base with DBN 2.1? |
SHaT1984 | 05 Feb 2020 2:24 p.m. PST |
>> You will get a ridiculous # of suggestions here from gamers as equally expecting a set of 'rules' to play an historical' game for you… thats why they invented computers… Who said battles have to be 'extremely dynamic'? Many were just the opposite. d |
tansteel | 05 Feb 2020 9:52 p.m. PST |
About DBx systems. Can DBN be played without having or reading DBA before? Is DBA 3.0 is compatible as a base with DBN 2.1? DBN shares many mechanics of the DBx rules (Pip rolls, Group Maneuver, opposed combat rolls), but you don't need DBA to play DBN. |
Glenn Pearce | 06 Feb 2020 7:42 a.m. PST |
Hello Achtung Minen! Welcome to the wonderful world of Napoleonic's. 1) Napoleonic battle lines are mainly static and generally only change when one has been ruptured. Which in most cases brings the battle to a conclusion. Most battles were simply two lines having a go with one side defending and the other attacking. Often the attacker makes one major attack that makes or breaks the day. Some battles did have a maneuver that often met with success but generally that had to be planned in advance. Napoleonic's is really all about the defender being able to ward off all attacks and the attacker being able to launch an effective and timely attack. On the surface that sounds a little boring but being able to acquire the skills to do either of these rolls does not happen overnight. So the devil is in the details which are simply not that obvious. It's probably very different from Warmaster Ancients. 2) 6mm is another critical factor as it's one of the few scales that will allow you to play pretty much any size of battle that you want on a reasonably sized table. To obtain historical credibility might require a sizeable force which could be a Division per player. In most armies a lot of Divisions only had infantry or cavalry with artillery mixed in. It's entirely up to you how realistic or not you want to size your battles. Some rules will also package these formations in different sizes that can give you a different perspective. Yes indeed, it's also extremely important to try and avoid any battles that don't give your troops any room to maneuver or offer no flanks. Both sides need to have as many options for their battle plan as possible. Otherwise the game is doomed before it even starts. 3) I also don't like rules that have point values or objectives. They are not a reflection of historical Napoleonic battles in any way shape or form. Historical research, unique scenarios and a toolbox of options is the only way to get the maximum out of Napoleonic games. 4) Complicated rules generally translate to well, complications. Avoid them like the plague. What fits that bill? Well what a surprise, I can only toot my own horn "Ruse de Guerre" published by Baccus6mm in 2017. It is designed for the wars in North America from 1754 to 1815, however, since it includes the War of 1812 some players including my own club use them for Napoleonic's as well. They seem to exceed your requirements by offering up a lot of what you are not even looking for. There is a sliding scale that allows you to increase the size of your battles as your collection grows. You can rate the quality of your troops and their commanders anyway you want. There is a very simple basing system that is well known and used within the 6mm community. The game puts a lot of pressure on both commanders and their subordinates to respond to the changing dynamics of the battlefield every turn. Players often know very well at the end of a game that they won or lost a game often due to their own decisions. The C&C's actually control all the attacks on their side. You are not bogged down with recording casualties or wasting time changing formation. The game is controlled by cohesion and Tempo (a unique order and supply system). The rules themselves are brief, only about a dozen pages. Pretty much read and play. If you ever want to play the F&I War, AWI or War of 1812 there is no added expense or learning curve. The rules can be purchased from Baccus, On Military Matters or a pdf from Wargame Vault. Have any questions I can be reached on this forum or the Baccus forum. For you the rules don't have a lot of charts. It was intended by design to minimize chart crunching and allow players to easily memorize as much as possible. The rules are probably at the forefront of modern design and won't work for a lot of "Old School" players who enjoy low level tactics. Obviously I don't see this as a fault of the rules as they were never intended to cater to people who have these preferences. Hope this helps you out in some way. Best regards, Glenn |