"Battle of Waterloo Chess Set" Topic
21 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 not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 08 Jun 2020 9:13 p.m. PST |
In 54mm… so you can also used them for a wargame… (smile) link Main page link
I would paint the figures… do you? Amicalement Armand
|
arthur1815 | 09 Jun 2020 2:36 a.m. PST |
The Franklin Mint did a similar set years ago. See link for an example. What amuses me about both these chess sets is that the designers feel they must represent the Queen by a female figure, so we have the strange situation that the two most powerful characters at Waterloo are Kitty Pakenham and the Empress Marie Louise, neither of whom was there historically, and who both would have probably 'had a fit of the vapours' and fainted clean away if they had been! On the Allied side, the Queen should surely be Wellington himself, and Louis XVIII, the King; for the French, Marshal Ney, with Napoleon as the King? |
Robert le Diable | 09 Jun 2020 5:43 a.m. PST |
Yes, I planned (hypothetically) a Waterloo Chess Set, but took the thinking a step further: sure, I could see any member of the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy or the English Public School breed in any guise whatever, but Ney in any role other than the most martial? However, I think in the original game, the "queen" was actually a "councillor"/"advisor", though it could only move one square diagonally at a time. The Eagle and drum, and the equivalent Lion and drum, for the Rooks was effective, if predictably Anglo-centric even allowing for the Netherlandish connection, and having the pawns in their variety of uniforms shown kneeling allows more consistency in scale to co-exist with difference in height, but those very junior cadets on ponies couldn't be fielded even as Light, let alone Heavy Cavalry. Don't think much of the terrain, though. |
Tango01 | 09 Jun 2020 12:18 p.m. PST |
|
arthur1815 | 10 Jun 2020 3:08 a.m. PST |
Here's an idea, if you already possess suitable figures: Use much smaller figures – 6 or 10mm – so a base of several figures will fit in a square. Pawns are line infantry – vary the regiments/nationalities as you wish. Rooks are heavy cavalry. Knights are light infantry/Rifles/skirmishers. Bishops are light cavalry/lancers. Queens are battlefield HQs with Wellington and Ney and a few staff officers. Kings are Napoleon and Imperial HQ at Le Caillou and Mont St Jean farm – these two pieces cannot move, but must remain in their starting positions, unlike normal chess. Just a bit of fun. ;) |
Tango01 | 10 Jun 2020 12:16 p.m. PST |
Good idea!…. Amicalement Armand |
Robert le Diable | 10 Jun 2020 12:53 p.m. PST |
arthur1815, I once played against a neighbour who had recently bought a Spanish set of pieces. I remember only that the King, Queen, and the Bishops were all representations of mediaeval characters (whether real historical people or generic crowned heads and clergy I don't recall). Crucially, each of these pieces was half-length; the figure came to an end at the waist. You've guessed it; half-way through the game I moved the Queen in a way which was literally decisive, not a "game-changer" but instead a "game-ender" (if that expression exist). It was a move the opponent had not expected, because he had thought the piece a Bishop. We went back to my wee wooden Staunton set. And you want to try that with 6mm, and a variety of colours? Le "mot de Cambronne" comes to mind. Jist havin' a laugh mysel. ""*[//]) {> :::: |
arthur1815 | 11 Jun 2020 3:07 a.m. PST |
Robert le Diable, I sympathise with your difficulty with the Spanish chess set; my son has a Lord of the Rings set, and I find it hard to remember whether the Uruk-Hai are bishops or knights. But I would suggest that wargamers are already used to distinguishing troops by arm of service and colour of uniforms. Even in 6mm, telling close order infantry from skirmishers, infantry from cavalry, and hussars or lancers from Horse Guards or cuirassiers would not be unduly difficult, especially when using figures one already possesses. I've decided to work further on this idea; I think it could be an entertaining game that might encourage youngsters to give wargaming a try, or be 'light relief' for grognards. |
Robert le Diable | 11 Jun 2020 6:05 a.m. PST |
Yes, indeed; I didn't mean to imply your idea was to be dismissed, of course, and was just recounting a memory which (I now realise) goes back nearly half a century (which causes a deal of surprise to me, whatever the humour). And you're perfectly correct, with regard to distinguishing both arms and formations, especially with familiar figures. I remember – about thirty years ago – seeing a Wargame of Borodino, 6mm scale and with the most carefully sculpted terrain; the various watercourses were actually cut into the boards, for instance, and glistened in places. And, deliberately seeking them, I did find it possible to find the Saxon cavalry (and they were all on black horses…). With regard to your own design/variation, I can readily see the logic to your distribution of troops/pieces, since the capacities of the Knight, together with its restricted range, make Skirmishers a good equivalent as well as visually distinct (like Lancers, of course; you'll have to use the Brunswick Uhlan Squadron for Wellington). Even the contrast between Boney's torpor and Nosey's activity has been considered, with the consequent complication of Le Caillou and Mont St Jean being immobile. Leaving aside the issue of Resigning (which could be termed "Abdication…"), I'm guessing that Checkmate would have to be delivered in the same locations each time, though of course not in exactly the same way. Or, have you already considered something along the lines of one Army breaking after losing so many points (using the conventional 9,5,3,1), which might actually be a handy way of introducing a "handicap" for one player? As you can see, I am quite taken by this idea, since I already have plenty of 15mm figures and a couple of Chess-Boards. Finally, there was a game called "Victory at Waterloo" which was made by a company called "Attackticks" (or something similar, some way of spelling this one-word-made-of-two), which might have been released at the time of the Bondarchuk film. The image of Napoleon on the box wasn't derived from any of the famous portraits, and looked very like Steiger. It was, I think, aimed at the general, popular market, with square, cardboard counters in three colours and with pictures of infantry, cavalry and artillery together with a number – 1, 2 or 3 – indicating Strength-Points. I remember these were slightly more than merely representative; among them were little pictures of a Highlander, a Cuirassier and Garde Grenadier. The board did have a grid of Hexes, but the Landscape was rendered rather like a contemporary map, with little pictures of red-roofed buildings and clumps of trees, and perhaps rivers. I remember that Artillery could not fire into or over any "ridge" Hex, for obvious reasons, and that the Prussians, rendered in a particularly unpleasant light green, started to arrive from the West after some moves had passed (a complication too far for Chess?). Anyway, as you'll have guessed, years ago I replicated these simplistic little cardboard counters with 20mm mosaic-tiles of several colours and one, two or three figures, painted appropriately, added. Artillery counters had the gun and two, one or no figures depending on whether the Strength were three, two or one. I'll have to look these out again! So, thanks for posting the idea; I'm sure I'm not alone in finding it interesting, and as you state maybe a way of interesting children in games that don't need a Mouse and Internet access…. Good Luck, R le D. |
arthur1815 | 11 Jun 2020 6:17 a.m. PST |
Robert le Diable, thank you for such a helpful reply! Your idea of army breakpoints is one I'll certainly consider. I'm not familiar with Victory at Waterloo; I'll check Boardgamegeek. I have a game from the 1960s (I think) in which lines of attack and the Prussian advance are portrayed by arrows divided by squares, along which troop pieces advance according to die rolls.That prevents the events in the game deviating too much from a recognisable Waterloo, whilst giving the French plenty of chances to win. Best wishes, Arthur |
Murvihill | 11 Jun 2020 9:13 a.m. PST |
I painted a chess set for my grandfather (not a wargamer), French and Russians with bolts painted white and black for bases. Later he said it was too confusing to figure out who was who. That said, I'd use cannon barrels as rooks and flags as bishops. |
Robert le Diable | 11 Jun 2020 10:08 a.m. PST |
Hey, this is taking off! Or maybe some of us can't leave alone an already great game – simple and easily picked up on the one hand, complex and never-mastered on the other – but must complicate it… At least it isn't the version with little sub-boards at different levels. Murvihill, you'll not believe this, but the cannons option for Rooks is exactly the decision I came to when, on occasion, wondering about making a Napoleonic Chess Set; simpler than having Martello Tower or Redoubt or Malborghetto Blockhouse. Hadn't, however, considered a Bishop being represented by a flag (hanging loosely, roughly in a cone-shape, rather than flying?). One thing would be essential, at least for any player quite unfamiliar with the period; rather than the variety of troops appropriate to Wellington's Army at Waterloo, pawns would have to be all of one uniform as well as posture; the bases being of black and white, or any two contrasting colours, wouldn't be enough on such a "busy" board. There was another Thread, long ago, about which figures to use in making such a Chess Set (manufacturers of suitable figures, I think, as well as some suggestions about which troop types); all I can recall is that someone warned against Russian Grenadiers at high-Porte with fixed bayonets. |
4th Cuirassier | 12 Jun 2020 3:50 a.m. PST |
I'm waiting for a 6mm Waterloo chess set to be played on one side of a D6. |
Robert le Diable | 12 Jun 2020 7:35 a.m. PST |
Not possible with 6mm figures (one to each base) unless you've got a very big D6. But, on similar lines, and having seen photographs of Doll-Houses with miniature Chess Sets (with pieces, whether or no these can be moved), I wonder are there any such Doll-Houses containing tiny lead representations of Military Figurines? Or, perhaps, is there anything like a Diorama showing a modeller making a diorama of another modeller making a diorama of a Napoleonic Prisoner-of-War making one of these Ship-Models? It wouldn't need to have running rigging, just shrouds. |
Imperiale | 13 Jun 2020 1:14 a.m. PST |
Franklin mint also did a Waterloo Draughts set which a nice addition |
arthur1815 | 13 Jun 2020 5:13 a.m. PST |
What happened when a Napoleonic draught reached the opposite side of the board? Did it reappear as Blucher or Grouchy? |
Sho Boki | 13 Jun 2020 5:17 a.m. PST |
Great idea. I will add my EMPEROR minibattle rules to chess and get EMPEROR Chess. :-) All "figures" moves as earlier but results of charges aren't granted. |
Robert le Diable | 13 Jun 2020 6:19 a.m. PST |
I've been returning to the original idea, with possible madifications (that's not a typographical error), and there's one thing I think difficult, visually at least, for myself. Perhaps the strong chequer-board pattern would counteract this, but, except for the opening of a game, the distribution of units would soon appear chaotic when judged by the expectations appropriate to a Wargame, though of course the same arrangement of Chess-pieces would be quite unremarkable. No, I don't have access to 15mm figures, or even a real Chessboard, at present! One other thought might be worth sharing, and that briefly. I've already judged it myself, but will just state sketchily the initial occurrence of the idea. That was, initial thought, have four boards placed together (16x16 rather than 8x8, so 256 rather than 64). That would not only allow for flanking manoeuvres, but each side could field more units; but not so many that the "Edge of the World is Nigh" once more. Why, the conventional 9,5,3,3,1 points system could allow choices of different, but balanced, forces. Starting to sound a bit familiar…. Anyway, this is really enjoyable, and I hope this light-hearted seriousness will continue until something emerges combining some of the best aspects of Boardgames, Chess, Wargaming and Painting/Collecting. R le D. |
Sho Boki | 14 Jun 2020 4:28 a.m. PST |
|
14Bore | 14 Jun 2020 8:28 a.m. PST |
Fascinating to see grouped figures as a chess set but pictured individual figures in the Napoleonic era as a set. |
Last Hussar | 14 Jun 2020 9:53 a.m. PST |
Colours for the Kings. Guard for the Queen Artillery for Rooks Heavy Cavalry for the Bishops Light Cavalry for the Knights |
|