"Looking for more detailed Napoleonic Ruleset" Topic

I currently play and enjoy Shako. But lately I have been craving a meater Napoleonic experience.

I am looking for a more detailed Napoleonic ruleset that will allow me to play mostly solo, units are battalions, will allow me to command at least a corps per side, fit on my 6x5 foot table, and finish in a day, although I can leave the battle up for longer.

What ruleset do you recommend, and why?

Honestly, I would recommend to write your own ruleset. As winning is of no importance in a solo game, the critical confrontation with all aspects of leading a corps into battle is quite challenging.
Somehow it is like playing chess solo. And I truly believe that different nations need different rules for their command system.

Figure size? Preferred figure ratio i.e. 1:20?

If your table's 6' wide you need to be able to fit either side into about a 4' width of that, otherwise you're going to get one of those rather weird flankless battles you sometimes see.

A corps is about 25,000 men of whom normally 15% would be cavalry, 5% gun crew and 80% infantry. Ish. Obviously some corps, like Davout in Russia, were huge and others were smaller.

So the 20,000 infantry would be about 30 or 35 battalions, which is four to eight divisions depending who and when we're talking. Infantry normally formed up in three lines (not ranks, lines as in defensive lines or tiers). So you're going to be fitting about ten battalions into your 4' frontage with cavalry in reserve behind. This means each battalion can be about 4" wide, maybe a shade more.

You don't say what figure size or basing you're using, but that's about 8 figures abreast in heroic 28mm, so maybe 16 figures if you like them in two-rank lines. If so, you have 16 figures = 650 or so men, which tells you that you have a 1:40 figures:man ratio for the infantry. It's 1:80 if you do single lines, or it's 1:20 or something if you use smaller figures than those 12mm, 15mm, or whatever.

For the cavalry, the 15% of the headcount we said earlier is about 3,000 men which is roughly 8 units of 400 men, probably one light and one dragoon. Applying the 1:40 ratio gives you 9 or 10 figures per cavalry regiment. Once again, this would be more figures fittable into the same space if your figures are smaller, so a 12mm cavalry regiment might be 30 figures or something.

So it feels to me like you need a set of rules built around that sort of unit footprint. Offhand I have no idea what sets this points you to, but it's how I'd think about it. It tells me that in your shoes, if I were attempting this in 28mm, I'd be looking to paint about 1,200 figures to represent two equal size armies.

I have written summaries of a good number of Napoleonic rules here:

link

They describe basing and how the various mechanisms work, ground scales, etc.

Republic To Empire might be a good start (and I sell them at ScaleCreep.com). You might also consider Lasalle – but change the basing/ground scale.

I already have several 15mm armies based ala Napoleon's Battles (infantry 2x2 on a 20x25mm base, horse also based 2x2 but on a 25x50mm base) with 16 figures to an infantry battalion and 12 to a horse regiment, with puts me at about 1:35 ratio. I usually game with about 30 units a side, sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. I have been looking at gaming more historical scenarios than pickup games.

Since most ruleset's basing and figure ratio is not set in stone, and I am mainly gaming solo, I am not concerned about basing or figure ratios. I can adapt the rules to my current basing and figure ratio.

So, given these perimeters, what Napoleonic ruleset will give me more details/crunch?

Siegeworks Studio has a Napoleonic variant of the rock solid Konig Krieg rules. There's enough free stuff on its website to give a decent overview.

I could suggest xXxX but it's best not

There are a ton of rule sets out there that function really well for 18th Century battles, the real question should be

What are your expectations from a set of Napoleonic rules ?

For me, this is, at a minimum

1. Command and control (Fog of war)
2. Interactions between Cavalry, formed infantry, skirmishers and artillery
3. Tactical viability of column, line and square, in particular as related to effective musket range

I know people who are against anything to do with (1). "I painted this god-dammned army, they should be able to go wherever I want". Even when there are rules related to my points above, they tend to be tacked on and sometimes very complex

In addition to items specific to Napoleonics, rules should be

• Easy/quick to learn. Don't need to reference the rule book constantly
• Finish in a reasonable time frame – 2 hours for a small battle, one day for an enormous one
• No rebasing
• Not too many different dice, markers, record sheets, etc.
• Lots of decision making, not just line up and roll dice. Much as I enjoy a tea break, I don't want to spend 20 minutes doing nothing during someone else's command phase
• Work well on the size table you have available
• Don't require a law degree to understand the rules
• Did I mention no rebasing ?

Your lists should be different from mine

In our club, we have been getting a lot of mileage from "Rank and File" rules. I am working on tweaks for my points 1-3. I've been thinking about them for a long time, but may have had a break through or two and actually write something down. I came to the conclusion long ago that I didn't really like any "Napoleonic" rules, so I would enjoy whichever set anyone wanted to use

Most rule sets I see (not just Napoleonics) are either pretty basic or get caught up in a specific mechanism, neither of which stops people raving over them.

Counter to my cynicism, there are a few sets of rules that I think are outstanding, with original concepts that drive the game in a way that matches the period and has me constantly engaged. My hat is off to the Fat Lardies, although there are many others. I've also spent many happy hours playing DBA. DBA does polarize opinions – I'm not trying to sell it to you , just show that there are examples out there. With DBA, you might notice that it breaks a couple of my points above pretty badly.

So, Mr Fox, I know I haven't answered your question, but I hope I've been able to explain my warped thinking, and why you may not get a definitive answer

John

Over the Hills gives a good, pretty historically realistic Napoleonic feel. Battalions have 24 rather 16 usually, based 2x2 and cavalry are units of 12

4th Cuirassier, that is an excellent summary of the situation, with size of battle desired and table dimensions driving ground scale and rules. If more people did that to start with, there would be much less frustration later.

Column line and square

Or

EMPIRE

Empire V is what we use. We game with 25-28mm miniatures on 1.5m x2.5m table, or approximately 6f x 4f. We like the national characteristics which affect movement, CnC, fatigue, morale, etc.

Extra Crispy, thanks for the link.

There are many choices which might meet your needs, but solo play would be especially suited to Field of Battle, which was just released in a 3rd edition earlier this year:

link

Peter

You may want to check out Napoleonic Command:

PDF link

You need the Carnage and Glory computer moderated rules, which are based on battalion sized units and can be scaled to whatever figure scale and table size you have. The rules account for changes in fatigue and morale based on results from the battlefield. The rules keep track of various factors on both sides that reflect changes in both brigade and army morale. The rules are quick to learn by new players since they don't have to worry about fire or morale tables, just focus on what a battlefield commander needed to worry about…how should I maneuver and fire.

We play an updated revision of the 1981 Guard du Corps. Back then we used Empire based on player feedback though Napoleons Battle base dimensions were more ground ratio accurate.

What is it that you dislike about Shako?

Might I suggest Grand Manoeuvre Napoleonics?

link

It believe that "GM" has more meat on the bone than some other rules mentioned here and more detail too, but it is designed to be played quickly. It comes with warnings not to micromanage battalions, but to think of the bigger picture :)

I also have a solo module for the Napoleonic rules at:

link

The solo rules are long (lots of pages) but they are spaciously laid out so that you can go through the sequence with some ease and skip to others if necessary.

More info. at the site or contact me at: contact@grandmanoeuvre.co.uk

This and more at my FB page:
facebook.com/grandmanoeuvre

And my mind goes to the Quarrie/Airfix rules. These let you break a movement into fractions and have firers getting a shot at the 2/5th and 4/5th impulse etc. The morale tests alone have two pages of modifiers. Also, every figure represents 33 men, and you keep track of how many casualties each unit takes, removing another figure when it gets to 33. Basing is a company in line.

And I truly believe that different nations need different rules for their command system.

I couldn't agree more.

Any ruleset that includes those differences?

I am talking about real historical differences, not about absurd wargame generalisations such as 'Ancien Regime Armies', 'Reformed Armies', 'Linear Armies' or 'French System Armies'.

@Ruchel (Joseph),

In Grand Manoeuvre Napoleonics, I have ten pages of information with diagrams on battle arrays for the major powers plus (really needing some different rules) additional info. on the Ottomans in a seperate section.

The 10 pages of information on dispositions and battle arrays is in both my Napoleonic rules and my solo module – links above.

Regards, Mike.

And I truly believe that different nations need different rules for their command system.

I couldn't agree more.

Any ruleset that includes those differences?

I am talking about real historical differences, not about absurd wargame generalisations such as 'Ancien Regime Armies', 'Reformed Armies', 'Linear Armies' or 'French System Armies'.

Any specific things you had in mind?

A nice question. To my mind much hinges on the word 'meatier'. You could be asking for more detail but I think perhaps you are in search of something more immersive, so that it feels Napoleonic without having to worry too much about the detail vs playability trade off – I think solo gamers face a particular challenge when the playability starts to tip into the red, and the older we get the sooner this happens in my experience. Therefore let me echo Oldnorthstate and suggest Carnage and Glory. Not only is it convincingly immersive but the right structure of a computer driven game I think makes solo play easier; the fact that the campaign system has just come out is an additional plus

Any specific things you had in mind?

Taking into account the up-to-date historiographical approaches based on a huge amount of primary sources now widely available, I think most Napoleonic wargame rules have become obsolete.

The real differences between armies are not found in tactical details (all armies used similar tactical procedures). They lie mainly in the command and control system.

Most rules use the typical national characteristics (stereotyped tactical generalisations such as British fire discipline, Russian morale, French skirmishers, Austrian slowness, and so on) in order to define the differences between armies. But this approach is an outdated absurdity.

We need a new generation of Napoleonic rules focused on command and control differences between armies. I am talking about different ways and procedures used by different armies regarding all aspects of command and control: deployments, orders, changing axes of attack, co-ordinated movements, use of reserves, reactions and responses to enemy's actions, command structure, orders activation, combat organizations, flexibility of brigades and divisions (different task and missions), and so on.

That's interesting Ruchel. Can you give me a couple of simple examples of what you mean, please? Any of those aspects you like, pick any two armies you know about and explain.

For example, let's use R. Goetz Austerlitz as a starting point. Austrians and Russians used lines, columns and skirmishers, and their basic tactical evolutions were similar to French ones. Of course, there were some tactical differences, but the main and decisive differences were found in command and control abilities and characteristics, including all aspects I have mentioned in my previous post.

The same can be said about other armies and other campaigns (1792-1797, 1799-1800, 1806-1807, Peninsula, 1809, 1812, 1813-14, 1815). Different armies and campaigns imply different command and control characteristics. Napoleonic wargame rules should include those differences because they were the main feature of Napoleonic warfare.

Apologies Ruchel, I am failing to make myself clear. I understood which aspects you do want covered, and which you think are currently over-emphasized. What I am asking for is a couple of concrete examples. So, taking your suggested battle, which specific command and control abilities at Austerlitz do you want reflected in the rules?

R. Goetz: 1805 Austerlitz. Chapter 7, The Causes of Victory/Defeat (p. 282). On those pages you will find command and control differences and ideas that can be studied by wargame rules authors in order to improve the rules design. And it is just one example. There are many other examples concerning other armies and campaigns, from 1792 to 1815. Authors (wargame rules designers) should study and research historical and historiographical sources.

I am not a wargame rules designer. I am an occasional wargamer and a miniatures collector. The correct design and the historical accuracy of wargames rules is the job and the responsibility of wargame rules designers.
I am a customer. If I pay for a ruleset, I would like to buy rulesets that are historically accurate, not a bunch of useless stereotypes and wargame myths.

A couple of concrete examples: first, coordination between arms and between brigades/divisions. Second, quick reactions and responses to changing circumstances of battle (new orders, change of axes of attack, and so on).

okay Ruchel, I understand.