"Commanders in Napoleonic wargames" Topic

Hello, so I'm about to ask about as broad a question as one can . I'm already dipping down behind my cover. But does anyone know of a list for Napoleonic commanders to give traits. I'm trying to individualise a command structure for a game and wanted an easy go to list for all nations . Example : Ney , rash , charismatic, valiant. It's to give a little colour and names to my commanders for a campaign idea snd games in general.

I like your idea about commander personalities, but I have found that people tend to game their own personality. If someone is impetuous and makes brash decisions then that's how they tend to game. Reserved people tend to be more cautious. It's the one thing a scenario can't control.

The various editions of "Empire" did that for corps and army level commanders, ranking them by leadership and professional skill. They changed over time, in some cases (e.g., Suvorov improved steadily from edition to edition), but they are at least a good starting point.

You just reminded me of a website that at least had commanders of many nations and command bonus radius but not sure where I saw it. Think, it was a rule set but it's not on my tablet saved.
Yes my Empire rules does that but doesn't include everyone down the higher command like division commanders .

Do you gentlemen know if Empire is available to view online ?
Yes I agree in general players tend to fight from their own perspective and personality. This is rather more at a moment on the battle field idea. Usual + or – thing for rally , aggression , artillery etc . But wanted to link it to characters rather than random selection or pre game planning .

I have found that people tend to game their own personality.

That's pretty much it. You can tell me that I'm supposed to be Marshal Ney, but I'm still going to play like I'm me.

Rules that try to force me to play like Marshal Ney are usually either futile, or burdensome, or both.

Then there's the whole problem of deciding what these supposed "traits" of commanders are, and based on what? A handful of unique cases? In most cases, they're just following orders, so it's not as if we can develop a kind of scientific appraisal that says "General Rayevski always aligns his battalions facing slightly to the left, when confronted by French skirmishers on a Tuesday in the rain."

In most cases we don't have anything like a scientific sampling of evidence. And for those famous commanders for whom we do have a lot of examples, there are all kinds of contradictions. For example: does Napoleon prefer to make a flank attack? What about Austerlitz and Borodino, when he attacked in the center? Does Wellington prefer defense? What about Salamanca and Vittoria?

There was such a chart in Napoleon's Battles as well. Not something I'd do. A lot depends on the level at which the game is fought. But surely if you want to use someone's research, you want to buy at least a used copy?

Thank you for reminding me , I've a copy of that game somewhere in the garage . I will go hunt it out .

Think there is one in Age of Eagles (the napoleonic fire and fury).

@ppb

It would have been helpful if Empire, Naps Bats, et al provided some justification for their ratings. But they didn't.

You're better off dicing at the time, perhaps with a +1/-1 for strategic issues and +2/-2 for operational issues.

Different commanders impart a different morale bonus, I would say, but I don't think it's connected to their tactical prowess. Ney was demonstrably brilliant at holding together a rearguard and genuinely fearless when leading attacks by personal example. Whether you can create rules so that the attacks your 28mm Ney leads so well are authentically ill-advised, well, pass.

The problem also is that if someone creates a table of commanders with command, control, and morale bonus ratings per commander, either everyone wants to be one of the top-rated commanders or they change the ratings of their favourite commander to fit their view of him.

"Playing" commanders isn't being one.

The commanders/ subordinates get the attributes as variable advantage/ disadvantages when an event occurs.

Characteristics of personalities, use the words interchangably, have been included in gaming books since the dark ages, so there's plenty of [un]informed opinion.

Our own 'design' included what we considered the 'primary elements':-

Gamers and gameplay vs historical simulation. Whichever one chooses, to whatever degree, at the least everyone at the table should agree on it, yea? Doesn't it seem that as you move the slider from games toward historical simulations there is a proportional increase in time involved!

You know, the part which always amuses me is the fixed belief of wargamers that the presence of the general--by which they mostly mean themselves--improves matters: troops are braver and more efficient, staffs issue orders and units march faster. Some of them are rated better than others, but a negative modifier is almost unheard of.

Think of the bosses you've worked for, military or civilian, and ask yourselves how many of them were someone you'd really want around when things got sticky. Was it really different earlier? I suspect that for every Napoleon I, there's at least one Prince of Orange, and more likely several.

…rash , charismatic, valiant…

Can you describe/define what OBSERVABLE behaviors such a leader would exhibit? Would that vary, even for a Ney depending upon the specific circumstances of the scenario?

I take the place of the Commander decisions, but what should maybe be the random factor is your command radius, bonus points, do the troops love you, respect you, want you far away or likely to shoot you in the back?
Empire definitely has negatives for some commanders.

Take a look at Bruce Quarrie's Napoleonic Campaigns in Miniature.
Chapter 9 Generals and Generalship.
Maybe of some relevance.

IIRC Napoleon's Generals from the Emperor's Press rated the French Generals.

This is a list from a beta set of rules, I think the leader values were heavily influenced by Empire III. They may be a good starting point, but getting a copy of Empire III may be a good idea. It has a lot of other rather useful data.

The PDF of the Napoleonische-Kriegsführung v2 Rules is in groups.io/g/Kriegsspiel

The exact URL is this, the 1 column RULES pdf has it in the appendix.
link

These rules need a lot more playtesting.

There may be other rules which list leaders, if i find any i will post it here.

When I run From Valmy to Waterloo with lots of gamers that I know I tend to assign them commands based on their personalities. One example I can remember we did Wagram and I assigned the best player and most experienced to the game, as Davout. But I was careful to make sure that he faced a really good Austrian player. Perhaps not quite historical but it made the game interesting.

One thing I have been playing around with is to add commanders morale into games. The idea is that not just the units take morale checks but under certain circumstances the commander has to check morale. I think this is probably the easiest way to introduce commander characteristics to a game.

Any 20 yo+ data can be indicative only; we know since they are very rarely as accurate as portrayed, just what was 'common' knowledge ATM.
I'd equally be wary of the 'super' knowledge volumes that claim or are depicted as holy grails; they contain so much detritus and piffle a new comer could be (and usually are) misdirected.
`d

I don't fully agree with the findings, but this site provided commander ratings across history.
link

All very technical but theres no summary link or comparison, merely a justification of his methods???