"Napoleonic National differences." Topic

Hello everyone,

Here is what I what I have in National differences for a small Napoleonic rules what I have in mind…

FRENCH
+ 1 On morale if fighting an offensive battle.
+ 1 In melee if French Infantry.
+ 1 On morale if French cavalry charging.
+ 1 Added to dice result resultwhen French artillery roll for casualties caused.

BRITISH
+ 1 On morale if fighting an defensive battle.
+ 1 In melee if French Infantry in line or square.
+ 1 Added to dice result resultwhen British artillery roll for casualties.

RUSSIAN
+ 2 On morale if fighting an defensive battle.
+ 1 On morale if Infantry in melee whilst in column formation.
- 1 On morale if infantry in melee in any other formation.
+ 1 On morale if cavalry charging.
+ 2 On morale if Cossacks pursuing disorganized enemy.
- 2 On morale if Cossacks fighting organized troops.

I would like help to create the National differences for the Prussians, Austrians and other belligerents of the Napoleonic wars if you think you know them well, thank you fo you help.

My dear Paskal,

You are leaving out the fun stuff. If you really want to get the party started, ask about the national qualities and differences of Neapolitans and Spanish troops.

Prussians fire 3 times quicker than the French, Austrians twice as quick.

British infantry can throw their muskets in the air, slap an Old Guardsman's bearskin off and then catch the musket again before the Guardsman can say "Sauve qui peut"

Au pas de charge, can you react normally?

I'd have said you were already a bit too generous, Paskal. Also a set of modifiers when each unit is a brigade would be different when each unit is a battalion, and what's a reasonable modifier at Austerlitz or Auerstadt may not be at all appropriate at Leipzig or Waterloo.

I'd say put two historical armies on a tabletop--matching unit types and unit quality--and then see whether you need to add national characteristics to the rules to get historical results.

But just so I haven't neglected the question as written--
1806 Prussians have superior firepower and discipline under fire. 1813 Prussians behave more like French.
Austrians behave like a normal army--of the Seven Years War. But the drill is a little more modern starting in 1809.

Of what you've got--well, Cossacks probably only need the disadvantage against formed troops, not both in that measure. Artillery. The French usually have more guns and frequently heavier guns. But gun for gun, I don't know that either France or Britain deserves an edge over the rest of Europe. What the French DO have is the command ability to form massed batteries. Cavalry. I don't think 500 French cavalry of a particular sort hit harder than 500 British, Prussians, Russians or Austrians of the same sort. But in large formations--say division and larger--the French are better drilled, and more likely to have kept a reserve. The reverse is true of the British.

So I'm back where I started. Scale of battle matters, and the bonuses appropriate for a brigade fight are not the ones you'd want for Leipzig. But it's a subject where wargamers disagree widely.

I agree with Robert's intent. I think national identifiers are period and scenario dependent. In general I think just one or two modifiers per nation is more than adequate.

Thank you, Iron Duke.

Paskal, to give you an idea, back at the Dawn of Historical Miniatures, effectively the modifiers were a superior column charge for French and Prussian infantry, an improved volley fire for British infantry and greater Russian staying power for the army as a whole. Everything else was a matter of troop types. But those modifiers were enough to tell the British they had a competitive edge staying in line and the French that they wanted to melee rather than engage in firefights with them.

How many modifiers do you need to encourage historical tactics?

A lot depends on scale, but I gather the scale you are referring allows you to form line, so is probably no greater than 1 element (or base) equals 250 men and is probably less. At this scale you can dive as deep as you wish or as shallow as practical, but the more detail you add you start getting into the issue of differences of troops on your own side. The other issue is rules mechanics; complexity is the enemy of an enjoyable game.

One, or perhaps a maximum of two, modifiers per side is really the most you should consider and I would suggest they should be rather general. I suspect the modifiers mentioned by "Robert Piepenbrink" would be all you need.

For my deux centimes worth as someone who commands Austrians (a lot, it seems)

Austrian infantry – solid on defense, would give +1

Austrian cavalry – good at the charge, would give +1 but they did have some trouble coordinating things so perhaps not allow supporting units; as an example regimental coordination in attacks was often an exception rather than a rule

For the Austrians I would note the comment of Archduke Charles (who really ought to know about such things) that "in the Austrian army generals are a problem" – depending on the nature of the game (skirmish versus grand tactical) Austrian commanders should operate under some sort of penalty in terms of coordinating units

I have to say it. The 1809 Austrians really gave Napoleon a run for his money and get no credit. I am not even Austrian, but these guys starting fighting Napoleon in 1796 and they were not always the big losers everybody assumes. Wagram left Napoleon shaken and impressed. It was a huge battle and Charles was a decent commander, as he also showed in 1805. His reforms finally made that army a force to be reckoned with. Aspern-Essling cost Napoleon Lannes and LaSalle and was his first big loss in a battle. The infantry was always tough, Napoleon lucked out at Marengo.

I have four armies: French, Russian, Austrian, and Prussian. This seems to give me the most options for doing the historical big battles. My modifiers are mostly dependent on the period and the commander ratings.

The 1809 Austrians really gave Napoleon a run for his money and get no credit.

As an Austrian by heritage I have no choice but to agree.

Here is what I suggest

AUSTRIAN
+ 1 On morale if fighting an defensive battle.
- 1 Added to dice result resultwhen austrian artillery roll for casualties.(At equal caliber Austrian guns are less powerful.)

LATE PRUSSIAN 1813-1815
+ 1 On morale if fighting an offensive battle.
+ 1 On morale if Infantry in melee whilst in column formation.
- 1 On morale if infantry in melee in any other formation.
+ 1 On morale if cavalry charging.

All this is for a little Napoleonic rule that seeks general national differences accepted by all.

I was reading reports on a French website from two French officers about an engagement against an Austrian force in 1805. I was surprised it was the same battle.

The first was complaining his light battalion was being out-skirmished by an Austrian line battalion. I'm sure you know they had no integral light company but were ale to send out the whole third rank. Some, possibly 50, had rifles.

The second observed two artillery batteries, one Austrian and the other Russian, beginning their deployment at the same time intending to engage the same targets.
The Austrians were in action first and he reported they fired twice as fast as their allies with greater accuracy.

I have lots of 15mm French. Nearly 40 battalions of infantry and half a dozen batteries WITH limber teams. My cavalry have too many cuirassiers and too few chasseurs a cheval.
Oh dear, how sad, buy more.

My 15mm Austrians are catching up.

Have fun.

I suspect the reason the Austrian contribution is understated (if it is) is that for most of the era, it wasn't very effective and they lost all the pivotal battles. Austrian defeats paved the way for Napoleon's ascent. They were beaten in 1797, 1800, 1805, and 1809 – in the latter case, so badly that they were forced to become a junior French ally in the next war. 1809 is an interesting campaign, but it wasn't pivotal. One can't point to anything that it changed, except that the status quo was fortified.

When you look at the Napoleonic Wars, the key battles are Austerlitz (which showed Napoleon could defeat the A-Team), Trafalgar (which ended all prospects of a French victory over Britain), and Waterloo (which ended Napoleon's career). If you tried to sell an English language publisher the idea of a book about Leipzig 1813 as being the conclusive defeat of Napoleon, he's going to scratch his head. Wasn't the conclusive defeat the one that Wellington was at, two years later? How was 1813 conclusive, if Napoleon's still a player in 1815?

You'd have the same problem with Jena – who cares about how handily Napoleon thrashed the numerically inferior Prussia, given he'd just thrashed the combined forces of Russia and Austria? It's a bit like watching the reigning champion beating the number 600 seed in straight sets after he's beaten last year's runner-up.

Getting back to the OP's point I would have the Austrians solid in defence but ineffective at organising mass cavalry or artillery action. Their commanders should be slow to respond to changing circumstances and generally not do anything, or anything more, than their initial orders state.

I'm not the best person to contribute a view of the Prussians because as I see it they lost every battle unless they had an ally on the field or superior numbers, and they still lost quite a few where they did have an ally and they did have superior numbers. So I'd rate them about like the Spanish, but with more boring uniforms (with that said, I'm painting some Brandenberg Uhlans at the moment and they look pretty sharp). If they have an ally on the field, rate them the same as the ally.

Russian infantry would be tolerant of high casualties and very, very hard to break (or rally when they do break); Cossacks should fail toe to toe against regular cavalry unless the latter are blown. There should be hordes of Russian artillery but it should not be much more effective than whatever the French have brought.

Poles I'd rate the best of the lot. Infantry as per Russian, cavalry as per French except their lancers would be better.

I really dislike National Characteristics. I prefer playing against real people with their own strengths and foibles.

We use ORBATS taken from, or based on, actual battles. The proportions are correct. We allow players to grade their troops historically (and introduce long winded discussions) or pay the points price or equivalent.

The rules used require you to declare your doctrine; profound or linear. That sorts most of it. A date helps. The Russians were using columns under Suverov. When Peter became Czar he changed the manuals. He was a great believer in his hero, Fred the Great, so lines were back in fashion.

Factors are few but include "Stoic" mainly for Russian moujics under fire and "Poor."
"Poor" covers all sorts of training or campaign issues. I don't want conscripts to be further hampered but there are times when troops are out of supply for too long. Sustained inclement weather might be another reason.

Have fun (or do something else).

I suspect the reason the Austrian contribution is understated (if it is) is that for most of the era, it wasn't very effective and they lost all the pivotal battles. Austrian defeats paved the way for Napoleon's ascent. They were beaten in 1797, 1800, 1805, and 1809 – in the latter case, so badly that they were forced to become a junior French ally in the next war.

They joined because they didnt like Russia that much and because Napoleon married the Emperor's daughter. Frankly, for most of the 1812 campaign Schwarzenburg showed a serious effort against the Russians.

Throughout the wars, the Austrian involvement and contribution was huge. It is almost certain Napoleon wouldnt have lost in 1813 had the Austrians not joined in.

1809 is an interesting campaign, but it wasn't pivotal. One can't point to anything that it changed, except that the status quo was fortified.

A poor read. You say it yourself, a French loss wouldve changed the status quo. Also, if managed correctly, a Franco-Austrian alliance couldve been huge for Napoleon.

If you tried to sell an English language publisher the idea of a book about Leipzig 1813 as being the conclusive defeat of Napoleon, he's going to scratch his head. Wasn't the conclusive defeat the one that Wellington was at, two years later? How was 1813 conclusive, if Napoleon's still a player in 1815?

Napoleon couldve still been a player in 1815. He wasnt finished after Waterloo until the government told him to abdicate. Hindsight can be truly pathetic.

That's not to say that the Waterloo campaign isnt interesting on its face but the reason it is over written about is also partly because an isolated set of British/American authors are monolingual and cant get at the sources in Russian, German etc. to write about the continental campaigns.

This might change due to Internet collaborations between military scholars from different countries.

Additionally, a British publisher might just know what sells and realizes a good portion of the customer base wants to continually fantasize that they single-handedly beat Napoleon. A form of Horse and Musket porn.

You'd have the same problem with Jena – who cares about how handily Napoleon thrashed the numerically inferior Prussia

Only every serious enthusiast of the Napoleonic Wars. In 1806, the Prussians were supposed to be fighting with the Russians but before they could coordinate, Napoleon beat them to the punch.

I'm not the best person to contribute a view of the Prussians because as I see it they lost every battle unless they had an ally on the field or superior numbers, and they still lost quite a few where they did have an ally and they did have superior numbers.

They didnt lose every battle and if one isnt "wargamey" it is evident that it isnt the pitched battles that were the be all and end all; they also provided aggressive distractions for the French. There is nothing to suggest that Prussian soldiers were, pound for pound, any less effective than any other Nation's.

So I'd rate them about like the Spanish

How would you rate the Spanish?

@robert piepenbrink

I think your "light" approach to National modifiers in the CLS sense of the concept is about right. The beauty of the Napoleonic period is that all arms are balanced and the armies are balanced too. This kit box approach gives the wargamer an even playing field to plan and execute tabletop tactics which are an expression of his/her own talent. It should be up to the "commanders" to win or lose without their troops (or their general staffs) getting condemned and handicapped by the judgment of hindsight.

I really dislike National Characteristics. I prefer playing against real people with their own strengths and foibles.

We use ORBATS taken from, or based on, actual battles. The proportions are correct. We allow players to grade their troops historically (and introduce long winded discussions) or pay the points price or equivalent.

I tend to agree with this. I di have historical organisational differences, such as grand battery's, but little else. Using an actual TO&E is the best way to go with, moral issues can be resolved with points, which means your games need to be points based. To make this simple i use a card based approach for ad-hoc games, players select cards (which in my case represents corps – but could represent divisions just as easily). The cards contain the troop mix and their points values and you simply select the card selection which fits your points limit. Over or under points can be resolved with VP's, if you are 3pts under the enemy gets 3VP and so on.

I am looking for generic national differences corresponding to generally accepted behavior, so following the same system, please write what you think, as I did. Thank you.

ENGLISH
+ 1 On morale if fighting an offensive battle.
+ 1 In melee if French Infantry.
+ 1 On morale if French cavalry charging.
+ 1 Added to dice result resultwhen French artillery roll for casualties caused.

BRITISH
+ 1 On morale if fighting an defensive battle.
+ 1 In melee if French Infantry in line or square.
+ 1 Added to dice result resultwhen British artillery roll for casualties.

RUSSIAN 1805-1814
+ 2 On morale if fighting an defensive battle.
+ 1 On morale if Infantry in melee whilst in column formation.
- 1 On morale if infantry in melee in any other formation.
+ 1 On morale if cavalry charging.
+ 2 On morale if Cossacks pursuing disorganized enemy.
- 2 On morale if Cossacks fighting organized troops.

AUSTRIAN 1805-1814
+ 1 On morale if fighting an defensive battle.
- 1 Added to dice result resultwhen austrian artillery roll for casualties.(At equal caliber Austrian guns are less powerful.)

LATE PRUSSIAN 1813-1815
+ 1 On morale if fighting an offensive battle.
+ 1 On morale if Infantry in melee whilst in column formation.
- 1 On morale if infantry in melee in any other formation.
+ 1 On morale if cavalry charging.

And for the Dutch-Belgians, the Nassauvians, the Hanoverians and the Brunswickois in 1815?

I'd try to limit myself to maybe two modifiers per country, otherwise you'll get the 'Shopping List Syndrome', where after the action is decided someone remembers a modifier that changes the result.
For most lesser countries I'd not bother with national characteristics, keep them at the generic standard for the same reason as above, less to keep track of.

Good point Murvihill.

I would not try to sell a British book publisher anything that does not make Waterloo the most important battle. Book people need sales. They are not historians first. It's a business.

4th, Wagram was a brutal and expensive win for Napoleon. A close call. No one was badly beaten. Charles withdrew intact and still able to fight. The total casualties likely exceeded the size of the entire Allied army at Waterloo. Charles proved he was a competent opponent. Davout's corps was as "A" team as it gets.

The Grand Armee won, but was arguably now past its sell by date, with the loss of so many veterans and leaders who could not be replaced. There would be more of these huge affairs, at Borodino and finally Leipzig. Each time the French fielded huge forces of diminishing quality and could no longer pull off the big wins.

I asked in these threads, between these huge battles and the meat grinder of Spain undermining the big campaigns, who was left to fight in the 75,000 man French army at Waterloo? If the British has already destroyed the cream of the crop in Spain who was left? Yes it was a dramatic campaign, a close thing and a brutal battle for its scale, with high percentage casualties. And it was decisive.

But The"what if" of a Napoleon victory certainly included a near hopeless future with the huge number of Allied troops bearing down on what was left of his last army. And who were these guys compared to the earlier versions of the French armies? . They were not many of them by the old standards, and there are a lot of famous names from the past missing.

My amateur opinions, served up on a platter. I was raised a big fan of the British and still am. But they kind of drove me to look at these other aspects of the wars as I grew older. I don't follow the logic of some conclusions people here reach, but it in no way diminishes my highest regards for Nelson an Wellington, life long heroes for me.

I will only say, of all gaming rules I have played, their does not seem to be a war where country and unit type modifiers are more heavily used, or over used, then Napoleonic.

Tort, I will agree that 1809 drained a lot of the quality pre 1809 French Army away.

My 2c would be that you risk placing too much emphasis on these modifiers. A gaming buddy of mine wrote a set of rules in the 70s that looked like this with a list of the typical modifiers for "national" characteristics. If you look at a number of current rules systems I'd say the trend is away from the emphasis on these modifiers, or the typical CLS style French get +1 in column, etc.

Are you looking for a very tactical system, battalions and squadrons or a larger scale? At a certain point there was not much difference battalion for battalion other than quality, ie; conscripts vs. veterans. You modifiers if you will were more at the command and control or doctrinal level as some others have pointed out. One example is the linear doctrine which should be more than simply a +1 firing in line. Some examples to look at might be ESR or LaSalle which does have some national characteristics for flavor but they are not overwhelming modifiers.

While i do not like modifiers, for pure playability reasons, if you wish modifiers you need to do them by campaign. For example in 1805 the French seemed to easily break through the allied 4th column, yet the allied left flank attack failed. So in 1805 the French would have an advantage in close combat over the allies, both for attack or defence. This was certainly not the case in 1812 at Borodino or 1813 at Leipzig so the modifier would be removed by then.

Another good example is the Saxons at Jena-Auerstedt. They performed very well in holding against a superior French attack and retaking ground, at Jena on the Prussian right flank. Any French advantage in melee would not apply when facing Saxons and the Saxons would probably also have that benefit. On the other hand at Auerstedt the Prussians, when they attempted to close into close combat, did not fare well against the French, thus would not have a close assault bonus. On the other hand they were under skirmish fire for two hours at Auerstedt and held, so they would have a bonus when under fire.

In simple terms, pick a campaign, study the accounts and determine which troop type had an advantage against the other and apply a simple system of Inferior, Ordinary and Superior. When there are no examples of how troops performed, just default to ordinary. That will give you modifiers for a specific battle, which would assist you in achieving a historical result. However the modifiers may be different in the other battles, and if you are facing off against un historical opponents, it would be pure guess work.

@ Murvihill:
"I'd try to limit myself to maybe two modifiers per country," . Ok but which for which?
"For most lesser countries I'd not bother with national characteristics, keep them at the generic standard". Good idea, I'll think about it.
Otherwise, I don't want specs for a specific battle or campaign, but something generic.

TMP link

Anyone remember the 1970's Bruce Quarrie Airfix rules, which were heavily loaded with national characteristics?
There's a danger of falling into stereotypes and preconceptions, and steering players into the mindset of "British should only defend, French only attack"

A nod towards Keith Flint's "Shadow of Eagles" rules, which include some bonuses depending on whether the army is "ancien regime" or not in its tactical doctrines, and allows some troops to be treated as superior etc and that I think is as far as it needs go. And this is rightly broken down into different sections of a long war.

Im sure I could make a big enough mess of commanding an army without built in handicaps as well.

I agree with pfmodel, while in 1805 the French infantry was excellent and the Austrian very poor, you could say that in 1813 there was no difference in quality, rather the advantage of the Allies there the young conscripts died in droves due to the fragility of their body to stand the rigours of the campaign, at least a third became casualties just by the marches.

Anyone remember the 1970's Bruce Quarrie Airfix rules, which were heavily loaded with national characteristics?

I've seen his books and those rules. He had an uncomfortable admiration not only for the Waffen SS' fighting prowess but for some of their ideologies as well. Reflecting this, he gives the impression in his Napoleonic rules that, irrespective of training and leadership, culture and ethnicity produced better and worse soldiers.

A lot of people have an opinion about Quarrie-era national characteristics, but very few people are aware of what they amounted to in play, which was frankly not a lot. He did actually draw the date distinction in troop quality von W notes, only to drop it later after he noticed that everyone ignored it. The differences in tabletop movement rate were immaterial, and nothing changed if you equalised them across all sides.

The main penalty or advantage written into them was conscript versus veteran, i.e. a troop quality distinction entirely unrelated to nationality. The former would be brittle and slow to manoeuvre, and the latter would be highly resilient because the standard penalties for being under fire etc didn't apply. This made vastly more difference than the trivial increments between nationalities. French line infantry had a melee factor of 1 plus 2 if charging for a total of 3. British line infantry had a melee factor of 2 plus 1 if charging, so again a total of 3. The different apportionment meant that if you had French, you were nudged towards attacking over standing on the defensive, while if you had British, you were nudged the other way, which seems about right. There wasn't a lot to choose between the cavalry of France versus Austria versus Russia, but British was uncontrollable after a successful charge – basically a one-shot weapon. Again, that seems about right.

He did include a rule whereby infantry receiving a charge suffered a morale penalty the closer the attackers were when they fired. The penalty was reduced for British troops, reflecting the fact that conserving fire until close range was what they actually tried to do.

These rules were thought up by 20-year-olds in about 1970 with about the range of armies and experiences you'd expect. I suspect some of the rules, notably those that make militia almost useless, hadn't been playtested much.

Nowadays I'd suggest people are more likely to err in the other direction, i.e. to assume that all troops' performance was basically the same. National characteristics, however, are simply a consequence of doctrine, training, leadership, equipment, officer quality, discipline or lack thereof, morale and – in some circumstances – supply state. It's usually going to be a mistake to assume there's no difference in those from one army to the next, and looking at battle outcomes tends to support this.

@ Tortorella

Sorry, I missed your earlier comments. The 1815 French army was whomever Napoleon could recall to the colours from 1814, meaning the survivors of the Spanish and the north-west European campaigns. These in their turn were respectively the survivors of the 1805-7 Grande Armee, plus replacements (Spain); in north-west Europe, the French troops were those left in Germany in 1808 (Davout), plus those recruited for 1809, 1812, and 1813-14. He also had some conscripts he reckoned had technically not been discharged plus some returning PoWs. Neither of these armies was destroyed to the last man, even in 1812, so from the 250,000 in Spain, 300,000 of 1809, 300,000 (French) of 1812 etc he had a fair few left over from whom to construct an army.

It doesn't follow that he was doomed no matter what in 1815. Austria intended to join his side if Wellington and Blucher were defeated because they saw Prussia as a serious problem and rival to be top German-speaking dog. So a defeat in Belgium probably sends Wellington back to Britain while Blucher's entire Prussian army goes into the bag. The latter would have happened, had Wellington not held on at Waterloo. Blucher had got I and II Corps thrashed at Ligny, Grouchy thrashed III Corps at Wavre, and with Wellington out of the way, Napoleon would have easily thrashed IV Corps east of Waterloo, trapping all four Prussian corps off their communications and between him and Grouchy – game over.

So by July 1815 Britain is out; the Netherlands re-occupied; the Prussians are trying to assemble a replacement army; Austria's on France's side – freeing up all those contingents in eastern and south-eastern France – and the allies have…Russia. A defensive Austro-French victory over the Russians, and Napoleon then generously offers peace if he's left alone. Ceasefire by Christmas.

There's then a year of relative peace and harmony, but in 1817, Napoleon starts to exhibit what we'd now call stage 1 or stage 2 stomach cancer. He has four years to live.

Bruce Quarrie wrote one set of Napoleonic rules and 7 or 8 books on the Waffen SS, some with titles like:

Hitler's Samurai: Waffen-SS in Action

So romantic! Noble warriors sweeping through the Slavic hordes with their finely crafted blades like so much Ukranian wheat.

He also indulged liberally in What ifs such as:

Hitler: the victory that nearly was

One Amazon reviewer writes:

"Hitler – The Victory That Nearly Was" is a relatively short but entertaining book on alternate history. The author, Brice Quarrie, uses his war gaming skills to flesh out a likely scenario if Hitler had made just one or two decisions differently early in the war.

link

It will be interesting to hear what the Napoleon detractors who often wring their hands over additional human suffering when military enthusiasts ponder the results of a French Waterloo victory, think of Mr. Quarrie's "what if" gaming theories that extend or reverse German fortunes in WW2.

Meanwhile his Napoleonic rules book talks about multinationalism in the Austrian army as its greatest weakness. Not surpising considering his euphoria over SS purity and adventure!

Thanks 4th. In looking around for info on this I found a few different opinions but it looks to me like Napoleon did have some veteran troops to draw on and his army was pretty decent under the circumstances.
While I can see you scenario playing out, if Napoleon suffered the same number of casualties at Waterloo but came away the winner, his army would be just as battered as the Prussians, and Blucher was a competent commander. Joined by the Russians, who were underestimated IMO, Austria would have to think hard sbout its choices. And Britain was not likely to let Napoleon settle back in without putting more money and troops into the mix. But we can agree, Napoleons illness would make this a short finale for him however it played out.

@forrester: I like this kind of stereotypes and preconceptions.
@von Winterfeldt:
And in 1814 during the French campaign there was no difference in quality between the young conscripts and the Allies infantry?
@At Charge and 4th Cuirassier:
Where can we read the 1970's Bruce Quarrie Airfix rules?
And for the national characteristics that I asked you? No ideas?

FRENCH
+ 1 On morale if fighting an offensive battle.
+ 1 In melee if French Infantry.
+ 1 On morale if French cavalry charging.
+ 1 Added to dice result resultwhen French artillery roll for casualties caused.

BRITISH
+ 1 On morale if fighting an defensive battle.
+ 1 In melee if French Infantry in line or square.
+ 1 Added to dice result resultwhen British artillery roll for casualties.

RUSSIAN 1805-1814
+ 2 On morale if fighting an defensive battle.
+ 1 On morale if Infantry in melee whilst in column formation.
- 1 On morale if infantry in melee in any other formation.
+ 1 On morale if cavalry charging.
+ 2 On morale if Cossacks pursuing disorganized enemy.
- 2 On morale if Cossacks fighting organized troops.

AUSTRIAN 1805-1814
+ 1 On morale if fighting an defensive battle.
- 1 Added to dice result resultwhen austrian artillery roll for casualties.(At equal caliber Austrian guns are less powerful.)

LATE PRUSSIAN 1813-1815
+ 1 On morale if fighting an offensive battle.
+ 1 On morale if Infantry in melee whilst in column formation.
- 1 On morale if infantry in melee in any other formation.
+ 1 On morale if cavalry charging.

And for the Dutch-Belgians, the Nassauvians, the Hanoverians and the Brunswickers in 1815?

TMP link

Hi Paskal

The Quarrie rules were expanded and revised several times – the final 1992ish version of Napoleon's Campaigns In Miniature contains all the thinking, eg
link

I can save you a bit of trouble though.

The key factors per troop type were fire; melee confused; melee charge; morale; and control.

Broadly, all line infantry had a fire factor of 1. Light infantry had a fire factor of 2. Some elite light infantry – Young Guard – had a fire factor of 3. Fire factor + die roll – modifiers x figures firing = casualties. Modifiers were -ve for being under fire yourself (unless you were veterans) or the target was skirmishers. Rifle-armed troops enjoyed better range modifiers.

Broadly, all line units' melee factors summed to 3. Could be 2 and 1, or 1 and 2. Notable exceptions were Russian (2 and 3). Elites typically 2 and 3. Old Guard were 4 and 5 but melees were so rare that these ratings were not often a major game factor.

Morale determined what your units did when they took losses or were worsted in a firefight or melee. Austrian line units' base morale was 5, French and Prussian 6, British and Russian 7. You added modifiers in the commonplace way, and a score of about 12 or 13 was the highest you could usually attain. I.e., the tactical circumstances moved your score far more than the 2 points' difference between Russian and Austrian base ratings. Many of the morale deductions did not apply to veterans, or were increased for conscripts / militia (eg skirmisher fire did not worry veterans). You then read the score off against what your unit was doing, and moved accordingly.

Control governed what your unit did after it won a melee or if the enemy started to run away. Control scores ranged from +/1 for elite types eg Old Guard, to 5 or 6 for hooligan cavalry (eg all British). Austrians, Prussians, Russians etc would typically rate about 2 to 4. You added modifiers to your unit's rating, and the higher the result, the crazier your guys went. So a British cavalry unit with a rating of 5 might score a total of 13, meaning "whoop and go after them for the next two moves". A French unit in the same circumstances, with the same modifiers but their lower basic control rating, would end up with a score of 7 to 9, meaning "reform or act otherwise as desired".

The rules were fine for your typical six or eight battalion "army" of those days but laborious if you had 40 battalions per side. However, nothing stopped you resolving results for a whole brigade at a time to speed things up.

Don't forget the best units of Prussian Army did not even participate at Belle Alliance and were on the way to France as well, like no Prussian heavy cavalry – cuirassiers in Blücher's army, no Guards etc., they were all on the move – Napoleon was out generaled in all campaigns from 1812 onwards, as the results proove that – the Allies found a way to beat him decisivly from 1812 onwards, he was a poor commander then, who suprassed his glory years in a long way.

What about his performance in 1814 in France?

French performance in 1813 to 1815 in the secondary theatre was actually pretty good. If you look at the major battles, you needed to outnumber them to win. On occasion, they won at odds of 5 to 2 against them. There is no example of their losing a battle against inferior numbers.

Lutzen: 78,000 French beat 93,000 Prussians / Russians
Bautzen: 115,000 French beat 100,000 Prussians / Russians
Grossbeeren: 80,000 Prussians / Swedes beat 60,000 French
Katzbach: 114,000 Prussians / Russians beat 100,000 French
Dresden: 135,000 French beat 215,000 Pruss / Russ / Austrians
Kulm: 60,000 Pruss / Russ / Austr beat 32,000 French
Dennewitz: Pruss / Russ beat French; numbers, ??
Leipzig: 430,000 Allies beat 190,000 French
Hanau: 17,000 French beat 43,000 Bavarians
Brienne: 30,000 French beat 30,000 Prussians
La Rothiere: 110,000 Prussians beat 40,000 French
Craonne: 37,000 French beat 85,000 Russians / Prussians
Laon: 90,000 Prussians beat 37,000 French
Rheims: 10,000 French beat 15,000 Prussians
Montmartre: 107,000 Allies beat 23,000 French
Ligny: 68,000 French beat 84,000 Prussians
Wavre: 33,000 French beat 18,000 Prussians
Waterloo: 120,000 Allies beat 72,000 French.

Totting up, I make that 18 battles; the French won 10 of those, despite being outnumbered in 16 of them.

The Prussians won 9 and lost 8 of 17. They had numerical superiority in 8 of the 9 victories, and in 7 of the 8 defeats.

If you rate French substantially better than Allies on the tabletop, you should find you get substantially the historical outcomes. Up to roughly similar numbers the Allies almost always lose, but thereafter, their win rate improves in broad line with the odds.

Don't forget the best units of Prussian Army did not even participate at Belle Alliance and were on the way to France as well, like no Prussian heavy cavalry – cuirassiers in Blücher's army, no Guards etc., they were all on the move – Napoleon was out generaled in all campaigns from 1812 onwards, as the results proove that – the Allies found a way to beat him decisivly from 1812 onwards, he was a poor commander then, who suprassed his glory years in a long way.

Many of the foremost military experts consider Napoleon's campaigns and battles in 1812-1815 inspired. Does anyone study the allied moves against him as anything of the sort?

The idea that Napoleon's strategy and tactics werent inspired because he ultimately didnt prevail is the very heart of misunderstanding the difference between art and talent on one side and, on the other side,the grey, unimaginative crush of overwhelming material resources.

@4th Cuirassier: Bravo and thank you. But were The Quarrie rules realistic rules? Do you have any ideas for my national features below?

FRENCH
+ 1 On morale if fighting an offensive battle.
+ 1 In melee if French Infantry.
+ 1 On morale if French cavalry charging.
+ 1 Added to dice result resultwhen French artillery roll for casualties caused.

BRITISH
+ 1 On morale if fighting an defensive battle.
+ 1 In melee if French Infantry in line or square.
+ 1 Added to dice result resultwhen British artillery roll for casualties.

RUSSIAN 1805-1814
+ 2 On morale if fighting an defensive battle.
+ 1 On morale if Infantry in melee whilst in column formation.
- 1 On morale if infantry in melee in any other formation.
+ 1 On morale if cavalry charging.
+ 2 On morale if Cossacks pursuing disorganized enemy.
- 2 On morale if Cossacks fighting organized troops.

AUSTRIAN 1805-1814
+ 1 On morale if fighting an defensive battle.
- 1 Added to dice result resultwhen austrian artillery roll for casualties.(At equal caliber Austrian guns are less powerful.)

LATE PRUSSIAN 1813-1815
+ 1 On morale if fighting an offensive battle.
+ 1 On morale if Infantry in melee whilst in column formation.
- 1 On morale if infantry in melee in any other formation.
+ 1 On morale if cavalry charging.

And for the Dutch-Belgians, the Nassauvians, the Hanoverians and the Brunswickers in 1815?

With English you mean French?

Quarrie generally gave reasonable results, although the group I then played with fielded mainly French and British, with a few Russian and Prussian units, so I don't know how Austrians would have got on. We had to remove many of the penalties from militia otherwise Landwehr were almost unusable. The main issue was the detail level being too high for large battles, although as noted you could treat brigades or divisions as a single unit to speed things up.

For my money, whatever characteristics you assign should focus on what the army had optimised itself to do; or what its most prominent attribute seems to you to be.

So I would make French units better in the attack, make their skirmishers more effective than most, permit them to use brigade- and division-size cavalry units en masse, and allow them to form mass artillery batteries of unlimited size.

British (and Portuguese) should not be allowed to attack in column, would have comparatively limited skirmisher numbers, and would inflict more, and suffer fewer, losses in a firefight because of the thinner two-deep line. Optionally they should be allowed to conserve fire until shorter range without penalty. Cavalry are effective in charges but always pursue the enemy until they exhaust themselves. No more than two batteries can be massed together.

People have been ducking comments on your specific items because it's hard to assign actual numbers to your national characteristics without being familiar with the rules but according to their reputations I'd give the major powers the following abilities:
FRENCH were well-known for being offensive-minded and using massed artillery better than everyone else, so + on charges and + on grand battery artillery fire.
BRITISH were well-known for using screened defense positions (reverse slope) and having cavalry that was hard to control so give them a + on morale and first volley when in screened or defensive positions, and a 50% chance that a successful cavalry charge will result in "continue to end of movement".
RUSSIAN were known for having stoic troops and bad shooting so a minus to fire casualties and a plus on morale.
AUSTRIAN were known for large unwieldy formations, so if you have command and control rolls you might give them a minus, otherwise I'd assume Austrians are your norm for troops.
PRUSSIAN (1813-1815) were known for recovering fast from negative combat results so I'd give them a bonus in morale when in a negative morale status. They had a high proportion of militia, so if you don't call out militia in general I'd give Landwehr a minus in all activities.
That should cover the major powers. You'll have to determine exact numbers based on your rules.

Bruce Quarrie's rules are an early attempt to set down some specialized form for Napolenics; they have a certain nostalgia for a certain demographic of wargamer. That nostalgia far outstrips the rule's worth.

Incidentally, it seems in the Peninsula that the French infantry wasn't that interested in pure column charges and, after advancing in column close to the British line, often fanned out into line to trade volleys with the British/Spanish which ran them into trouble because they were packed too tight for the maneuver into line and because the British volley fire was superior.

Additionally, and somewhat ironically, it seems that the British infantry weren't always happy about firing statically in line and after a few volleys, made frequent, limited charges in line.

I would trend toward minimalist national modifications otherwise you are ensuring perverse incentives for tabletop commanders to use troops in the way that give them benefits and not in the manner optimally calculated to win or enjoy the game using his/her own tactics.

@ von Winterfeldt
Yes it's a horrible mistake, I'm very, very tired.

@ 4th Cuirassier

Well done, lots of great ideas! So please copy paste my last national feature list and modify it. It will be more visually understandable, thank you.

@Murvihill

You understood everything, it is their reputation that makes the national characteristics! Congratulations to you too, lots of great ideas! So please copy paste my last list of national characteristics and modify it. It will be visually more understandable, thank you.

@ Au pas de Charge

You too have some great ideas! So please copy paste my last national characteristic list and modify it. It will be visually more understandable, thank you.

Pascal, here is an alternative idea. Instead of basing it on characteristics of countries, base it on overall commander of the army. So let us say you give Napoleon a +2. When he is in command of the Army, all French infantry and Cavalry (artillery up to you, you do not want to make them too dominate), get +2 modifier, in addition to whatever unit type and other modifiers they are given. Maybe Davout a +1 if he is in command. But if a Subordinate to Napoleon it would not be Cumulative. I.e. French would not be +3.

So let us say you fight Waterloo and you have given Wellington a +2. Napoleon's +2 would be offset by Wellington's +2 and all units would be the base of their unit type and formation.

Let us say you have Blucher a +1 and Ney a 0. If Blucher met Ney, Blucher's Army would have a net +1. Sort of what would happen in 1813, 1814, when Napoleon was not present in a battle.

If Napoleon facing Blucher, you could have a rule saying when Napoleon present, Allied commanders lose any positives. Or you can let Blucher still have it and the French would be net +1.

You can even adjust it by year if you like. Maybe Napoleon up until 1809 a +3 to show the Dominance of the French up until that time.

Just an alternative thought that to me seems more realistic, in my opinion.

Austrian artillery was an elite arm, and well regarded so I doubt they warrant a minus factor.

Agree re Austrian artillery, indeed all artillery generally as this was the most technically proficient arm. Spanish artillery was short of horses, but the gunners always fought their pieces well.

I don't really like "national characteristics", especially ones covering most/all units over many years.
But a Colleague asked, so I think he deserves a response ….

FRENCH
+ 2 On morale if fighting an offensive battle if commanded by Napoléon through 1808, +1 1809-1815.
+ 1 On morale if French cavalry charging through 1812 if 15 or more "un-damaged" (no step losses, not dispersed, not suppressed, not out-of-command/supply, etc.) squadrons charge together.
+ The first time (only) an "un-damaged" (see above) artillery unit fires, it gets "double effect" (one of the following : two shots, or double losses caused, or double chance to hit, or double strength-points, etc.).

BRITISH
+ 1 On effectiveness and morale if fighting a defensive battle if commanded by Wellington.
+ "Un-damaged" Infantry can perform a "3-volleys and charge" from line upon enemy infantry or artillery within 150 meters with +1 effectiveness on the fires and +1 morale on the melee, and without any chance for the enemy to perform defensive fire, change formation or retreat before combat except by routing.

RUSSIAN
+ 1 On morale if fighting a defensive battle.
+ "Un-damaged" Foot (all types) in column defend against cavalry as if in square.
- 1 on effectiveness of Army Musketeer/Infantry units through 1812 when firing in line (not applicable to Guards, Jäger, Grenadiers, Marines, and the Graf Arakcheyev, Kexholm, Pernau and (to 1810) the Senate/Lithuania regiments).
+ Cossacks and Native cavalry can retreat before combat to evade a melee or any fires targeting them.

AUSTRIAN
+ 1 On effectiveness if fighting under command of Arch-Duke Charles or Schwarzenberg.
+ 1 on morale in melee if units attacking or defending together (counting units "in support" if the rules allow) are mixed infantry and cavalry with at least 1/3 of each type counting by squadrons and battalions.

PRUSSIAN
+ 1 On morale if fighting under command of Blücher.
+ 1 On morale for "un-damaged" units 1813 through 1815 in melee if attacking.