"New card-driven rule system" Topic

Hi,
I am wondering if anyone here has any views on the new The Soldiers of Napoleon rules that now has several videos on youtube. The latest in the "Soldiers of…" series, it uses a card-driven system for games of 2-5 Brigades per side – with rules placing the forces within a "bigger battle" which can influence the game on the table.

I am currently reading them to write a detailed summary for my Rules Directory project over at DeepFriedHappyMice.com

Should be up on the site tomorrow or Friday….

Just ordered my copy. As a dyed in the wool Piquet and GMT card driven board game player I'd say, at first glance, they probably have a lot going for them.

Ordered mine this morning. I have a feeling they will sell out given the general hype and buzz – not seen as much for a set of rules in quite some time.

Ordered mine over the weekend. Looks promising.

They are very good imo. Some do not like card driven games but this system is quite intuitive and gives many more options than the simple IGO-UGO, move/shoot/melee rules. You are able to use the cards in three ways; to give orders to individual units(which includes, moving, shooting or melee etc), rally and special events(off board bombardments etc.). The flow is back and forth, I play a card, you play a card. It keeps both sides involved. The rally system is more in-depth than just rolling a die to get casualties back. It's definitely worth checking out.

I take note of the comment that the rules will "sell out" soon, which is a concern for their longevity.
The good news is that being linked to a company like Gripping Beast there is more opportunity to keep the rules alive and flourishing with reprints – and expected expansions.
What we don't want is for the game to end with this first printing, withering and dying on the vine. If rules are not available for some years it is hard to keep them active. Hopefully this will not happen…

So far I really like them. Although, I have as of yet not played a full game.
Taking into consideration that GB is now producing the Front Rank range of Napoleonic figures and their past support of rulesets, I feel The Soldiers of Napoleon will have ample opportunity to flourish.

I watched a Review Video on you tube posted by Miniature Realms. The review of the rules was very favorable however, the reviewer pointed out that at the back of the book the Army Lists and Scenarios were all geared for the 1813-1815 period. He also noted there was no mention of the intent to provide more Army Lists, Scenarios, or further updates for the rules. That would greatly limit the appeal of the rules it seems to me.

Overall a very simple and straightforward set of rules. Comparable I think to "Black Powder."

Ads for army lists etc. beyond 1813, it would be relatively easy to make your own with the lists provided.

My summary of the rules is here:

link

I suppose Napoleon just ran out of cards. Not quite sure what such card mechanics are supposed to simulate…. I get that a battle might be described as a resource management problem… but maybe not one where your tactical choices are randomly generated…. Probably with what little I know about and one who has lots of Piquet assets already… it is probably a hard pass. I will await further convincing…

That's my issue with Commands and Colors as well. In that system the default is that a unit does…..nothing. That is not how armies work.

I ordered my copy of the rules yesterday. Really looking forward to play this intriguing card driven system, looks promising, reminds of Commands and Colors but without the hexes.

Excellent summary of the game Extra Crispy, great job, like always. You mention at the end of your summary that were not sure about when the deck of cards is reshuffled.

I believe I heard one YouTube reviewer mention that the cards used go into a discard pile and d6 cards are removed after every turn and the deck is not reshuffled, it grows smaller and when there are no cards left it triggers the end of the game. Is what I understood.

In that system the default is that a unit does…..nothing. That is not how armies work.

I'm not sure that is true. Often, there are large parts of a battlefield where nothing happens and the troops just stand about, or during an attack there is something of a lull.

In Piquet games you must decided where to spend your initiative and launch attacks / defend / counterattack; perhaps opening action in dormant parts of the field to deflect the same.

I understand the 'gaming' reasons why some players like to have an entire army in constant motion at all times, and why they like a very rigid timeline and move sequence but, I'm not so sure that's how battles actually happen.

In Piquet games, time is elastic: Only at the start / end of a sequence deck turn is time in all parts of the field, for all troops, equalised. In life, sometimes time goes slowly and sometimes time goes quickly. I imagine it's the same on a battlefield, depending on where you are at the 'time'. I seem to remember Clauswitz talks about this as part of his theory of 'friction in war'.

I will read you review with interest.

I have played a game using my "fantasy black powder" figures. Easy to match them up to the various units listed in the rules. The author has mentioned on facebook that there will be more periods covered. He also has similar sets covering Romans and Crusaders.

I had 4 brigades per side (small brigades, only about 14 units per side).

I like card driven rule sets and often play solo.

I need to explore the skirmish rules in more detail and using cavalry to force threat tests to disrupt infantry more.

Really like the rally system that forces choices.

Field of Battle 3rd Ed is my go to game. Not sure these will replace, but I am going to try at least two more games.

link

@olicana

I guess what I meant is this. Units follow orders until they can't. In CnC you need to give them the same order over and over. They won't just "march to Hill 515."

Units stand around a lot, sure, but in essence they are waiting for orders (or holding a line is their order).

@ Extra C

I get that but, often issuing orders didn't get troops to go where the commander wanted as fast as he wanted.

Sometimes a rigid turn sequence makes everything too predictable; sometimes something more abstract makes things too unpredictable.

Thankfully there are rules for everyone. I guess it's horses for courses, or rather, rules for the ruled.

Regards,

James

@Olicana:

True. But in the vast majority of cases orders were reasonably efficient. There are far more ways to create friction and fog of war. Variable movement is one. If infantry move 6" + d6 your lines will all advance but you have to go slow if you want to keep the lines dressed. A choice rather than pure randomness.

I find these systems often work for one game but not another. Et Sans Resultat has a very interesting system. Each force has an objective. You move full speed toward it until you (a) run in to the enemy (b) arrive at the objective or (c) are issued a new objective (tough to do). The chaos is when you want to change your plan or react.

Variable turn lengths are another mechanic. Grande Armee gives commanders command points but a variable number of action phases per turn. Spend them all at once or budget for a later phase that may never come? Choices rather than pure chaos.

Overall a very simple and straightforward set of rules. Comparable I think to "Black Powder."

Ads for army lists etc. beyond 1813, it would be relatively easy to make your own with the lists provided.

My summary of the rules is here:

link

Thanks, Mark. A very concise summary of how the game works.

In my opinion, at a glance, some rules sound inaccurate and old-fashioned: +2 Infantry in Column of Attack (maybe if they use a ram), infantry melee (a rare event, except fighting in built-up areas).

I rarely regard melee as actual hand to hand fighting between infantry (or even cavalry in most cases).

In wargame terms, it more accurately describes the moment when one side decides to settle the issue by closing: Swords and bayonets actually crossing is not the issue, its the intent and the consequent morale result. In that instance, columns look very frightening to the poor s facing them.

I see in SoN that a test is required to close, failure indicating the unit shoots instead. That sounds reasonable to me.

On top of that, if line always beats column (I play Peninsular) and you want the French to follow French practice and attack in column to make it look like a Peninsular battle, who the hell wants to play a game as the French: "You will lose this weeks game because you're the French, next week it will be Johnnie's turn to lose because he will be the French." I suggest, that might be historic but not much of a warGAME.

If I want to play line Vs line I have 2700 7YW troops on my shelves! (LOL).

In that instance, columns look very frightening to the poor -----s facing them.

Maybe against poor militia or untrained troops but not against trained infantry.

In wargame terms, it more accurately describes the moment when one side decides to settle the issue by closing

During firefights, at close range (when columns want to decide to settle the issue by closing), columns have no advantages. In fact they are more likely to be defeated.

Columns of Attack were not designed and intended for frontal charges (except, maybe, against previously decimated and wavering enemy units).
So the rule +2 Infantry in Column of Attack is historically inaccurate and an old-fashioned wargame stereotype. And the use of the term 'melee' is inaccurate as well.

If I want to play line Vs line I have 2700 7YW troops on my shelves! (LOL).

Line Vs line combats were common during the Napoleonic Wars.

Got mine.

First thoughts review:

link

Added a link from my summary to yours….

Hi EC. Done likewise.