"Generalship Napoleonics By: James Arnold" Topic

does anyone here have any knowledge about these rules? i cannot find any info online at all

James R. Arnold has a website and I believe he sells Napoleonic rules in addition to his books.

He sells his (great) books and a scenario pack on his site, the latter in PDF. Great stuff.

Your post made me interested as well so looked around. Found this quote from 2009

"

Dear Randy,

I just stumbled across your question. Sorry for the late response. I play with my own rules, "Generalship Napoleonics", which derived from the variable length bound ideas promoted long ago by George Jeffries. My rules for the larger battles put the gamer in the cic role where he issues his day's orders and trusts his subordinates to execute them. These subordinates are numerically rated based on their historical performance. The next effect is to provide a fast-paced game devoid of tactical micro-management. Players who want to make perfect moves all the time hate this system. For others it is an appealing way to simulate Napoleonic combat. The rules are not currently for sale. Maybe if there is enough demand, but for now let's see how the scenario book sells.

yours,

James"

Edit: Well, I might as well link the thread as well.

TMP link

"Generalship Napoleonics: Fighting Big Battles" by James R Arnold can be found in The Courier, Vol8, No.2, p57-60. The same issue also has a nice intro set "Napoleon on the Rocks; Beginner's Rules for Napoleonic Warfare" by Jim Birdseye, p.55-56.
Should be available as a download on Wargames Vault.

napoleonbooks.com This is James R. Arnold's website. I have email corresponded with him in the past. Maybe you can just contact him.

@T Andrews

Thx 4 the reference – GBP2.47 well spent with:

Wargame Vault – The Courier Vol 8 #2 – USD3.00

I find this info very interesting. When I first moved to the Chicago Area I started gaming at Charlie Prosek's combination greenhouse and hobby shop. This was early 1889 or so. One of the rules they were using was Generalship: The American Wars by Jim Arnold. I played it several times and felt the militia were too powerful and stuck around for more punishment than I expected. I then found and bought a copy of the rules, read them, and discovered they were not using the command rules as they felt those rules were too limiting. Yet the real core of the game was understanding and using the orders system and such. I knew Jim Arnold had a Napoleonic version, but never could find a copy.

Stoppage, thanks for the link. Just purchased my copy. Looking forward to trying both sets of Napoleonic rules.

Looking at that issue of The Courier it is only a 3 page article. Is there a full rules set available?

Kim

well shoot, my whoe reason for asking was because i saw a copy of Generalship Napoleonics on NK – did someone here find out about it and snap it up?

Dear All,

It's a trip down memory lane to learn that anyone has interest in my old Generalship rules. Thanks for the journey.

Since that time, I have experimented with a variety of variable length bound (VLB)approaches. Jim Birdseye played one version on my table two decades ago and sardonically (and accurately) remarked it seemed to devolve into a turn-based game. Ouch!

Today, I have my house rules for all the periods I play and all use a VLB approach. Embedded into them are Critical Threats (CT). CTs are battlefield conditions that may affect unit morale. For example, in Napoleonics facing a charge is one CT. A Regular unit can face two CTs before having to test morale while a militia unit can only face one CT before checking. Hence, the mere presence of a hostile force getting close may cause a militia unit to falter while a regular and above shrugs it off. In a WWII battle, entering the range of a visible AFV is one CT. This may cause untrained troops to falter but not higher rated units. My point is: decide for yourself what represents a CT by reading about whatever era or battle you want to fight. Many of my CTs apply to all periods. For example, no soldier ever wanted to be hit by fire he could not answer, whether stones from a trebuchet, machine gun fire in the World Wars, or field artillery.

With CTs established, game length orders written, the battle flows at a fast pace. In Napoleonics, a cavalry force advances according to orders until entering approach march distance (roughly charge distance in other rule sets). At that point, if a defending infantry unit can see the cavalry, the defending player says "halt" and forms his unit into square. The attacker then can carry on, or try to "rein in" subject to passing a leadership roll. Failure compels a charge against the square. If the cavalry is making a concealed approach, then the infantry has a chance to make "a hasty square", the probability of which is influenced by CTs and unit status. "Halt" is just a game mechanic to ease players through the battlefield reality of simultaneous movement/decision making. IN WWII, it may be a defending AT gun that is hidden from advancing armor. The player announces "halt" by opening fire!

In conclusion, there are no flawless rule systems. It's all a matter of preference. I do not sell my rules because to explain how and why I do what I do would require a lengthy rule book.

Again, thank you for your interest. Good gaming!

James
Napoleon Books

Thank you James for your post here – what you describe sounds great to me, i like the systems where alot of processes will happen automatically depending on what situation the units are maneuvered into. I will just have to look at some other VLB rules then i guess,

Mr. Arnold:
First, thank you for everything you have done for the Napoleonic community (gaming, research, campaign studies, etc). I have most of your books and was just wondering if you are working on anything new.
Second, I think you nailed the challenge of VLB gaming. Writing a traditional rules book just isn't the best way to explain it. Once you have an agreed upon list of threats and reactions, along with the various charts for movement, combat, etc, the game can just flow. It probably needs to be taught in person. Also need to have gamers that can let go of micro-managing the battle.

Sincerely,
Dale

Have been meaning to throw in my thanks as well. Picked up the scenarios and the Courier. This is the sort of game I want to play – a flowing game between gentlemen, simple but realistic, less Warhammer. Sadly while we have been into Napoleonics for a bit now, we only get to play a couple times per year, so we are still running a gauntlet of rules and sussing it all out. Ideally down the road we play a similar sort of loose house rules when we have a greater understanding of things. But already, while my issue would be more finding the words to describe it and less length, I do understand what you mean and why you do not publish it, and enjoy that.

James Arnold: I would also like to thank you for all your works, your Napoleonic books were among the first I read that gave me a feeling for how and why a campaign unfolded the way it did. Thank you.