"Flavour" Topic

I've been using the 'Hail Caesar' rules for some time.
I'm now turning to its stable mate, Black Powder, for later period wargaming.
I've used these rules for the Sudan (Colonial) & the SYW. I am looking at the Napoleonic period.
The chief criticism I can find is they "lack period flavour" &, of course, rule sets that cover multiple periods will be a bit 'same-y'.
However, the Supplements are very period specific & you are encouraged to implement any period-tweaks you think necessary.
So, given they're fast-play sets, in which detail is sometimes lost, & in light of the above, is "lack period flavour" valid at all?

Maybe not at a rules level. I tend to think of period flavor as more a scenario-level thing. Get the troop types and proportions right along with the terrain and you shouldn't need a lot of help from the rules. There was an essay in 1st edition Napoleon's Battles which said to make it "Lee's Battles" basically you increased firing ranges, reduced the percentage of cavalry and filled the board with trees. Trying to remember how you were supposed to turn it into "Frederick's Battles" but it wasn't any more complicated.

Nice point, Robert.

There's definitely certain types of scenario that suits the Sudan rather than the SYW & vice versa. One example is scouting which is a vital aspect of the Sudan & not so an element of H&M games.

I don't think HC or BP perfect (whatever that means) but it's nice getting large games finished in a timely manner.

And Napoleon's Battles was originally designed for a different period, but Avalon Hill wanted Napoleonics.

Scenarios are definitely a very big factor. Adding the occasional scenario-specific rule gives a bit more flavour zest to any game.

BP certainly seemed very black powdery to me when I've joined in. My personal reservation is that I won't join in a multi-player game anymore unless they're using a houserule that each commander always gets one activation whatever their first roll is, but can't roll for additional activations if the first roll failed.

Every large game I've been in, there's that one player who consistently fails a string of command rolls and doesn't get to actually play in the game. Not fun if it's me. Not fun watching someone else sit there and not get to actually play in the game neither. Great waste of a convention time slot if you don't get to actively play the game.

minimo,
I like that idea.

So, given they're fast-play sets, in which detail is sometimes lost, & in light of the above, is "lack period flavour" valid at all?

So, this consideration would be based on what criteria exactly?

Flavour? Feel? Your mood on Saturday? The last book you read? the particular scenario that does or doesn't have the right result?

What is the point of the question? It will still all comes down to whatever feels right to you in this moment in time.

Yeah, I got as far with BP as the activation rolls and a designer telling me it was "ground scale agnostic" and knew I'd need to go in another direction. But those would have been deal-breakers for me regardless of period.

It's my belief that any set of mechanisms--I believe the current term is "engine"--which works for a given level of warfare will work at that level anywhere from Marlborough to von Moltke, though obviously some adjustments will be called for. There are two catches: one is that some levels are only interesting in certain periods. The other is what we're calling "flavor." Certain troop types or ratios, terrain and situations are normal in one period and rare in another.

Mechanisms, Robert? There are 2 Warlord games of course – HC for Ancients & BP for about 300+ years of the modern period.
I guess they thought that's enough flavour.

When I first started wargaming some decades before, there were jokes about rule sets '5000BC – AD5000'- the implication being it was preposterous to cover some much history. And there were rule sets that seemed micro-focussed – eg a rule set for the first 6 weeks of the FPW etc.

When I read HG wells' book a few years ago, I was surprised to see his rules basically follow the same pattern of all rules.
Marble-rolling aside.

Minimo- we already use the rule that the C-i-C has an aide that he can attach, at the end of a turn, to a brigade commander, allowing a re-roll of a failed activation. Given that brigade commanders are around level '8', a string of failures is unlikely.

And there's the Initiative rule where a unit can get one move if the player decides to take it before the die-dependant activation.

Napoleonics is "my" period. I think I may be more fussy over "flavour" here so it remains to be seen whether the supplemental rules & a few tweaks of our own will suffice.

Unlikely, but in an 8+ player game not surprisingly unusual to happen to someone. I don't want to be that someone again.

I remember that joke rule set Ochoin. I think I still have a copy. But remember I said "for a given level" and described a period of less than 200 years. Do you really think, for instance, that a 1:1 set along the lines of "Bolt Action" would need a lot of work to cover from the Banana Wars to Iraq and Afghanistan? In this case, I don't think commanding a division or corps-size body of soldiers was so different in 1756, 1806 and 1866 that anyone would need to design three different sets of rules. Certain weapons and tactical options would be available in some years and not in others, but that's different.

But Black Powder doesn't want to be pinned down to a tactical level, and that does pose problems. And, having experienced Napoleon's Battles, I'll walk a long way to avoid being trapped in a game with activation rolls again. (An exception for the Mersey games, which really do have enough rolls to avoid major problems. Very helpful for solo play.)

Horses for courses. I'm happy with the activation system which we've tweaked to mean if your brigade doesn't move, it's mostly your fault.

That is, why didn't your C-i-C send an aide & allow a re-roll?
Or if an action was so vital, why didn't you take a die-roll free Initiative move?

But best of all, I think it allows you to mirror differences in command ability. I've got a SYW game coming up _ French vs Prussians. I think I'll give Fred. the G. a '9' & his brigade commanders '8s'. Maybe Seydlitz a '9' too.

The French C-i-C, Soubise, will be a '7' as will some of his
brigadiers – the rest will be '8s'.

I dearly love my French SYW army but if you play them as if they're the equal of the Prussians in command or have a Soubise with the skill of Napoleon, you are, IMO, bordering on fantasy.

I'm hoping this will mirror that difference BUT still allow the French a chance to win. I certainly won't be planning any daring French manoeuvres but will play cautiously & deliberately.

But, as I said at the start- your preference & my preference may well not match.

My spell check doesn't like flavour.