Napoleonic Rules
Robin S. Hanson
When I first started playing Napoleonics about 25 years ago the only
"good" set of rules out were the Airfix Napoleonic Wargaming by Bruce
Quarrie. Bruce eventually in the late 70s came out with Napoleons
Campaigns in Miniature. The group I played with (in England) used the
Quarrie rules exclusively, although we did experiment briefly with the
WRG and SE London rules.
Quarrie's rules are a company/battalion level game. All nationalities have
different charecteristics and composition. In Quarrie's rules a cavalry
charge felt "right" and when the 95th Rifles fired at long range it felt
"right". Because the units were bigger you could paint individual companies in company colours and
set them up in historical formations. To me the research is half the fun of Napoleonics.
Can anyone tell me why every Napoleonic rule set that has come out since
Empire is a Corp level game, with abstract game mechanics ? All these
rules with alternate movement? I just do not understand.
Any ideas?
Robin
NS Brown
[Robin Hanson writes:]
: Can anyone tell me why every Napoleonic rule set that has come out
: since Empire is a Corp level game, with abstract game mechanics?
: All these rules with alternate movement? I just do not understand.
Probably for the same reason that most moderns rules (1939-present)
seem to be shifting to away from 1:1 and toward the 1:5/platoon/
company scale. Frank Chadwick offers an excellent explanation in
his designer's notes to COMMAND DECISION:
When I began designing COMMAND DECISION in 1982, it
was to achieve a specific result. I had been playing
World War II and modern miniatures for some time, and
had already designed TACFORCE some years earlier.
Like TACFORCE, virtually all rules being used were
scaled at 1:1, and I had gradually come to the con-
clusion that this caused some problems given the type
of games most players preferred. I had noticed, both
in my own gaming preferences and in others', a ten-
dency to want to game out operational engagements.
Why this is the case is pretty clear. All of us are
history buffs, and most detailed histories deal with
operational conflicts with enough tactical fights to
give a flavor of what was going on at the point of
contact. We naturally tend to study the decision-
making of army, corps, and division commanders most
frequently, and if the history is a detailed account
of a specific battle we end up looking at regiment/
brigade commanders and frequently battalion commanders.
However, company and platoon commanders rarely come in
for intensive study, and squad leaders hardly ever at
all. The battle viewed from the perspective of a
squad or platoon leader becomes a very personal thing,
and it is nearly impossible from that perspective to
get a feel for the progress of the operation as a whole.
Frank Chadwick, COMMAND DECISION, 2nd Edition, at 87.
For Naploeonics, you can take the command levels up two echelons
and Chadwick's analysis remains sound. If you read the history
of a campaign, you'll be reading mostly about C-in-C's and army
commanders (Napoleon, Massena, Blucher, Wellington, et. al.),
with more detailed histories including corps and perhaps even
division commanders (Ney, Picton, et. al.). Brigade, regimental
and battalion commanders are almost never mentioned in any sig-
nificant detail, and I've yet to trip over anything more than a
passing reference to any commander below the battalion level.
I know that I, for one, like to game the same types of experiences
I enjoy reading about in the histories, which means my preference
will be for higher-level, more abstract games with enough tactical
flavor thrown in for it to "feel" like battlefield command (rather
than, say, administration and management).
That's not to say that you *can't* enjoy skirmish-level tactical
games -- many people *do*, and that's fine! -- but I hope it at
least offers some insight into why others prefer grand-tactical
engagements.
Just an opinion, worth what you paid for it. :)
Cris
Steve Miller
Ask Kevin Schwebel in Las Cruces why our group in
Dallas plays LoG. He'll probably tell you that we
like to play large battles with tons of troops and
like the problems of command and control. We also
game in 25mm as well and use the old WRG 1685-1845
rules because of their simplicity and no relation
to reality! Bottom line...we prefer to play a
more Grand Tactical game when we want to play
larger games...and prefer to play a simpler game
when we play a brigade/divisional game. We are
looking a Shako because it is "new and supposedly
different"...who knows. We'll probably go back to
the old "flinch" rules (WRG) before we make up our
mind.
Steve Miller
c...@altfuel.agate.com
In article writes:
> Why the big strategic games?
I took primarily am interested in tactical games. I like to send a battalion
to seize a farmhouse or a battery of guns to a hilltop, etc. I play EN AVANT!,
which is set at 20:1 and 2.5 minute turns.
I think the reason that so many corps level games are out there is twofold.
1. Many gamers don't want to be a Brigadier General, they want to be
Napoleon. So the desire is to command a large army. I must say it is fun to
send in the Guard.
2. High scales 50:1, more, allow more units per figure, so if one
wants to paint different types, smaller units facilitate this.
The games are not as satisfying to the true historian, because they become
more abstract - they usually are little different from any other period -
tactics don't matter as much. They also take less skill. Many gamers I have
played with are unwilling to study the period. They simply consider the
cavalry to be tanks, and play WWII style. The result is ususally a smash-em
up. BUT...you do get to play Borodino in a day.
Wilbur E. Gray
writes:
>
>Why the big strategic games?
>
>"good" set of rules out were the Airfix Napoleonic Wargaming by Bruce
>Quarrie. Bruce eventually in the late 70s came out with Napoleons
>Campaigns in Miniature. The group I played with (in England) used the
>Quarrie rules exclusively, although we did experiment briefly with the
>WRG and SE London rules.
>
>Quarrie's rules are a company/battalion level game. All nationalities
have
>different charecteristics and composition. In Quarrie's rules a
cavalry
>charge felt "right" and when the 95th Rifles fired at long range it
felt
>"right". Because the units were bigger you could paint individual
companies in company colours and
>set them up in historical formations. To me the research is half the
fun of Napoleonics.
>
>Can anyone tell me why every Napoleonic rule set that has come out
since
>Empire is a Corp level game, with abstract game mechanics ? All these
>rules with alternate movement? I just do not understand.
>
>Any ideas?
>
>Robin
>
I also think that many people have determined that the most important
and enduring aspects of Napoleonic warfare (though not all - note
skirmishers) are to be found at the upper echelons of command, thus
making the play of entire battles close to mandatory. Its really tough
in some people's minds to justify things like massed artillery or
Cavalry Reserve employment in a lower level game. Further, army and
corps level command and control, which the Army War College counts as
the most significant military achievement of the period, seems to
demand entire large battles for play.
That said, and though I prefer LOG and Empire over NB for historical
reasons (especially artillery and command-control), I think that the
brigade level of the latter is one of its best features. It is
certainly a much more playable scale for doing a Wagram or Leipzig. The
brigade level also forces the player, IMO, to truly be a corps
commander by ridding him of the need for concern over things like the
formations of battalions - that is why he has colonels in his employ.
While there were some (IMHO rare) occasions where a Marshal Davout
might put himself at the head of a single battalion of Legere, I think
the NB concept in this regard is pretty well correct. Bottom line is
though some of the other concepts of NB give me cause for concern, this
aspect I like.
Best regards,
Bill Gray
NS Brown
[Regarding high-level games, C.E.O. writes:]
: The games are not as satisfying to the true historian, because they become
: more abstract - they usually are little different from any other period -
: tactics don't matter as much. They also take less skill. Many gamers I
: have played with are unwilling to study the period. They simply consider
: the cavalry to be tanks, and play WWII style. The result is ususally a
: smash-em up. BUT...you do get to play Borodino in a day.
<grrrrrr>
I agreed with all of the note *except* the quoted paragraph.
Up until then, you'd basically given the standard reasons why
some folks prefer skirmish-level games, while others prefer
grand-tactical games. It's a difference in *preference*,
having nothing to do with whether one is (or is not) a "true
historian," nor the level of skill involved, nor the amount
of study one puts into the period.
We could accomplish a whole lot in the way of discourse by
remembering that our own preferences, while better *for us*,
do not translate to objective superiority. Grand-tactical
games offer *different* challenges than tactical games, and
neither of those sets of challenges is 'better' or 'worse'
than the other ... except insofar as a given individual may
*prefer* one over the other.
By way of example, I know next to nothing about computer
hardware (from a technical perspective), and I'm not all
that interested in it. I was (when I was working in the
field) a damn good *programmer*, though. Whole programming
is more "abstract" than soldering chips onto motherboards,
and while there is little difference in the C++ language
from platform to platform ("they are little different from
period to period"), I wouldn't suggest that either is "less
satisfying to the true [computer afficianado]." I wouldn't
say that either computer repair technicians or computer
programmers are "unwilling to study [computers]."
As for whether grand-tactical games usually end up as smash-
em-ups, I agree ... but that less to do with the scale used
than with the historical tendency of rules designers to con-
centrate on the attrition model of warfare. Most of the
tactical games I've played (and seen played) follow this
same approach.
Ian Marsh
>Can anyone tell me why every Napoleonic rule set that has come out
sinceEmpire is a Corp level game, with abstract game mechanics ? All
theserules with alternate movement? I just do not understand.<
If it's any comfort, I don't think you're mad. Figure scales of
1:100 or so are all right if you're poor and can't afford many
figures, but I don't think they're a very good way of fighting a
Napoleonic battle. Corps games at this scale might just as well be
fought using squares of cardboard rather than figures as even a
'regiment' of, say, 12 figures looks ridiculous (and poor British
battalions at a strength of six means the figure representing the
flank companies must be an interesting paint job). And special
troops, such as the squadron of Mamelukes, look damn silly as just
one figure. Where's the splendour in that? I also hate alternate
movement, although I can see why people use it.
I echo entirely your preference for the battalion level game: the
mass of figures in a well-painted unit looks showy as well as
conveying the mass of the formations of the time, and the game
teaches good tactical sense on a small scale. For grand strategy,
the campaign map is surely the answer. Or the grand but flawed and
turgid computer games by Peter Turcan.