Napoleonic rules

Started by Dragoon, 17 May 2021, 04:23:57 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

steve_holmes_11

Quote from: John Cook on 18 May 2021, 04:21:41 AM
Do you mean representing each sub-unit on a separate stand so that a battalion can execute all the various changes of formation in the drill manual, deploy skirmishers etc?  That, I think, unless using 6mm figures and lots of them in big battalions, is almost impossible.  I use 1:10 for my Napoleonics which are based on historical OBs so no two units are quite the same size - some are considerably smaller than others - and I haven't found a satisfactory way to do it.  I don't see why it is unique to Napoleonic though and wouldn't affect almost any 18th or 19th century game. 

Not precisely. Most Naps rules I've come across break their manoeuvre unit (frequently a battalion) into several bases (though these don't necessarily reflect companies) to they can be arranged in line, column and square.

This means the "Diorama base" popularised by Impetus doesn't work with these rules.

Volley and Bayonet (mentioned above) represents brigades, as does Sam Mustafa's Grande Armee, on bigger bases.
These rules don't concern themselves with battalion formations, or placement of skirmishers, so permit diorama bases.
However adopting this standard locks you into that level of representation.

In short, there are lots of rules, lots of battle sizes, and no standard approach to basing.
Compare with Ancients, which has rather a lot of rules, but generally follows the old WRG basing, or has bigger bases which are easy sabot multiples of these.


DecemDave

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 18 May 2021, 09:51:20 AM
In short, there are lots of rules, lots of battle sizes, and no standard approach to basing.
Compare with Ancients, which has rather a lot of rules, but generally follows the old WRG basing, or has bigger bases which are easy sabot multiples of these.

Exactly.  And this Nap conundrum is not a new problem.  Paddy Griffith's 1980 book Napoleonic Wargaming for Fun had several levels of representation: army commander/divisional commander and the like.  About that time I sold my 1/72 Naps which were probably Quarrie based and went the boardgame route for Naps.  But now I'm retired and partly due to Leons non-kickstarter have a desire to "do" Albuera and the like "properly" . Probably at 1:20.  And I am bewildered (as any new newcomer must surely be)  between the various schools of rules e.g. those that use a xmm per figure approach,  those that have a representational base=unit=brigade and those that have multiple fixed width bases (usually 4 or 6) = a unit.   I can see attractions in all of them and I am happy for and envious of anyone who has settled on what works for them regardless of what it is.   

The historic me wants to go with xmm frontage per figure, 1 base = one or two companies. but I know it will cut me off from many rulesets of " the unit must have 4 bases 40mm wide" type  which seems to be common.  Those rules can be relatively easily fudged to use 20mm or 80mm.  And then I look at each new shiny booklet (my latest acquisition is Lasalle2)  and want to give them a go.  Its also tempting to just 3D Command & Colours because I enjoy that as a boardgame. 

So the real problem isn't basing, its me making my mind up - do I want to be a Marshal or a Divisional commander,  do I want to try and understand historical battles or just have a fun game, do I want to stick to a ruleset or maximise flexibility, do I want scale accuracy (i.e. 1 rank battalions because 1 figure represents its own little group of men  3 x 3 or 5 x 2 at 1:10) or something that looks better,  do I want smaller/weaker units to look smaller,   etc. etc.

And the answer is Yes.  All of the above!!     :D     

there is a solution.  We just don't know it yet.  Which may be why there are so many attempts and a proliferation of rulesets.   

Life is too short/I am lazy.  So I want someone to solve the conundrum for me.   :D  Preferably before the figures arrive!!

So perhaps a better question to the forum is which commercial Nap rulesets do active 10mm wargamers currently favour? 

John Cook

18 May 2021, 11:55:21 AM #17 Last Edit: 18 May 2021, 12:00:19 PM by John Cook
Quote from: Norm on 18 May 2021, 06:36:52 AM
I would disagree with John that decades ago rules were not overly concerned with scales and ratios - my recall is that they were riven with them. The rule writers of the day, ex-army and National Service men, went to great lengths to cover such things, even worry about and trying to explain away the problem with vertical scale!

Hi Norm, I'd been playing with model soldiers, with Britains lead toy soldiers, for a couple of years when I discovered Don Featherstone's book 'Wargames' in 1962 and realised that there were other people who played with model soldiers, and that wargame literature was not limited to HG Well's 'Little Wars'.  There were no commercial rules at all in those days and scales and ratios did not feature in Featherstone's book.  Featherstone had served in WW2 which might explain why his rules were so simplistic and almost childlike, more akin to 'playing with toy soldiers' in the HG Wells style, if you know what I mean, than the modern game.
Even in 1967 Brig Young's and Lt Col Lawford's 1967 book 'Charge! paid no attention to scales and ratios, though it did mention time, only to say that a move could represent anything from 10 minutes to an hour.
I think you are alluding to what I'll call the 'second generation' rules, the first commercial rules that did indeed concern themselves with time, distance and rations, to the point that they became all important at, in my view, the expense of game-play.  All those matrices and tables!
I discovered computer moderated games in about 1990 and, apart from a brief experiment with BKC2, I haven't thrown dice since.  So, I have very little knowledge of current rules except that my perception, which I concede may be flawed, is that they seem to be very concerned with base sizes.

John Cook

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 18 May 2021, 09:51:20 AM
Not precisely. Most Naps rules I've come across break their manoeuvre unit (frequently a battalion) into several bases (though these don't necessarily reflect companies) to they can be arranged in line, column and square.

Thanks for that Steve.  It makes sense to me, my units have sub units representing about 100 real men - 10 figures.  But this applies to all units from medieval, which is as far back as I go, through the 18th Century, Napoleonics to ACW.  I chose the 1:10 ratio I use because units look like battalions when they have about 60 figures in them.  With this number of figures in a unit you have to use several bases.  The idea of having to rebase is the stuff of nightmares! :o

mmcv

I'd say that current rule sets aren't that concerned with base sizes, which is why the player becomes the one who is concerned about them. Most modern rules tend to be somewhat agnostic of the basing, but do offer suggested basing to represent the appropriate formations in the game, but usually in a "fudge it as needed to make it work" sort of way. Particularly amongst more casual rulesets. So finding a basing for your units that is both aesthetically pleasing and practical for the games you wish to play becomes more a matter of personal choice than dictated by a set of rules. Then because it is personal choice, until someone settles on their desired basing for a particular period and settles on their own preference in the balance of aesthetics and practicality, they can go through some agonising on how it should all fit together.

Some may wish to represent a particular ground scale, or troop ratios in a unit, or a direct ratio to the historical. Some may like being able to position the bases to represent different formations, while others are happy to have a single base then just use markers to indicate formations rather than moving lots of bases around. Single bases tend to be easier and look better, but multiple bases (sometimes using sabots) can provide more flexibility in representation.

Makes for more of an "each to their own" free for all at times.

steve_holmes_11

Quote from: John Cook on 18 May 2021, 12:07:12 PM
Thanks for that Steve.  It makes sense to me, my units have sub units representing about 100 real men - 10 figures.  But this applies to all units from medieval, which is as far back as I go, through the 18th Century, Napoleonics to ACW.  I chose the 1:10 ratio I use because units look like battalions when they have about 60 figures in them.  With this number of figures in a unit you have to use several bases.  The idea of having to rebase is the stuff of nightmares! :o

I agree wholeheartedly with that last statement.
Life's too short (and there's too much unpainted lead) to start wasting it on rebasing.

Chad

I am still fundamentally 'old school'. Figure to man ratio and ground scale is what I prefer. Also given the inherent problem of the 'correct' representation of unit depth when basing, I have yet to understand the present trend to base figures two deep on a base for games where lines are the predominant formation.

hammurabi70

Other than the aesthetic why bother with figures at all?
I think that aesthetics is the ONLY reason to use figures.  Why not use counters instead of 28mm figures or any other scale?  I started wargaming in 1966 and at an early stage was using paper top-down unit markers when suitable Airfix figures did not exist.  In 2020 I acquired my very first Napoleonic figures - 2mm - for the very specific reason of using them for ZOOM gaming of Commands and Colors.  They replaced hurriedly created top-down paper armies.  For me the basing was quite simple: what fitted on the hex grid.  I think the same dilemma exists for other periods: for WWII are you fighting skirmish level or at a much higher unit level?  Pike & Shot have to cope with integrating different weapon types into one unit.  The popularity of Napoleonic warfare, it would seem, just increases the number of voices in the market place.

steve_holmes_11

Quote from: Chad on 18 May 2021, 04:42:19 PM
I am still fundamentally 'old school'. Figure to man ratio and ground scale is what I prefer. Also given the inherent problem of the 'correct' representation of unit depth when basing, I have yet to understand the present trend to base figures two deep on a base for games where lines are the predominant formation.

Where there's a manufacturer sponsoring the rules, there's the opportunity to sell twice as many little men.


I think Naps is a good example of rules explosion.
We know an awful lot about the uniforms, weapons and even the progress of campaigns.
Gamers seem to all have their favorite pieces, and support rules that allow control over those aspects.

So you have different expressions of the essence of Napoleonics.
Some believe it lies in deploying your lines and delivering a crashing volley.
Some prefer to manoeuvre higher formations and fling mass at the point of decision.
Others want tight control over their artillery.
Others believe victory lies in timing the decisive cavalry charge.
Yet more will argue that the secret lies in preserving your grenadiers until the enemy is seen to waver.
And another bunch will try to convince you that the flank marching detachment was the real force of decision.


There are probably even more rules for the second world war, some with a focus on tanks, some on infantry, some for platoons, others for armies.
However basing isn't such an issue on the empty battlefield.


Raider4

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 18 May 2021, 05:55:46 PM
Where there's a manufacturer sponsoring the rules, there's the opportunity to sell twice as many little men.

Cynic!  ;)

steve_holmes_11

Quote from: Raider4 on 18 May 2021, 07:16:01 PM
Cynic!  ;)

I identify as a sceptic.

You'll find the cynics down the corridor on the left.
They're the ones nodding sagely as they tell you why Black powder irregulars have to form at least 4 ranks deep.

https://99u.adobe.com/articles/6412/skeptics-vs-cynics-problem-solving-with-a-bias-towards-resolution


For a long read on the underpinning "big ideas": https://thinkingdeeply.medium.com/absurdism-vs-nihilism-explanations-and-differences-of-both-philosophies-cf571efe75e9



DecemDave

I found it easier thinking about Nap basing   :'( :'(

steve_holmes_11

Quote from: DecemDave on 18 May 2021, 09:04:20 PM
I found it easier thinking about Nap basing   :'( :'(

There "Naploeonic Basing made easy" - all part of the service.  ;)

Dragoon

There are more players using Age of Eagles rules than any other regularly played rules than any other.
There is the rules book and a supplement to enable the rules to be played from Marlborough, Great Northern War, 1st Silesian War, seven Years War, Revolutionary Wars, Napoleonic Wars, Seven Week War, Sleswig Holstein War, Franko Prussian war, and early WWI. The ACW is covered by Fire and Fury.
Most of the set piece battles that aren't in the rule and supplement books are available free from Col.Bill Gray's website.
Www.fireandfury.com
Forum is fire and fury.io

If you mount 10mm. Figures 6 in 2 ranks on a 20mm wide base each base = 360 men for infantry. 25mm wide base for 3 (or 4) in 1 rank for cavalry they will match the 15mm figure basing. I've seen a game using the 15 and 10mm figures and no one noticed until after the game finished. All it means is your bases being the same size as a 15mm bases but your 8 base cavalry brigade will have 24 figures and your opponents brigade of 15mm figures will have 16 figures.

However if you want a smaller table you could halve the base sizes to 10mm wide for infantry, that's 4 figures in 2 ranks and 12.5mm wide for cavalry wit 2 figures each infantry figure will represent 90 men as will each cavalryman.
You can then fight all the large battles of the 19th century. By the way there are about 4000 users worldwide and a high percentage live in the UK.
There's even 1 in Rhyl 😎
Regards

Mike L