I would be grateful for any suggestions as to a good rule set for this period----using Pendraken figures, of course.

I don't think there are any specific rules, but 'Republic to Empire'
and I think 'Le Feu Sacre' cover the period. 'Black Powder' and  'Maurice' could
also be used.

Chad

Thanks for this, Chad. I have just got hold of 'Le Feu Sacre' and am looking into 'Maurice' though it seems to be confined to Ancien Regime warfare from what I've read. That said, I'm an admirer of 'Longstreet' so will check it out.

B

B

Sam Mustafa said that 'Maurice' would work
if you use certain National Characteristic' cards
for the French.

Chad

Thanks, Chad. I'll certainly give this a bash. Lots of material in Lynn and Griffith.

B

A lot depends on what style, type and scale of game you are looking for.

I've played a lot of LFS (you need 3rd ed for Rev War) and it's excellent if you want Corps sized games with black box combat. But if you're looking for something smaller and more tactical then you will want different rules.

Maurice (or adapted Lasalle) will give a great game but with a very different feel again and both are only dista t cousins to Longstreet in feel and flavour - although mechanica.ly similar.

I would have thought that any decent Napoleonic set would do the job. The forces and tactics were pretty well the same throughout the period. National characteristics is a can of worms you might wish to avoid.

HB

Unfortunately most Napoleonic rules don't. 'Napoleonic' usually means the Imperial period in most rules I have seen/used and rarely consider anything pre-1805. It also seems to me that by 'Revolutionary' period, little consideration generally is given pre-1796. The assumption seems to be that if Napoleon was not in overall command it isn't worth gaming.

As to National Characteristics, this is the phrase used by Sam Mustafa, but in effect they are cards intended to create different tactical nuances so that for the Revolutionary period columns can be used as opposed to purely linear formations of the 18th Century.

Chad

Chad

Yes, but the tactics of the period did not change greatly from 1796 to 1815. Neither did the weaponry or unit organisation The French initiated their famous ordre mixte, mainly to employ masses of barely-trained conscripts, and continued to use the system with minimal alteration through to Waterloo. The other nations started out with linear tactics and most, but not all, adopted the massed column attack formation at some point.

Our club in-house Napoleonic rules were successfully used to re-fight pre-1802 battles with little modification. If the basic mechanisms are in place the rest is window-dressing.

Ray   

Ray

I don't doubt that house rules can be produced to deal adequately with the Revolutionary period as there are two excellent works on the period; 'The Art of War in Revolutionary France 1789-1802' by Paddy Griffiths and 'The Bayonets of the Republic' by John Lynn. My point was that there are few commercial rules that actually acknowledge the existence of anything prior to 1796.

It was interesting to see that the period you described for tactics and formations was 1796-185.

The timing and use of 'ordre-mixte' is apparently somewhat in debate. Paddy Griffiths devotes 5 pages to it's possible origins. Although the creation of the Demi-Brigade in 1793/4 did in fact combine the 'Old' and 'New', it may have been as much for political reasons as tactical.

It would be interesting to see how you dealt with cavalry as Detaille lists the effective strength of the French armies in 1794 and out of 11 armies only one has more than 10% of it's forces as cavalry.

Chad

There's a lot more to the differences between RW and NW than line and introduction of column of manoeuvre - 'column attack formation' is an oxymoron

Command and command formation are entirely different, concept and intent of battle (and campaign FWIW) is completely different.

Unit formations are very similar and have the usual range of excellent through dire quality throughout the era but how they are utilised and commanded changes drastically. And command is where rules impose their decision nodes and provide the player interface.

You can take a Napoleonic rule set and play RW games, in exactly the same way that you can take an ACW rule set and play Napoleonic or SYW games - the flavour will be unusual and unless you stumble on a freakish accident of coincidence the games will bear little resemblance to the historical period being played.

1792-96 is hard to manage because it is essentially asymmetrical - in many ways it would be more similar to colonial India of the same period. And tactically as well as strategically it makes for some painful reading, probably an illustration of how well most wargamers would perform in reality 

Quote from: burnaby64 on 30 September 2013, 03:58:09 PM
Thanks for this, Chad. I have just got hold of 'Le Feu Sacre' and am looking into 'Maurice' though it seems to be confined to Ancien Regime warfare from what I've read. That said, I'm an admirer of 'Longstreet' so will check it out.

B

Maurice isnt ancients mate its 18th Century Linear Horse and musket, given that all but the revolutionary French still solely used line it will work fine for the revoluntaries you would just stay in mass formation (2 bases wide, 2 deep) give them the card for a + in hth and it will work fine

Rex

L'Ancien Regime actually does refer to 18th century warfare and does not mean Ancients.

Chad

I would go with Zippee that the features of the Revolutionary period are very different from the Imperial phase of French Rev & Napoleonic wars.

A subtle mix of the old and the untested/new. No fixed corps d'armee, for the French low ratio of cavalry, French often very large divisions with 15-30 battalions with perhaps only 1 or 2 subordinate commanders to the div. A tendency to experiment with line, column, swarms of skirmishers. Low ratio of guns. Commanders for ever looking over their shoulders back to Paris to see if they are safe/have they lost or even won - is it time to slip across the border

For the main enemy, Austria, use of multiple columns/wings/divisions in attack and defence - often very dispersed, superb battlefield cavalry, good quality linear infantry, the excellent Grenzer now retrained as poor quality linear infantry. Good artillery. They also had the added "pleasure" of working with contingents from Britain or Holland

Coupled with this the features of the war in the Low Countries and the Rhine with on the whole good commanders and good forces, is at odds with Italy - a career backwater for the French and the Austrians into which stepped Buonaparte and the intensity he gave to ops there

I would either design a set which is period-specific or take a commercial set and hack it apart to get to the essence of the period

Bernie

I only know of two sets of commercial rules that give any lip service to the Revolutionary period; Republic to Empire and Maurice. The latter has certain cards that can be used in the set-up of the game to attribute specific tactical nuances to armies, which Sam Mustafa says ought to be able to reproduce a Revolutionary flavour.

As to designing a period-specific set, it would be necessary to purchase some of the available books on the period.I would recommend the following:

The Bayonets of the Republic by John Lynn
The Art of War of Revolutionary France 1789-1802 by Paddy Griffith
French Napoleonic Infantry Tactics 1792-1815 by Paddy Griffith (Osprey)

In terms of hacking apart a commercial set, I think the AWI would be a good base. You have the features of established 18th Century linear tactics, coupled with both regular and irregular skirmish units, low artillery and cavalry ratios.

Chad