Home Forums Horse and Musket Napoleonic Absolute Emperor – new napoleonic rules

Viewing 34 posts - 1 through 34 (of 34 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #157114
    Avatar photoNorm S
    Participant

    I have just bought the newly released Absolute Emperor by Boyd Bruce and published under the Osprey Blue Rules series.

    I have not played any of the mechanics, but have done a bit of a blog write-up on first impressions, should that interest anyone.

    The game has a unit representing a division and so it is all about army and Corps commanders, having said that, it does appear to drop to a lower tactical scale rather easily. Blog LINK.

    http://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.com/2021/06/new-napoleonic-rules-absolute-emperor.html

     

    #157115
    Avatar photoian pillay
    Participant

    Norm, as always a great review. Thank you for taking the time to review and post. I collect the blue books even if I don’t play them. (I like sets 😊) I’ve always wanted to dabble with Naps. I have NT Nap rules and the basing seems similar from recollection so I will definitely be buying these and playing them. Thank you

    Tally-Ho! Check out my blog at…..
    http://steelcitywargaming.wordpress.com/

    #157121
    Avatar photoNorm S
    Participant

    Thanks Ian, for a collector, Absolute Emperor will be good company to the likes of Honours of War and Rebels & Patriots.

    #157125
    Avatar photoTony S
    Participant

    I was quite interested in the purported scale of the game, and the fact that it apparently included the Revolutionary Wars period, so I preordered it.

    I haven’t read it carefully through yet, just skimmed it, but was a trifle put off by the fact that the player, as an army commander, places the divisions into the column, line and square, as is traditional in battalion wargames.  I admit I closed the book when I encountered rules for emergency squares…

    I’ll read thoroughly soon enough, and probably play them at some point, but my reactions thus far are a bit mixed at best

    I’m curious to hear your thoughts if and when you get around to playing them Norm.

    (I was also amused by one of the comments on your blog.   Keith Flint makes a remark about expensive new Napoleonic rules which made me laugh as his new Napoleonic rules are indeed a lot more than the Absolute Emperor.   That said, I’m quite happy that I did buy Mr Flint’s rules; I’m really looking forward to trying them soon)

    #157126
    Avatar photoNorm S
    Participant

     

    Thanks Tony, I think there are contradictions in purpose. Introduction, page 4 says “As army commander, you should be able to see where and what a division is doing, but you shouldn’t be involved with the disposition of battalions and guns”, which seems to set the aim for what these rules are about, but then as you say, the player does ‘interfere’ with deployment. they could have gone down the road of assuming that the local unit commanders are using their judgement and putting the sub-formations into the necessary deployments for the situation and abstracted deployment out altogether.

    Here there is an interface between army commander and corps commander, the game is more about what the corps commanders choose to do, rather than the army commander. The system would work well in multi player games in which all the army commander does is issue orders to the corps commanders (other player(s)) and then the corp commanders manage the battle, which in effect is what happens. There are some brakes on ‘control’ with initiative, activation, halted / disorder status and troop quality requiring some testing and I think overall  the game gets away with it, more because the overall table and number of units will give a visual impression of a more tactical affair. there is also the ability of units to automatically reface / move in any direction during movement, which means the player is not drawn into the detail of that minutia and at the same time I guess we are saved from a load of rules overhead.

    In a crowded rules market, it does deliver something different and that, combined with the price will no doubt attract interest and sales figures will be there. Whether that translates to broad adoption of the rules, we will need to see some initial reactions to play. The intro scenarios are very welcome for individuals to make an early judgement as to the rules in action. I am going to have a go with some blank bases, so that I get rid of the ‘distraction’ of the visual aspect and play it like a boardgame, which should help assess pure system.

    #157127
    Avatar photoNorm S
    Participant

    I have just found a YouTube replay which has the author present and advising. LINK

    LINK

     

     

    #157129
    Avatar photoNot Connard Sage
    Participant

    Bought a copy from Amazon last week at the pre-order price.

    Like Tony S I wasn’t impressed with the first read through, there’s not enough abstraction! considering the supposed scale. Whole divisions in square? Hmmm,

    I may be hanging on to DBN.

     

    Oh, and spot the deliberate? mistake

     

    Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

    #157137
    Avatar photoMike
    Keymaster

    French and British colours reversed?

    #157138
    Avatar photoGeneral Slade
    Participant

    Stream wider than a road?

    #157139
    Avatar photodeephorse
    Participant

    Mike for the win.

    Play is what makes life bearable - Michael Rosen

    #157140
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    NCS you bluff old traditionalist you!

    It is going to confuse/annoy most Napoleonic buffs though isn’t it?

    Agree about the idea of mapping battalion formations onto a game with the Division as the basic unit of manoeuvre. Seems to miss the point of that level of command focus. I’m not sure this is going to offer me anything Volley and Bayonet doesn’t.

    At the price I will however probably pick up a copy and have look.

    #157141
    Avatar photoPatrice
    Participant

    Thanks, I’ll share the link.

    http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
    https://www.anargader.net/

    #157145
    Avatar photoChris Pringle
    Participant

    I was a trifle put off by the fact that the player, as an army commander, places the divisions into the column, line and square, as is traditional in battalion wargames.

    I think there is a legitimate case for using ‘formations’ in army-sized games as a proxy for ‘posture’ or ‘mode’. In designing ‘Bloody Big BATTLES!‘ we settled on three ‘formations’ – Line, In Depth, and Column of March – to reflect whether a division’s deployment was optimised to maximise its firepower (for a firefight), or its shock effect/resilience (for an assault), or its mobility (for grand tactical movement). BBB does not distinguish squares, considering them to be subsumed into ‘In Depth’. The fact that in BBB it takes an activation roll to change formation is part-proxy for the orders process required to change posture/mode in real life. It’s one way to do it. There are others.

    It will certainly be interesting to see reviews of Absolute Emperor when people have had a chance to explore it properly on the tabletop.

    Chris

    BBBBlog

    #157150
    Avatar photoNot Connard Sage
    Participant

    NCS you bluff old traditionalist you! It is going to confuse/annoy most Napoleonic buffs though isn’t it?

    It’s only the legend that is wrong, on the scenario maps the British are red and the French blue.

    Nothing like consistency is there? 🙂

    Agree about the idea of mapping battalion formations onto a game with the Division as the basic unit of manoeuvre. Seems to miss the point of that level of command focus. I’m not sure this is going to offer me anything Volley and Bayonet doesn’t. At the price I will however probably pick up a copy and have look.

    I’m sure there’s a General Rationale* for it all that I haven’t come across yet.

    *That’s not a joke. Well not one of mine.

     

    Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

    #157170
    Avatar photohammurabi70
    Participant

    It is proving popular at the club and I guess a good many copies are going to get sold.  Pricing it around a tenner makes it an easy buy, as it will hardly break the wargaming budget.  I am looking forward to comparing and contrasting this with BBB!

    www.olivercromwell.org; www.battlefieldstrust.com
    6mm wargames group: [email protected]; 2mm wargames group: [email protected]

    #157196
    Avatar photoian pillay
    Participant

    The latest WI has a short review of the game. I think it will get some further coverage.

    Tally-Ho! Check out my blog at…..
    http://steelcitywargaming.wordpress.com/

    #157208
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    It’s only the legend that is wrong, on the scenario maps the British are red and the French blue.

    Nothing like consistency is there? 🙂

    Ah! I thought they were was reversed throughout. Might have been quite fun.

    I’m sure there’s a General Rationale* for it all that I haven’t come across yet. *That’s not a joke. Well not one of mine.

    D’accord.

    However, in some circles there is a sort of rule of thumb that if you are looking at the wargamer running the battle at one level you don’t really bother concerning yourself with the actions of  units more than two levels below. So a Corps level command game doesn’t look at what units below brigade are doing. Division level games don’t bother with what is happening below regiment/battalion (depending on your tactical organisation).

    If you are organising battalions sending out skirmish companies as the Army commander your game is very likely to overheat and fall over.

    #157214
    Avatar photoNorm S
    Participant

    I think in general, a line can be drawn between conversation and practice – so when a ‘discussion’ of rules take place, it is almost done in an academic / isolation way in which we can say what should and should not happen – I often find that once a game is on the table and in play, many of these things disappear as players get drawn into the game and then either enjoy the game (usually) or not – though that judgement is at least made upon the merits of play.

    What I mean is, these things are games and perhaps that in itself becomes the ultimate arbiter in what ever gets back onto the table and what doesn’t.

    It’s a bit like when I play a hex based game, the grid is very obvious as I set – up, but virtually disappears once I surrender myself to the game. In this instance, the rules at least look very playable and I am sure will give many a good game.

    If a subject is your fave and you have specialist knowledge, it becomes harder to forgive rules than if the subject is a secondary interest. For example, I quite fancy a naval game, but know little of the subject other than what Hollywood has taught me, so I imagine any old set of rules would suit me. But I know pretty much exactly the penetrative capability of a German WWII 88/56 gun firing AP, making me a harder audience to please.

    #157233
    Avatar photoNot Connard Sage
    Participant

    It’s only the legend that is wrong, on the scenario maps the British are red and the French blue. Nothing like consistency is there? 🙂

    Ah! I thought they were was reversed throughout. Might have been quite fun.

    I’m sure there’s a General Rationale* for it all that I haven’t come across yet. *That’s not a joke. Well not one of mine.

    D’accord. However, in some circles there is a sort of rule of thumb that if you are looking at the wargamer running the battle at one level you don’t really bother concerning yourself with the actions of units more than two levels below. So a Corps level command game doesn’t look at what units below brigade are doing. Division level games don’t bother with what is happening below regiment/battalion (depending on your tactical organisation). If you are organising battalions sending out skirmish companies as the Army commander your game is very likely to overheat and fall over.

    Well for further amusement the Waterloo scenario (there’s always a Waterloo scenario) has disparities between the OOB and the deployment map. According to the OOB the French have 11 infantry, 6 cavalry and 4 artillery, the map shows 12/9/6.

    The author does explain that skirmishers are, correctly, factored into the unit strengths. Then he goes on to discuss units in column, line, square, deployed (in BUA) and column of march. Given that a unit nominally represents ~5000 infantry/3000 cavalry, this led to a bit of a WTF moment.

    A 5000 strong square would be a sight to behold. It would make a Spanish tercio look a bit shoddy.

     

    All in all I’m starting to think that Sam Mustafa did it better with Grand Armee.

     

     

     

    Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

    #157237
    Avatar photoTony S
    Participant

    A 5000 strong square would be a sight to behold. It would make a Spanish tercio look a bit shoddy.

    That would be something to see!

    Mind you, MacDonald had 8000 men in square at Wagram.

    Even though I realize in AE, a division in “square” isn’t a single massive formation, but rather a collection of battalion squares. As Chris wrote, four elements in AE in a square shape just represent a certain defensive “mode”, instead of an unsightly marker.  Totally get that.

    As Norm suggests, it’s the look of the thing.  Maybe it’ll disappear for me when I’m playing it?  Don’t know, but I’ll try.

    One other thing that makes me uneasy is the fact that all divisions have four elements.   Divisions weren’t of uniform size.  And that’s why I’m a trifle worried that with the formations portrayed in the table, and that all units are four stands, might trick my old brain into thinking it’s a battalion level game.

    But I’m keen to try it!

    #158023
    Avatar photoJay Fishpaste
    Participant

    Hello Gentlefolk.

    I’m Rome Bruce, author of the rule set in question.  I would be happy to answer any/all questions you may have.  I have a FB page where people can more quickly interact, but a member there suggested I make an appearance here to do the same.  Let me start with a couple of the concerns above:

    1.  I had to call them something:  It seems to really rankle traditional battalion level gamers that I’ve named formations “line, attack column, and square”.  I understand the concern, but I would ask a question in return:  What do I call them, “deployed side-by-side, deployed narrower front greater depth and deployed to fend off cavalry”?  There really isn’t a better name than line,column, square.  At this abstracted level, one must not think of a square as 5k men in a giant square, but rather think of it as many battalions in squares within the footprint of the division.
    2. Why formations:  because playing with blocks isn’t as interesting to look at.  I could have just made a division a block of troops always taking up the same surface area, and I could literally have just used wooden blocks in that case.  However, the visual appeal of units moving along a road, deployed in terrain or arrayed along a ridgeline are half of what makes Napoleonic gaming cool.
    3. But we always play toy soldiers thus:  Yes this is not going to play like Empire or any other data heavy game that requires charts, arc indicator templates, or tons of figures to play small battles.  It is a system designed for you to easily learn the mechanics, learn to coordinate units to work using combined arms, and think about tactics instead of rules restrictions.
    4. But but:  No this isn’t for everyone.  Some people want to roll a dice to decide if the horse battery received their orders, concern themselves on the skirmish battle or get button colors correct on the 24th South Essex turnbacks.  I fully acknowledge these are legitimate interests some people have and feel they should be in the game.  Sadly, I do not.  So, yes, you might want to keep playing what you like, and I encourage you to do so.  I’m not trying to make money or persude people to abandon those games they love.  I still play 40k 5th edition…when I can get people to play 🙂
    5. This rules system is designed to make the barrier to entry for rank and flank gaming low.  However, it isn’t simplistic.  If you don’t use forethought in your tactics, you will not win.  I love Napoleonic gaming, and I want to see more people getting into it beyond the homogenized “skirmish” games that abound.  Those games sell in large part because you don’t have to paint 1000 miniatures to have a decent game.

    I don’t want to come across as anything here but friendly, so picture me with a smile on my face.  I’m just like all of you.  Napoleonic gaming is great fun and I hope I’ve made a small dent in seeing people either rekindle an interest or start fresh into the era.

     

    #158024
    Avatar photoJay Fishpaste
    Participant

    “One other thing that makes me uneasy is the fact that all divisions have four elements.”

     

    A division has has as many elements as you want.  it is the frontage, not the model count that matters.  So for infantry in line the frontage of the unit is 6″  If you have 10mm guys on 1″ wide bases, you would have a six base unit.

     

    “Well for further amusement the Waterloo scenario (there’s always a Waterloo scenario) has disparities between the OOB and the deployment map. According to the OOB the French have 11 infantry, 6 cavalry and 4 artillery, the map shows 12/9/6.”

    In a perfect world, us highly payed wargame rules authors would be smart enough to hire some crack editors.  Sadly, the world isn’t perfect and there are some real gafts, especially with the maps.  Use the OB as written.  Also, just FYI because you’ll never find it, the rule covering charge range into area cover is completely missing.  🙂

     

     

     

     

    #158025
    Avatar photoTony S
    Participant

    Actually the point that sealed the deal for me, and made me preorder it sight unseen, was the fact it goes back to the Revolutionary Wars.   So many Napoleonic rules start with his coronation.

    I get that Revolutionary France is an odd army to model correctly, but it is a fascinating time exactly because of that!

    I have expressed some unease at parts of your rules Bruce, but I would like to clarify that my misgivings aren’t so much about your rules, but rather am I going to be able to grasp the “feel” of a large battle.   My biggest worry is that because all divisions are four elements, and that they do form formations redolent of battalions, that it just won’t look like it is an entire army to me.  I totally understand your reasons behind the formations.

    But, I’m doing to actually play a few games before deciding.   The fact that the rules seem simple (but have decisions to make) make me optimistic that the rules will “get out of the way” and let me concentrate on the battle and maneuver as a general, rather than flicking through the rulebook constantly.

    And even though I enjoy a few skirmish games, I do understand your comments about them.   Skirmish games have become a trend as of late, haven’t they?

    Just saw your reply in reference to my four elements comment – I wasn’t clear enough I don’t think.  My 15mm battalions are organized into four elements (well technically five – three 40mm frontage stands, and two flank companies of 20mm frontage, because I like the ability to strip off voltigeur companies, and sometimes converge grenadiers).

    But it wasn’t the number of elements per division that concerned me, it was that all divisions have the same amount of elements whatever that number may be.   Some divisions were larger or smaller, but I think they are all the same size and strength in AE?   Did I misunderstand?  Can you make divisions different sizes, and therefore different frontages?

    And by the way, thanks for being so forthcoming and engaging with your customers and answering questions.   I quite appreciate that!

    #158026
    Avatar photoJay Fishpaste
    Participant

    For pre 1805 French, pre 1809 Austrians, pre 1811 Russians and everyone else until 1815, use the archaic command structure in the advanced rules.  If you are using the “scale down” rules with that command structure, you will find armies suitably difficult to maneuver and coordinate on the offense.

    You are absolutely correct that gaming this period is super tough, more for the French that anything else.

     

    #158072
    Avatar photogreg
    Participant

    Re: Absolute Emperor.

    when both sides begin game with equal Elan which side has initiative and moves first?

    when artillery are destroyed in combat what is their activation roll – d6 required result – to Save the Colours?

    if a unit of seasoned light cavalry  are charged by a veteran heavy cavalry unit, and the light cavalry wish to make a reaction to Evade; do these light cavalry need to succeed in a activation roll to execute their Evade move?

    regards.

    #158093
    Avatar photoNorm S
    Participant

    Hi Boyd, thanks for posting here. I am guessing the FaceBook group is a fascinating place to visit, however, the group is locked and I am not a registered FaceBook user, so I  am excluded from viewing all of that content. Is there any chance of opening the group so that it can at least be just viewed by anyone in my position.

    With not being a FB user, I went to the Osprey website looking for a rules Q&A page or a play sheet aid, I couldn’t find it, though someone told me it was there! I phoned Osprey, eventually got through, they are working from home and couldn’t help me, they suggested I contact Shire Publications! apparently they share building space.

    I would love to be able to tap into some of that support material.

    #158116
    Avatar photoJay Fishpaste
    Participant

    when both sides begin game with equal Elan which side has initiative and moves first?

    you can can roll off or just let the French go second.  It’s up to you.

    when artillery are destroyed in combat what is their activation roll – d6 required result – to Save the Colours?

    activations and shooting and combat all use the same rolls.  Thus artillery need to roll a 5.

    if a unit of seasoned light cavalry  are charged by a veteran heavy cavalry unit, and the light cavalry wish to make a reaction to Evade; do these light cavalry need to succeed in a activation roll to execute their Evade move?

    an activation roll is not needed to evade.

    regards.

    likewaise

    #158117
    Avatar photoJay Fishpaste
    Participant

    Norm,

    yes sorry it’s how I try to reduce the almost unlimited number of spammers.  They still slip through.  I had a public group for awhile when beta testing.  Daily I would have to boot and block people.  Not too dissimilar to old style forums like this or yahoo groups.

    I will pop in here to try and answer questions and maybe post some reports.  I’m currently working on a set of ancients and a follow up scenario book for AE.   No I will not try to recreate wrg 6th with the ancient rules 😝

    #158119
    Avatar photoNorm S
    Participant

    Thanks, I get that, look forward to whatever you post here.

    #158227
    Avatar photohammurabi70
    Participant

    I would be happy to answer any/all questions you may have. I have a FB page where people can more quickly interact, but a member there suggested I make an appearance here to do the same.

    As I don’t “DO” FB then I hope you will answer here, although I gather there has been a lot happening on the FB site.  A rules writer thinks of a lot of events that might arise and then squirrels away a response, which readers and users might or might not find.

    [1] I have been given a ‘Reference Sheet’ from the FB site; is this what could be described as a QRS?  (I have also received a copy of an Errata and FAQ).

    [2] Musket range is 4 inches.  I lack much detail on the period but would have thought effective range was 100 yards; however, I will assume it to be 200 yards on an operational basis.  A division deployed in line takes up 6 inches, which implies about 300 yards. I should have thought that was space for two battalions so the division would seem to have troops deployed in a rather deep formation.  It seems a bit tight for 5,000 men.  Evidently in a rules design a certain level of fudging is required but the ratios here appear a bit odd.  Can you comment on how these were put together?

    [3] Given that troops get a reduced combat factor when attacking in column compared to that of line, why should anyone choose to attack in column rather than in line?

    [4] The army with lower ELAN (side discussion on why this term rather than ‘command points’ or similar terminology) moves first, so they set their artillery to fire at the enemy; moving second the other army can then scuttle in a zig-zag fashion and avoid the artillery.  Presumably this was not the intent of the rules, which could be countered with an opportunity fire rule?

    [5] Once a melee has commenced is there any mechanism for one side to break-off and withdraw or is it truly a fight to the death, which is what we are currently doing in the absence of an alternative choice (we know we are going to lose but will fight to the last man {strength point!}?

    [6] A cavalry unit that wins a combat round against an enemy cavalry unit does a follow up charge but what if it destroyed the unit in the first round of combat?  What does it do for a follow-up charge?

    [7] A cavalry unit that has won a combat does continuing charges.  However, a charge has to be conducted directly ahead.  If there is no enemy ahead of them what does it do?  Make a wheeling turn to charge the nearest enemy, the nearest enemy cavalry (possibly on the far side of the battlefield) or rally automatically?

    [8] The uphill advantage is very significant, is this normal in Napoleonic rules?

    www.olivercromwell.org; www.battlefieldstrust.com
    6mm wargames group: [email protected]; 2mm wargames group: [email protected]

    #159512
    Avatar photoJay Fishpaste
    Participant

    Answers for the lawgiver’s post:

     

    [1] I have been given a ‘Reference Sheet’ from the FB site; is this what could be described as a QRS?  (I have also received a copy of an Errata and FAQ).

    A QRS was included in the draft.  The publisher omitted it for space limitations along with many diagrams explaining difficult concepts.

     

    [2] Musket range is 4 inches.  I lack much detail on the period but would have thought effective range was 100 yards; however, I will assume it to be 200 yards on an operational basis.  A division deployed in line takes up 6 inches, which implies about 300 yards. I should have thought that was space for two battalions so the division would seem to have troops deployed in a rather deep formation.  It seems a bit tight for 5,000 men.  Evidently in a rules design a certain level of fudging is required but the ratios here appear a bit odd.  Can you comment on how these were put together?

    Musket range is not 4″.  The interaction zone is 4″  Units that find themselves 4″ away from opponents have abstracted skirmishing, battalion batteries, and detached battalions engaged in the “small war”.  It is called the shooting phase.  The game is highly abstracted and based upon unit interactions with other units.  At this level, the relative location of the division, not the disposition of battalions is indicated.

     

    [3] Given that troops get a reduced combat factor when attacking in column compared to that of line, why should anyone choose to attack in column rather than in line?

    Column is the name I gave it.  If you read the book, this is explained in detail.  Columns allows divisions to maneuver. Not every nation is allowed to use this form of maneuver.  It is not a battalion in column of divisions, nor would a line be a battalion on line.  One must give up preconceived notions of battalion level games in order to abstract how these concepts work.

    [4] The army with lower ELAN (side discussion on why this term rather than ‘command points’ or similar terminology) moves first, so they set their artillery to fire at the enemy; moving second the other army can then scuttle in a zig-zag fashion and avoid the artillery.  Presumably this was not the intent of the rules, which could be countered with an opportunity fire rule?

    I called the “command points” what I wanted to call them.  You write your rules and call them whatever you want.

    Yes if you move first, then you need to anticipate where the enemy is most likely to concentrate.  If you need a fudge factor to swing a battery of 50 guns around to thwart an attack you didn’t anticipate, then generalship should be questioned, not rules set.  The intent of the rules is to disadvantage the player with the lower Elan, as the generals and staff were less effective at maneuver and tactics;  Napoleon wasn’t great because his troops were better quality, he was great because he and his command structure consistently out planned, out maneuvered their opponents, and he consistently put the most men and guns in the right place at the right time.  If you want proof, look at the 1814 campaign where he used boys and old men to consistently thrash armies one after another.

     

    [5] Once a melee has commenced is there any mechanism for one side to break-off and withdraw or is it truly a fight to the death, which is what we are currently doing in the absence of an alternative choice (we know we are going to lose but will fight to the last man {strength point!}?

    No.  Combat is more than just melee.  It isn’t men stabbing each other with bayonets, it is where divisions are fully engaged with the enemy in point blank fire, battalions in column or line charging/shooting, counter charging.  It is that large powder smoke smudge in the middle of all contemporary paintings that denotes something intense and important are happening there.

    [6] A cavalry unit that wins a combat round against an enemy cavalry unit does a follow up charge but what if it destroyed the unit in the first round of combat?  What does it do for a follow-up charge?

    If it has no legal target, it remains where it is and continues to charge in the next turn.  As stated in the rules, cavalry that are successful must be recalled in order to stop charging.

    [7] A cavalry unit that has won a combat does continuing charges.  However, a charge has to be conducted directly ahead.  If there is no enemy ahead of them what does it do?  Make a wheeling turn to charge the nearest enemy, the nearest enemy cavalry (possibly on the far side of the battlefield) or rally automatically?

    It is abstracted that they are following the defeated remnants  of the last opponent, sabering them until they plow into the next unit.  This isn’t a regiment of cavalry turning this way or that, it is a full division operating within its divisional lines.  Divisions don’t wheel.

    [8] The uphill advantage is very significant, is this normal in Napoleonic rules?

    Yes.  Uphill provides such a distinct advantage that it is still sought today.  It has been thus since before Caesar’s commentaries.

    #161863
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    I finally played through the second scenario of this set of rules.

    This is the start position as laid out in the rules (the division at the back of the town is actually in it).

    Beginning of Scenario 2

    [The observant will  notice the cavalry on the hill are missing half their number  – they turned up before battle commenced when I realised I’d left them in the box]

    I want to like these rules because it’s the level of play I gravitated towards after getting headaches with the minutiae of tactical bickering (and that’s just the players) involved in divisional games.

    I think there is a good game trying to get out of some of the organisational and formatting irritations that slowed down my first (solo) play through.

    I suspect many of these gripes will fall away as I get used to things but there are simple irritations which are barriers to persevering and which could have been fixed easily by for example putting the ‘to hit’ scores in the shooting and combat pages as well as in the Activation paragraph where they make little sense for the shooting phase, although I understand why they are there in the bigger picture.

    I shall have at least a couple more goes with these and I wish them well but at the moment it looks as if I shall stick with Volley and Bayonet most of the time for this level of game.

    If you want to see more thoughts you can read them at: ABSOLUTE EMPEROR on Corrigenda

    #161867
    Avatar photoNot Connard Sage
    Participant

    You should promote that Wiki/blog more Guy.

    It’s jolly interesting 🙂

    Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

    #161868
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Thanks.

    I can’t remember the precise reason I went for a Wiki vice a Blog, but I am far too lazy to maintain the level of regular posting required for a blog. (I originally kidded myself I had a life which prevented me attending to such matters, but I suspect that may no longer be a tenable position).

     

     

Viewing 34 posts - 1 through 34 (of 34 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.