What are the sacred cows?

[Ivan Sorensen]

For Napoleonic games, what are the sacred cows that a game must cover?
In other words, what “makes” the period to you, in a game?

[Mike]

Don’t do it man.
You will go mad writing rules for it!

[Ivan Sorensen]

I only write things people tell me can’t be done 😉

Not that I am thinking of writing black powder..

[Not Connard Sage]

Ivan Sorensen wrote:

For Napoleonic games, what are the sacred cows that a game must cover? In other words, what “makes” the period to you, in a game?

You’re on a hiding to nothing there, old chap. Most Napoleonic gamers want to be Napoleon and every one of his officers down to captain (I’m one of the exceptions) .

“I want to command the entire French army at Leipzig, and be able to micromanage every single one of my battalions down to forming column, line and square.” There’s a lot of them about, one only has to read other wargames fora.

Personally I like army level games – if I’m being Napoleon, I don’t want to have to worry what Colonel Dubois of the 20^e Ligne is up to. So in my case, limited ability to do everything is what makes a game. Don’t get bogged down with minutiae.

And it has to provide a ‘historical’ – my perception of historical – outcome.

And it has to play reasonably quickly.

Oh and it has to be fun. ‘Empire’ isn’t fun.

 

I dislike Black Powder intensely BTW.

 

 

 

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

[JozisTinMan]

Not Connard has it correct, folks want to command armies and still put battalions in squares. Though, I do think there has been a trend away from this in recent years as newer rules tend to fall into:

1. Each element is a brigade and I do NOT do formations (Grande Armee, Blucher, V&B) OR
2. Man I really love formation and I want to command a Division or below (Black Powder, LaSalle, Large Battle Drums and Shakos, etc.)

What happens based on my limited experience is folks take rules in camp #2 and try to play Wagram on a 2000 square foot table and then wonder why they cannot get more that 2 turns in.

I would love to see you tackle either scale, although I like driving a Napoleonic Division.  And if you need another guinea pig / playtester, I have two painted 6mm armies for 1809 patiently sitting in the box.  Just sayin’

*** Edit ***

Just realized I did not answer your question.  I would say for a tactical game (I am commanding a division or below):

• Battalion formations, Column, line, square
• Battalion Skirmishers
• Horse Artillery
• Something to differentiate lancers
• Light Infantry like Jaegers or 95th Rifles
• Probably a lot else…

http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/

[grizzlymc]

You peole have no ambition!

I want to be Napoleon at Leipzig, swing the light company out tocover the advance of 2/20th Ligne, detach the grenadier company to occupy the farm, and target each gun in the battery on its own gemey target.

The largest command I have ever had was a Corps with units as Bn inf, Bty Art, regt cav. Got 15 turns done in a day with everyone around the table knowing the rules and iron discipline. It was hard and you need to have the QRFin your head.

I still like to know if my men are in column line square and if their skirmishers are out or not. And I want all my toys on the table.

And I want fire and melee seperate. Shrapnel, roundshot and cannister differentiated.

Special rules for rifles, lancers and curassiers.

And slick and fast, and pretty much like my perception of Napoleonic warfare

And I hate Black Powder too.

[Not Connard Sage]

grizzlymc wrote:

You people have no ambition!

 

Ah, you met my mother?

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

[grizzlymc]

Mine always wanted to know when I was going toget a real job!

[kyoteblue]

NOOooooooooooooooo……..

[repiqueone]

Over the years, here are some sacred cows, some of whom became hamburgers:

1. English infantry always shoot better, except when fighting Americans.

2.  French infantry always charge , except in 1814, when they always retreat.

3.  Infantry when confronted with cavalry always forms squares, and cavalry is required to charge those squares knowing full well they will lose. To add some drama to this, the designer may invent hasty squares, that are just like squares except they don’t work.

4.  Artillery roundshot bounces like a beachball and often bounds right over the heads of infantry targets. Conversely, canister never misses, but may only be used at musket ranges.

5.  The French are fast, The Russians are slow,  the English are just right!

6.  Each arm always moves in the same order, and the same maximum distance. Always.

7.  Orders are never broken.

8.   Or…orders are never followed.

9.  Or…orders are unnecessary.  Choose any of the above. Try to be consistent.

10.  Everyone plays by the same rules, except the French get +1, and the Ruusians a -2, and the English get a saving throw.

11.  The game design must insure that all losses on the tabletop are caused by the luck of a card or die roll, or by the poor quality of the rule set, never the gamer or his playing skills.

12. The rules must never use percentages, fractions, or any numbers above single digits, or math skills above the 6th grade norm.

Outside the Napoleonic era:

11.  In WWII miniature gaming, Enigma, radar and air power have not been invented.  All forms of communication are of  level comparable to late 1914.

12. In ancients, each unit must behave as if air reconnaissance has been invented, and each unit has a wireless communication device.

13. All rules, for all periods, must reflect that all major wars, and most battles prior to 1917 were won by the English. That all wars and most battles from 1918 to 1970 were won by the U.S., and all battles and war since 1970 have no winners, only degrees of loss.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ivan Sorensen]

I like these and wish to subscribe to your news letter.

[repiqueone]

Go here:   http://www.repiquerules.com/page2/page2.html  it’s open to all, including the Scots!  ( This reminds me of another sacred cow…the Scottish troops must never lose.  They may regroup, they may demur, they may de delayed, but never, ever, lose! This is a good thing for the English player as Scottish troops do almost all the hard fighting.)

[Just Jack]

French are always in attack column, Brits are always in line, and the results are always a foregone conclusion.

V/R,
Jack

[Sparker]

I just lurve Black Powder BTW!

But Connard has a good point – the key thing is to identify what level of command the player is operating at. And in most games, that is not Bn Commander, so you have to trust that most of the time, most Bn commanders knew what they were doing, and were in the most appropriate formation. As an example, in Black Powder, the ‘must form square’ attribute means that the player commanding the Army, or even Brigade, doesn’t have to worry about when to form square. He does however, need to be conscious of when the unit is approaching its break point and needs to be pulled out of the line and rallied….

I guess the only sacred cow for me, for Napoleonics, is that the crux of the Napoleonic style of warfare can be recreated on the table top. To me this is the ability for a smaller, faster, better lead army to concentrate on one area of its larger, slower opponent, then move quickly enough to take on the rest on equal terms. So far, only Black Powder has delivered this elusive property – not often, but a couple of times. And that to me is the absolute epitome, the cream, of Napoleonic gaming!

Oh, and playing with non clever ass pseudo-intellectual mates who don’t pontificate if I put my French into column and my British into line!

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Author]

Posts