Search For The Holy Grail - The Best Napoleonic Rules, Part 5

A new rules system was recently released and, after reading some preliminary reviews, I quickly purchased a copy from Caliver Books. The beautifully-produced Over The Hills by Adrian McWalter and Quinton Dalton arrived shortly at my doorstep and I was immediately impressed.

I was itching to get the rules onto the table-top.

Over The Hills

First off, my initial impression was that the book is very professionally-produced and very nicely illustrated and photographed. After reading through the rules several times, I came away with the feeling that the authors wrote a solid set of rules that have been "inspired" by concepts contained in the many Napoleonic rules that preceded them. Now, that is not a bad thing in my opinion. Being a self-proclaimed rules junkie, I have slaved over my own house rules for about 20 years and have not been successful incorporating my own ideas with excellent gaming concepts from other rules systems. I think that the authors have succeeded in producing a very effective set of rules that play very smoothly.

Organization

The book begins with a multi-page background to the Napoleonic Wars (geared to the novice gamer in the period) and quickly moves to a discussion of the primary concepts of the rules. Troop types, unit ratings, basing, scale, command and control, and unit formations are all discussed in great detail. The turn sequence and basic rules are discussed, giving the gamer an excellent introduction into the flow and basic mechanisms of the system. At this point, one has all of the information to play out a game. The basic rules, in my opinion, would fit very nicely in a convention setting.....easy to learn, flows smoothly, plays quickly with a nice amount of period flavor. But, for the jaded gamer like myself who yearns for more grit and detail, the book adds the optional rules section after the basic rules.  This is where the basic concepts are fleshed out and adds an admirable amount of historical realism. The book concludes with several appendices, including a discussion of scale, the War of 1812, and historical deployments. The QRF, located at the very rear of the book, consists of 2 pages.

Basic Concepts

The question of scale is probably the first thing that I look at in a rules system. In Over The Hills, the number of figures per base is not important. The dimensions of a base are most important when it comes to ground scale and there are detailed recommendations contained within. The rules are intended for 25-28mm figures, but any size figures may be used and recommendations are included about ground scale when using smaller figures. An interesting concept of the rules is that any figure scale can be used, including 1:20, 1:30, 1:60, etc. The size of the base is most important; the number of figures on each base are really up to the individual gamer. For example, my 15mm figures are based at 1:30, therefore using the movement and fire distances contained in the rules, the ground scale ends up at approximately 35 yards to the inch. The time scale is not immediately evident, but in the author's appendix concerning scale, it is intended to be about 10 minutes per turn.

Tabletop units are portrayed as infantry battalions, cavalry regiments, and artillery batteries. Unit ratings are based on Elan (inspiration) and Grade (training). These ratings are combined with the actual number of combatants to yield a Fatigue score. The Fatigue score is the basic rating for each unit throughout the game. Although, I'm not personally a fan of unit ratings boiled down to 1 overall number, it does work and the game definitely revolves around the concept of the Fatigue score. It reminds me of the unit strength points rating in Sam Mustafa's rules or even that of March Attack (although MA also has a training rating that is used for discipline/morale tests). This Fatigue score is intended to be an all-encompassing rating that takes into account actual fatigue, casualties, and psychological wear and tear. The unit Fatigue score is affected by musketry/artillery casualties, melee, and movement through rough/broken terrain. Once a unit's Fatigue score reaches zero, the unit is removed from the table (although there are optional rules for units with low Fatigue scores -- routing and wavering units). What is interesting is that commanders can attempt to rally each turn to "add back" Fatigue points, which is useful in pushing a unit through woods or moving further than the basic movement allowance.

Command and Control

In the basic game, the command span for a brigade-sized formation is all-important. If a unit is outside this command span, movement or charges are unauthorized and Fatigue points may not be rallied. Commanders, depending on their rating, can attempt to rally Fatigue points for a certain number of units. In the optional rules, there is a section that discusses brigade and division orders and actions. The concept is actually very simple and effective.

The Turn Sequence

Side A and B are decided upon at the outset of a game. This is a concept that I'm not too keen on, as momentum may shift throughout the game; I am a proponent of an initiative roll at the start of each turn based on the current situation. A house rule can easily remedy this for those inclined. Once the order of movement is decided upon, the turn sequence is as follows:

1. Side A moves

2. Side A attempts to rally fatigue points

3. Side B conducts defensive fire

4. Side A conducts melee

5. Side B fires all remaining units

Steps 6-10   reverse sides and repeat steps 1-5

As one can see, the turn sequence allows for the non-phasing side to watch for defensive fire opportunities so it is not a strict UGO-IGO turn sequence.

Movement

Movement, for 25-28mm figures, is based on increments of 6 inches (for the 15mm figures that I own, simply modify down to centimeters). Depending on the type of formation or troop type (cavalry moves faster, for example), the number of increments that a unit may move varies. One concept that I truly like is the ability to move/push a unit an increment further, but accepting a Fatigue point penalty. Keeping in mind that commanders may attempt to rally Fatigue points (depending on unit's proximity to the enemy), this adds a nice tactical option.

Formation changes, depending again on the specific change, cost an amount of movement increments to perform.

Fire and Combat

Fire is based on Short range or Long range and utilizes the unit's current Fatigue rating and then rolled on the appropriate table. Using the basic rules, depending on the roll, a range of 0-3 Fatigue point casualties are inflicted. There is an optional rule that allows British infantry in 2-rank line to inflict up to 4 casualties.

Another concept that I really like is how skirmishers are handled. Each unit has a skirmisher score and when trading fire, the scores are compared. The difference between skirmish scores determine positive or negative modifiers on the fire chart. Typically, a unit with a higher skirmish score will have positive modifiers when firing at long range, while a unit with a lower score will suffer negatively at short range. Simple, yet effective....it's also a very subtle way of simulating skirmish effects without getting too low "into the weeds."  Some gamers prefer a separate skirmish phase, but I really like this concept that is ingrained into the overall fire phase. Fans of Lasalle or Napoleon At War will recognize this system.

Artillery fire is similar with canister and bouncethrough (optional rule) fully integrated in the mechanics.

Melee is conducted similarly and may last up to 3 rounds. Casualties are rolled on the Fire chart (with separate close combat modifiers) and then compared between opposing units. If a unit does not retreat or break before 3 rounds of combat, it is considered a draw and both units are retreated after the 3rd round.  Again, simple yet effective.

Cavalry combat, emergency squares, unit reactions when charged, evading, and more concepts are all contained and explained within the basic rules.

Optional Rules

Although the basic rules do give a good game, the details and flavor of Napoleonic tactics are fully explored in the optional rules. Incorporating some, all, or none of the optional rules is totally up to each player.

Without going into excruciating detail on all of the optional rules present, some examples include brigade and division orders, ammunition, the use of howitzers, more detailed skirmish rules, national characteristics and special rules, and even weather effects.

I found the optional rules very interesting and enjoyable to read through.

Summary

I put together a couple of tabletop games and put the rules through its paces. I found Over The Hills to be effective, very smooth-flowing, and easy to understand. I did utilize most of the optional rules (because I'm a detail-addict) in my games and they added a nice bit of flavor to the proceedings. I'm still not a fan of the all-encompassing Fatigue score concept of each unit's effectiveness, but I understand the concept and what the authors were attempting to accomplish. With that said, the games worked well and were enjoyable.

I think that these rules are especially useful for the introduction of new Napoleonic gamers to the period. These rules are very straight-forward, fun, and will not scare away any "newbies." With that said, the optional rules do add a very nice amount of grit, even for those grognards out there like me.

Thoroughly enjoyable and well-produced, my rating for Over The Hills is an 8 for playability and a 7 for historical realism, for a very solid overall score of 7.5.

Ironically, this is the same overall score as Black Powder (I had to look back at my previous review after I wrote this). I think the 2 rules systems give a similar playing experience, although both systems approach Napoleonic gaming in a different way.

Williamsburg, 1862 using Carnage and Glory 2

I recently convened to the garage for a small American Civil War battle.  I just purchased a 27” monitor and a wireless keyboard specifically for Carnage and Glory 2 and wanted to put the new gear to the test.  Nigel Marsh also released a large upgrade to CG2, so I was looking forward to testing it out as well.

I settled on an old Johnny Reb 2 scenario, the battle of Williamsburg (1862), which would fit perfectly on a 6’ x 5’ table.  The battle pitted a couple of brigades on each side, so infantry numbers were roughly equal. I actually ran the scenario twice, but the first game was too imbalanced with regards to Union artillery superiority and resulted in a decision that was foretold by turn 2.

For the second game, I brought the Union artillery in as reinforcements (in addition to General Davidson’s brigade) to General Winfield Scott Hancock’s isolated command. I left the artillery under the command of the Union division commander (General William Smith) while the Confederates focused their attack on Hancock’s brigade.  It seemed to really balance the game and it added some “pucker factor” to both sides by the end. One interesting side note is that this was one of Second Lt George Custer's first actions, who was attached as a staff officer to General Hancock. As happened historically, Custer was to prove very useful in rallying troops along the line in this game.

The upgrade to CG2 was very impressive, adding even more to an already superb gaming system. The upgrade not only added prompts and compulsory unit information for GMs, it added concepts like oblique fire for artillery, maneuver columns on or off road for infantry and cavalry, as well as new modifiers for firing and combat.  The upgrade was very large and added greatly to the enjoyment of the game. All this for a free download! In addition, my new equipment made all of the difference in the gaming experience as well. I could see and interact with the computer from every corner of the table.  I was ecstatic.

The new monitor and wireless keypad made data entry from any point on the tabletop a breeze. My laptop can be seen peeking out from behind the monitor screen. A big difference to these aging eyes.

The Scenario

The battle of Williamsburg occurred on May 5^th, 1862 and it was the first major fight of the Peninsula Campaign (the march onto Richmond).  After McClellan's army was briefly delayed further southeast at Yorktown, Williamsburg evolved into a much larger battle, actually intended as a rear-guard action as the bulk of the Confederates continued on to Richmond.  The full battle consisted of approximately 40,000 Union troops versus 32,000 Confederates. The small fight on my tabletop portrayed the threat of Hancock’s command on the extreme left flank of the Confederates. The object of Hancock’s attack was a redoubt in which several mortars and Virginia militia occupied. When this threat was realized by the Confederates, General D.H. Hill rushed Jubal Early and Rains’ brigades to counterattack.  Seeing the Southerners' advance against his troops, Hancock placed two regiments on a wooded hill and waited for Early’s men to attack through an open field. Historically, Early’s attack went nowhere and Hancock actually counterattacked, putting the rebels to flight. Hancock, in violation of his orders to retreat, stubbornly stayed on the field and was credited with a Union victory on this front.  In our scenario, General William Smith (with the divisional artillery) marched with Davidson’s brigade to reinforce Hancock’s position. As Early’s men attacked Hancock’s troops, Davidson’s Union men and Rains’ Confederates marched to impact each other. 

Early's regiments line up against Hancock's position

Confederate mortars and Virginia militia man the redoubt to the left of Hancock's troops

As you can see by the pictures, there was a large amount of disordering terrain. The militia and mortars were fixed in position at the redoubt. Davidson’s troops were to arrive on the southern edge of Dam road on Turn 2, while Rains’ Confederates were marching in maneuver column on the northern edge of the road, arriving on Turn 3. The divisional artillery, under the command of General Smith, led the way in front of Davidson’s troops along the road.

The Game

Jubal Early’s Confederate troops were poised to advance across an open field towards Hancock’s position. The Union troops had the benefit of medium cover in the woods though. In the first game, Hancock simply placed his artillery on his right flank and caught the Confederate troops in such a brutal cross-fire while crossing the field, that the game was literally over when it began. This time, Early had a more promising chance of breaking Hancock’s troops.

Jubal Early's men advance

As Early’s men crossed over the fence line and skirmishers began to engage on both sides, it was evident that the Confederates would need to “bring it on home” if they had any hope of thrashing the Union troops in the woods. As Early’s troops continued to advance, General Rains’ brigade showed up a turn early and entered the table in maneuver column. Hancock’s left flank was dangerously in the air. The following turn, Davidson’s Union troops entered the southern side of the tabletop and moved quickly in maneuver column towards the redoubt. 

Rains' brigade enters the tabletop, threatening Hancock's left flank

Meanwhile, Davidson's troops, with the divisional artillery leading the way, advance to reinforce Hancock

Early’s brigade and Hancock’s brigade soon traded brutal vollies, with the Confederates taking the worst of it in the open field.  The 23rd North Carolina Regiment threw caution to the wind and charged (using the Indian Rush maneuver) the 6th Maine. The Union volley halted the Confederate charge and the North Carolinians stopped at 50 paces and went prone.  Heavy firing erupted all across the line, as Early and Hancock’s men suffered casualties.  Rains’ men, by this time, were advancing towards the flank of Hancock’s position in the woods.  Union artillery deployed in front of Davidson’s troops and began to put a withering fire onto the Confederates moving towards Hancock’s position. The Confederates, as well as Union troops, began to engage in the heavy woods on the Confederate right.

Rains' Confederates begin deploying against Hancock

The charge of the 23rd North Carolina falters in front of the 6th Maine

The combat becomes vicious as all of the troops become embroiled around the woods

At this point, with both North Carolina regiments in the front line of Early’s brigade wavering, Hancock ordered a charge and led the unit 6th Maine into the attack.  The Confederates were sent reeling, but the men from Maine found itself halted in front of the 24th Virginia (at this point, held in reserve)  which issued a nasty volley. 

The 6th Maine Regiment, pursuing the defeated North Carolinians, soon found themselves at point blank range in front of the 24th Virginia Regiment. A bloody firefight soon engulfed both units.

As the game wore on, Davidson’s Yankees maneuvered through the woods to support Hancock’s position and butted heads with Rains’ Confederates.  The 6th Georgia Regiment then charged through the woods, routing 2 Federal regiments (one of which was part of Hancock’s brigade, caught in the flank).  It looked like the Confederates were winning the battle in the woods.

The 6th Georgia Regiment advances through the woods as the 5th North Carolina Regiment trades murderous fire with the 5th Wisconsin Regiment

The charge of the 6th Georgia Regiment sends the Yankees running

After another turn, the Union side finally suffered a morale loss which precipitated a retreat off of the field. Hancock’s brigade was smashed, along with Early’s command. The remaining troops on both sides were heavily engaged but still in the fight. The game itself was fought over 8 turns and took about a good hour and a half to complete. 

Although Davidson's brigade was largely intact, the Union forces suffered a morale loss and began to retreat off of the field

Expecting a Confederate victory (the redoubt and the rest of the field continued to be held by the Confederates), the computer’s analysis surprised me with a Major Federal victory (even after walking wounded were factored in).  Even though the Confederates held the field, the Union troops under Hancock and Davidson inflicted casualties at a 3:1 ratio on the advancing Confederates.  The difference was the open field that Early’s troops had to advance through.  I thought that the victory analysis was interesting (and very surprising), yet after looking at the casualty lists, made sense from a historical standpoint.  The successful charge of the 6th Georgia Regiment notwithstanding, the Union forces simply outgunned the Confederates who were caught largely in the open.

So, taking a break from Napoleonics and Ancients, I am looking forward to more ACW, especially with Carnage and Glory 2.  As always, I really enjoyed the experience !

The casualty list:

The Southern Army has suffered losses of:
 [ 10%]    445 men of all arms
   incl.[  1%]     48 prisoners of all arms
 [ 11%]    445 bayonets
 [  0%]      0 artillerists
Honors: [ 104] 38th Virginia
 [ 72%] ammunition available

The Federal Army has suffered losses of:
 [  4%]    160 men of all arms
   incl.[  0%]     38 prisoners of all arms
 [  4%]    160 bayonets
 [  0%]      0 artillerists
Honors: [ 503] 43rd New York
 [ 73%] ammunition available


The full orders of battle on this flank:


Division D.H. Hill - Attack
  [ 101] Major General D.H. Hill - Active B [875 paces]
    Brigade Jubal Early - Attack
    [ 102] Brigadier General Jubal Early - Active B [500 paces]
 [ 101] 5th North Carolina                0/ 390      C+    
 [ 102] 23rd North Carolina               0/ 412      C     
 [ 103] 24th Virginia                     0/ 420      C     
 [ 104] 38th Virginia                     0/ 501      C-    
    Brigade Gabriel Rains - Attack
    [ 103] Brigadier General Gabriel Rains - Active B [450 paces]
 [ 105] 13th Alabama                      0/ 392      C+    
 [ 106] 26th Alabama                      0/ 410      C     
 [ 107] 6th Georgia                       0/ 490      C-    
 [ 108] 23rd  Georgia                     0/ 490      C-    
    Staff Duncan McRae
    [ 104] Colonel Duncan McRae - Active B [875 paces]
    Regiment Edward McCarthy - Attack
    [ 105] Captain Edward McCarthy - Active B [225 paces]
 [ 109] 52nd Virginia Militia             0/ 518      D+    
 [ 110] Richmond Howitzers                0/  46 [ 2] C-    
 Strengths:
  losses/active
       0/  4023 Bayonets
       0/    46 Artillerists
       0/     2 Cannon
       0/  4069 Total of all arms
              9 Colors present

Division William Smith - Attack
  [ 501] Brigadier General William Smith - Active C+ [800 paces]
 [ 505] 1st New York Battery              0/ 150 [ 6] C     
 [ 506] 3rd New York Battery              0/  92 [ 4] C     
    Brigade Winfield S. Hancock - Attack
    [ 502] Brigadier General Winfield S. Hancock - Active B+ [500 paces]
 [ 501] 5th Wisconsin                     0/ 412      C     
 [ 502] 6th Maine                         0/ 412      C     
 [ 503] 43rd New York                     0/ 514      C-    
 [ 504] 49th Pennsylvania                 0/ 482      C-    
    Staff George A. Custer
    [ 504] 2nd Lieutenant George A. Custer - Active B [950 paces]
    Brigade John Davidson - Attack
    [ 503] Brigadier General John Davidson - Active C+ [400 paces]
 [ 507] 7th Maine                         0/ 380      C     
 [ 508] 33rd New York                     0/ 481      C-    
 [ 509] 49th New York                     0/ 485      C-    
 [ 510] 77th New York                     0/ 522      C-    
 Strengths:
  losses/active
       0/  3688 Bayonets
       0/   242 Artillerists
       0/    10 Cannon
       0/  3930 Total of all arms
             16 Colors present

Search For The Holy Grail-The Best Napoleonic Rules, Part 4

Continuing with Part 4 of this series, the rules Black Powder by Rick Priestley are today's subject. Admittably a big fan of Hail Caesar, the Ancients/Medieval rules with the same philosophy as Black Powder, I was looking forward to testing Black Powder out on a Napoleonic tabletop.

Black Powder

Disclaimer: After reading many opinions of these rules, it seems like gamers either love Black Powder or they hate it. I tried to approach the rules with an open mind.....and was pleasantly surprised.

Black Powder is, what I consider, a modern set of Napoleonic rules. Many aspects of horse and musket warfare are streamlined and abstracted in favor of playability. I think that it is safe to say, after reading the authors' comments throughout the book, that these rules are primarily intended to be a gentlemen's game rather than a strict simulation. The rules are also not intended primarily for tournament play (although there are point lists for those inclined) but for historical scenarios. Black Powder also covers a wide range of time, from the early 18th century to the dawn of the 20th century. Therefore there are many generic aspects to the rules.  The "special rules" are intended to add the necessary flavor for a particular period. For many gamers, the rules are too generic.....but I think that can be a strength of  Black Powder. Both the Seven Years War and the Franco-Prussian War can be played with Black Powder, and both periods do have some similarities, but there are many other differences that these "special rules" address. The rules give a gamer a foundational set of rules, but the authors allow the gamer to research period tactics and apply many "special rules" in order to flesh out a particular battle. For me particularly, I love this approach; the research and building of a scenario is a large part of the gaming experience.  I approached Black Powder with the question of whether the rules did contain enough period flavor to give a truly Napoleonic feel to a game.

The system itself is very smooth and straight-forward (and not a lot of charts to constantly look up), especially when compared to "old school" rules like Empire or From Valmy to Waterloo. The turn sequence is simple enough:  Blue team issues commands and moves, Blue team fires, Blue team
conducts melee. Then it's up to the other side (Red team) to repeat the process. Easy.

As for commands and movement, I admire the ease of the system yet appreciate the gaming challenges when things do not go as planned.  In Black Powder, the gamer first announces what he wants to do with a unit, group of units, or entire brigade. At this point, the brigade commander rolls a 2d6 and compares it to his individual command rating. A roll equal to or one lower than the rating allows one move, a roll 2 less than the rating allows two moves, and a roll 3 or more less than the rating allows up to 3 moves. Sometimes, the unit(s) does what the commander intends and sometimes it doesn't. There are modifiers to this roll as well, such as command distance, etc. The closer a unit comes to an enemy unit, there is the option to allow for battalion commander "initiative" and make one move for which a brigade commander roll is not required. I like that. Rolled boxcars force a "blunder" roll in which the unit (s) behave in a wildly unintended manner. I'm not convinced of the historical accuracy of the procedure, but it really gives a rollicking good game. By the way, if a player forgets to announce the intended action for the unit, a "blunder" roll is required..........did I mention that it's a "gentleman's game?" 

In Black Powder, units are classified as Tiny, Small, Standard, or Large. Specific numbers of figures per unit are not critical, although rough numbers for each size classification are given. Unit frontages are more important and these recommendations are also covered. As for unit statistics, each one has musketry, melee, morale ratings, stamina, and special rules. For musketry and melee, these ratings equal the number of dice thrown. (Yes, these rules do have a "bucket load of dice" mentality.) The morale rating is not the number of dice thrown, but the rolls required on the dice used for saving throws. The stamina rating details the number of "hits" that dictate a Shaken status (which contains negative modifiers).

For example, a typical French line battalion would be described in the following way:

1/42nd Ligne    Melee (6)    Fire (3)   Morale (4)    Stamina (3)     Reliable (in column or mixed order)

Reliable is a special rule which means that this particular unit has a bonus applied to its command roll for movement when it is in an Attack Column with or without skirmishers deployed. Makes sense from a historical concept (French Napoleonic infantry).

So how does combat work for this unit?

In a nutshell, the above unit would roll 6d6 in melee and hit on rolls of 4-6. If firing, the unit would roll 3d6 and hit on rolls of 4-6. When hit itself, if this unit was hit 2 times either in melee or by fire, the unit would then roll 2 saving dice and require a 4-6 score (morale rating) to eliminate the hits. If the unit suffers 3 or more hits (that were not saved) than the unit becomes Shaken as per the Stamina rating. Attached leaders may attempt to rally if attached (requires a successful command roll and, essentially, removes a "hit").

Dice rolls for hits can also be modified against the standard roll of 4-6 needed for a hit. For example, a charging unit receives a +1 bonus for charging and would hit on a 3-6. Morale rolls can be modified as well.

The rules lay all of this out very clearly with many examples of melee, musketry, artillery, and skirmish fire. Whether you agree or disagree with the mechanisms contained in the rules, everything is discussed in detail. The book itself is very well written and beautifully illustrated / photographed.

After playing out the Maida scenario with Black Powder, I had mixed feelings toward the rules. Overall, it was a very enjoyable game. Playing the French, I was frustrated with the inability to conduct a flanking maneuver around the British right flank. I just couldn't seem to roll well once the units were outside nominal command range. This in itself, limits the "nipply little battalion" syndrome that many rules allow. To succeed with Black Powder, you truly have to be very organized with command rolls and maneuvers.  I ended up focusing my main assault on the center of the British line but, due to special rules, the British infantry included bonuses for first volleys and ripped my attacking columns up. Uh.....this sounds like the historical result for Maida....I thought that this was merely a game with added chrome. The bottom line is that, despite the ease of play and simple mechanics, Black Powder can give a reasonably historical game that is loads of fun. After looking back on our game, it was truly enjoyable and very quick (total time for this small battle was a little over an hour).

Now, I will say that the basic rules do not contain many of the period details that I normally enjoy. For example, the procedure for units forming square versus cavalry are a bit too streamlined and do take away from the normal "rock, paper, and scissors" aspect of Napoleonic gaming. Another aspect of the game concerns casualties; I really needed to view "hits" as reduction in morale steps for a unit rather than actual figures hit.....I'm sure that was the author intended, but I needed to change my way of thinking. Skirmishers seem a bit too powerful (although detached skirmish companies actually do what they were intended for). Combat results also seemed to depend a bit too much on the "luck" factor; let's face it, Black Powder does base many results on the multitude of die rolls that a gamer will be faced with. I do think that the "luck" factor is a bit too powerful in these rules, but I can see why many gamers love this approach......although this philosophy takes away some certainty in combat results, it does add fun.

Here is the dirty little secret that Black Powder contains.......it is considered a "toolkit" for gamers. I have seen many gamers publishing their own "house rules" to layer more detail onto the basic rules. Taking this account, anyone can add a myriad of details to Black Powder to create whatever type of game he wants. Are the vanilla rules fine for an enjoyable evening of gaming? Absolutely. Can more "special rules" and "house rules" be added for a more detailed Napoleonic experience.....Absolutely.

So, in summary, I rated Black Powder in terms of playability a 9 out of 10. I found the rules refreshingly simple to play and very entertaining.  I am typically a "simulation" guy who likes a lot of detail in my games........after adding the "special rules" that I felt were appropriate, I simply had a great time gaming Maida.

I rated the rules in terms of historical accuracy/realism a 6 out of 10. This was a little tougher for me than the Playability rating. A gamer can literally add as much or as little chrome as preferred. A deep knowledge of the period is not critical, but does allow one to create a scenario that comes close to mirroring history.  For me, the emphasis on the die rolls (the "luck factor") is a bit too heavy to qualify as a historical simulation.......but, if you have the patience, unit statistics and the use of "special rules" will bring a scenario closer. Black Powder, in the eyes of many, really is more of a game with flavor rather than a simulation. And that's ok with me.

The Total rating for Black Powder is 7.5 out of 10. Rick Priestley's Black Powder offer a helluva good time.....

Search for the Holy Grail- The Best Napoleonic Rules, Part 3

Here is Part 3 of my continuing search for the best Napoleonic rules. All of the rules that I have analyzed so far are battalion-level rules with no simultaneous movement. I replayed the common scenario of the battle of Maida in 1806, which is a small divisional-sized game. Instead of focusing on several different AAR's covering the battle, I wanted to focus on the mechanics of each individual rules set and compare them to each other in areas of Playability and Realism/Historical Accuracy.

Carnage and Glory 2

Carnage and Glory 2 is a computer-moderated set of rules that one can use to simulate any Napoleonic battle, large or small. Besides the Napoleonic period, there are separate programs for the following periods: Seven Years War (and American Revolution), the American Civil War, Franco- Prussian War, the Age of Marlborough, and the English Civil War (and Thirty Years War). Carnage and Glory 2 can be used with virtually any scale of figures, any ground scale, and any basing style (although there are recommendations for basing presented in the rules). As for the written rules themselves, they can be easily printed out as part of the software and are easy to navigate and understand. The basic concept of Carnage and Glory 2 is that each unit and commander has a unit identification number and its unit data (ie number of men, training, experience, melee factor, fire factor, skirmishers, etc) is stored in the software. A chain of command is also input, so that orders of battle are easily stored and ready for table-top play. Files of specific army lists and battle scenarios can be stored for use over and over again. When the game is played, unit actions such as formation changes, charges, and firing are input as the computer keeps track of everything, including fatigue and ammunition. The ability to focus on tactical decisions and allow the computer to keep track of minute details is not only impressive, it is refreshing.

Each unit has an identification label that corresponds to specific data stored in the computer for that unit

In my games, I use 15mm figures with a ground scale of 50 paces (approximately 37 yards) per inch. Each turn corresponds to 15 minutes of historical time. There is also the capability of using an order transmission section for more detailed command and control.  Although the time scale for a turn remains constant, the ground scale will change proportionally with figure scale. This and everything else a player needs to know about the game is all covered extensively in the rules.

Our games typically consist of 4 or 5 players controlling a couple of divisions (and even a corps or more) each, with a couple of us taking turns running the computer for the other side. Although the detail and the flow of the games are outstanding, the information flow to one GM controlling data input can slow the game down unless the GM keeps the game rolling. In our gaming group, we have a ton of experience running the computer and turns flow very efficiently and, dare I say it, very fast.

Coming back to our divisional-sized game of Maida, it was a perfect pick-up scenario for CG2. We completed 8 turns in an hour and a half, less than half of the time that From Valmy To Waterloo took. Movement distances were practically memorized, so there were no charts that had to be checked and rechecked. Being a two-player game, we each ran the computer while the other made his moves and conducted firing and melee. In fairness, our game of Le Feu Sacre also took an hour and a half, mostly due to that system's streamlined and efficient mechanics. 

Even more impressive than the efficiency and realism of the game itself was the post-battle analysis, in which the computer computes the effects of casualties, pursuit, and the return of walking wounded. This is ideal for a campaign and allows a player to link several games together with the computer keeping track of casualties and changes in morale/experience (Spoiler alert: the system's author, Nigel Marsh, is readying the release of a highly anticipated campaign system).

Our test game was an impressive demonstration of CG2's capability. Players were free to move units and make decisions while the software did all of the heavy lifting. I rated CG2 a 9 out of 10 for playability. The data input shuffle can be a negative point with an inexperienced GM or group of players. This was a small scenario. For a large game, the data input becomes proportionally more cumbersome and challenging. Solitaire suitability is  also more of a challenge due to having to run back and forth to the computer for every data input (although it is convenient to leave the table set up and have the computer save all the data played thus far--really pretty cool).

I rated CG2 an 8.5 out of 10 for realism/accuracy.  Movement, musketry, morale, and melee seemed spot on. Add to that the ability to compute casualties, victory conditions, the effects of weather, and even heat exhaustion, and CG2 produces a very realistic simulation.  In contrast to FVTW though, artillery batteries are incredibly strong and, if properly supported, seem almost a bit too powerful (this might be my own bias, but I have read and heard similar conclusions from others). Also, again in contrast to FVTW, units were able to maneuver freely around the table with no regard to the distance from a leader. Although great for a competitive game, it seems a bit too free and easy. I am familiar with the "nippy little battalion" syndrome, in which opponents send an isolated unit way out on a flank attack just to cause chaos, with no regard to how far it has isolated itself from its parent brigade. This can happen in CG2, but at least the support and rally modifiers encourage proper deployment distance between units. Personally, I'd like to see a bit more command and control built into the system.

Total score for Carnage and Glory 2 is 8.75 out of 10.  Not only does CG2 provide an outstanding game (and detailed simulation), but it is dutifully supported by the author and myriad veterans on the Carnage and Glory 2 yahoo group. Carnage and Glory 2 is a great gaming experience, especially with an experienced group of like-minded players.

Search For The Holy Grail--The Best Napoleonic Rules, Part 2

As a continuation of the search for the best Napoleonic rules, here is Part 2. I replayed the scenario of the battle of Maida in 1806, which is a small divisional-sized game. Instead of focusing on several different AAR's covering the battle, I wanted to focus on the mechanics of each individual rules set and compare them to each other in areas of Playability and Realism/Historical Accuracy.

Le Feu Sacre (3rd Edition)

LFS is a popular rules system produced by the infamous Too Fat Lardies from the UK. It has a 50:1 figure scale in mind and a ground scale of 1"= 50 yards. The turn is card-based (like many TFL games) and represents approximately 15 minutes of historical time. The rules are designed for corps-sized actions but can be modified for larger battles. The intent is, for up to a corps on each side, that each 15 minute turn should equal 15 minutes of playing time. The rules are thorough but not overly complex and, with optional rules added, cover most characteristics of Napoleonic warfare.

In order to streamline and quicken the game, many aspects of combat are abstracted. For example, there is no specific musketry phase (although artillery and skirmishing fire are addressed individually). Combat is intended to be quick and decisive (and is considered to be a combination of close ranged musketry as well as melee), while using Kriegspiel-type charts. In this respect, the emphasis is on a fast game versus prolonged musketry slugfests between opposing formations. The turn sequence, once a division commander's card is drawn, concerns spotting formations on blinds, grand-tactical as well as tactical movement, artillery fire and skirmishing, and combat.

Command and control is an interesting concept within the rules. It is pip-based with each tactical action costing 1 or 2 pips. There are unit, regiment, and brigade-sized moves. Command distance is also part of the system.

LFS may not be for everyone, due to the abstraction of combat, but is a well-researched set of rules that many gamers are embracing, especially in the UK. One potential drawback that I sense from reading the rules is that there is no system for determining victory or a morale determination for formations above the unit level (brigade, division, etc).

I was a bit torn with my feelings toward Le Feu Sacre. On one hand, the rules, mechanisms, and various modifiers seemed very well-researched. I especially liked the system of blinds for spotting troops, the emphasis on command and control, and the streamlined combat mechanism. The concepts of Zones of Control and Pinning are very intriguing. The game that I played certainly moved very quickly. A final result was reached in an hour and a half. I can certainly see how a larger battle can be fought to a conclusion within 2-3 hours. On the other hand, even though the final results seemed valid, I had a hard time getting over the omission of a musketry phase. Skirmishing, when it did happen, seemed very ineffective. Lastly, the command pip system was interesting but felt a bit inflexible. I truly felt like I was playing a Napoleonic version of DBA (which is a fine system if you Iike it, but too abstract for me personally).  It seemed a bit unrealistic for 2 brigades on an attack order to be frozen in place most of the game due to an average commander's lack of command pips. That could also be due to my incompetence as a player with these rules. Of course, this also dramatically speeds up the game. As a counter argument, from a purely gaming aspect, the proper planning of how to utilize these scarce command pips presents a nice challenge and really forces each player to plan ahead. The experience was almost an extension of chess, which was enjoyable as such, but I would not label the tactical phase of the turn a "simulation."  In summary, it all worked effortlessly, but again felt rather mechanical. I feel that a larger game would bring out Le Feu Sacre's grand-tactical strengths more; it really was written for corps-sized actions.

I rated Le Feu Sacre a 7 out of 10 in Playability. The rules were certainly straight-forward and not overly complex. There is some tactical abstraction due to the scope of the game. Some players will love it, as it really demands tactical skill to master it. I personally would prefer a bit more tactical detail in a battalion-level game (a musketry phase, for example), but that's just my humble opinion.

As far as Realism/Historical Accuracy, I felt that the game portrayed a valid result. I cannot argue at all with the research into the game itself. Nothing seemed invalid or inaccurate. There are rules for passage of lines, emergency squares, firefights, etc. This is just what a person would expect from a well-researched set of rules. There are definitely some very interesting concepts in Le Feu Sacre. My concern, totally biased as it is, is more focused on the playing of the game and the overall experience, not the results that come from playing these rules. I rated Le Feu Sacre a 7.5 out of 10 in this area. It is certainly not as detailed as rules like Empire or From Valmy To Waterloo, but it can definitely give a historical result. I would like to see the command pip system tweaked, and a higher formation (brigade or division) morale system. An end of game Victory determination would also help out considerably. House rules could fix all of these details though.

The Total score for Le Feu Sacre is a 7.25 out of 10. I felt that LFS was a very solid set of rules and would be more than suitable for a larger battle. If a player doesn't mind abstraction in key areas of the game, these rules offer a compelling, historically-based, game that is both challenging and fast playing.

Search For The Holy Grail--The Best Napoleonic Rules, Part 1

Which Napoleonic rules system is the best ?

Being a total rules geek, I played out 5 popular and well-weathered Napoleonic rules sets in order to rate and compare them to each other. This entry, Part 1, covers the first of the games played, with the rules From Valmy To Waterloo.

Besides FVTW, subsequent blog posts will cover Carnage and Glory 2, Le Feu Sacre, Black Powder, and General de Brigade (Deluxe Edition).

A warning:  all of the opinions and ratings are purely my own and not to be construed as an all-out attempt to insult any other gamer's favorite rules set. (Besides, I had fun with each and every one of them !)

When we discuss Napoleonic wargaming with miniatures, players around the world have extremely strong opinions on how they view warfare of the period. The search for the "holy grail" of Napoleonic rules is never-ending. I am no different than any other historical miniatures enthusiast. I began my search over 20 years ago with the ever-popular Empire and continued to dabble in many other rules systems over the years. It's safe to say, after experimenting with grand-tactical scales (Napoleon's Battles, Age of Eagles, etc), that I personally prefer battalion scaled games versus brigade or larger games. That's just my preference; I refuse to judge anyone else who prefers a larger or smaller scale. I realize that's the spirit of wargaming.....besides the artful side of painting and terrain, and the competitiveness of the game, we all yearn to experience a wargame that mirrors as close as possible how we each envision a Napoleonic battle to be like. Unfortunately, the disconnect happens because those days are dead and gone; we only have paintings and historical accounts to go by.

So......I have attempted to play out a simple scenario with various rules sets and to complete an analysis of each. I graded each rules system objectively based on 1. Playability and 2. Realism/ Historical Accuracy.  I limited the rules sets according to a couple parameters; first, they all were required to have a battalion as the basic unit, and none of the systems could have simultaneous movement. This entire experiment is still flawed due to my own inherent and individual bias and my limited knowledge of what it was really like to be alive on a battlefield in the years 1792-1815.  But....hey.....it was a lot of fun. I also experienced a few surprises along the way.

I decided to simulate the battle of Maida in southern Italy in 1806. The opposing forces were division-sized and within 1,000 soldiers of each other. The terrain was relatively flat and clear. Historically, the British held their ground and punished unimaginative and headlong charges of the French with disciplined musketry and artillery fire. After the French were repulsed, the British pursued and scattered the French forces under Reynier. The battle was only slightly larger than a skirmish but the victory was huge for the allies. For the first time since Napoleon became Emperor, a French force was soundly beaten in the field. Napoleon shrugged off Reynier's loss as " merely having  a bad plan." In reality, the battle not only demonstrated the discipline of British infantry, the victory also had an incredible effect on national morale.

As for the wargame, the French have a numerical advantage, but the quality ranges from conscripts to veterans. The French also had an advantage in light infantry, skirmishing capability, and a unit of light cavalry. The British troop quality was slightly higher overall and the British had a 10-6 advantage in artillery pieces. Leadership was roughly equal on both sides, with French General de Division Reynier slightly downgraded with respect to historical results. In summary, Maida is an excellent scenario to experiment with; the forces are roughly equal in capability.

The scenario is detailed in an earlier blog post (search under the label "Napoleonic Wars"). For each of the rules discussed, I won't go into a full-blown AAR of each of the games, but attempt to focus on the mechanics of each rules set.

From Valmy To Waterloo

FVTW has a reputation for historical realism and a corresponding focus on complexity. After studying the rules extensively, the playbook does simplify play....a bit. It takes a long time to master (and fully digest) these rules. I have always been impressed with the sheer amount of detail that William Keyser put into these rules. Ah....but are they playable?  The answer is yes, but there are some drawbacks. FVTW was a 1990s evolution of Empire and is admirable in many ways. But due to the complexity of the rules, it is difficult to find an opponent these days.  Let's see how it compares to other rules systems.

In FVTW, there is a tremendous focus on command/control, extensive tactical detail, and brigade/division morale. Each turn consists of various phases and corresponds to 15 minute time periods. Command definition is very restrictive and command distance at the divisional level is very rigid, with units finding themselves outside of this distance severely hampered with respect to maneuverability. The underlying philosophy behind the rules is to force players to constantly think about command and control. To ignore command distance is to see your plan unravel completely. The final results of our game definitely upheld this underlying philosophy. On a unit level, there are many modifiers and characteristics that make each unit unique as far as maneuverability, firing value, and melee value. I personally like this approach, but it necessitates a complex chart to illustrate each order of battle. As for the turn itself, there are many phases: initiative, order activation, measure command spans, charge moves, regular moves, fire, charge reaction (further broken down into clear terrain, woods fighting, and built up areas), melee, morale (unit, brigade, and division checks) and leader replacement. It is all very thorough (which I appreciate) but very ponderous (which I don't like). Almost nothing is abstracted, except for skirmishing, which is covered by a Fire Discipline test. As for scale, FVTW has a 60:1 figure scale and a 1" = 33 meter ground scale ( there is another option for this, but I used the primary single rank basing scale).

FVTW was successful in that the game played like a historical account. But it was clunky and slow in parts. The 7 turns played took 3 hours and 30 minutes and I found myself referring constantly to the rule book for clarification. Batteries seemed especially fragile in this game. Charging infantry had both advantages of mass and formed-vs-open order and melees were initiated in both instances (the French overran another battery on the British left late in the game). It's pretty universal that infantry will beat artillery if they close to melee. The problem is that, even with cannister losses in both charges, the infantry still easily closed into melee. Something seemed out of whack here. It seems that if the infantry would lose either the mass or the formed vs open order modifier, that would make it more realistic. Maybe that's what the author intended, but I was unable to find it in the rules. At a different point in the game, a multiple-unit melee also seemed awkward and unnecessarily complex. The final result made sense, but the process took a full 10 minutes to figure out. At yet another point in the game, the British commander was killed by a stray bullet (in fairness, an extremely low chance.....but I rolled it anyway). The effect of Sir John Stuart's death was devastating to the British; a domino effect sheared out of control, and in this case, I thought the game shined. I could imagine the British force wavering as word spread of the leader's death spread through the ranks. The only issue was that, because of the nature of the 1806 British, it took forever for a replacement leader to show up......the result, although entertaining and dramatic, paralyzed the British over the remainder of the game. It seemed a bit harsh. A bright spot was the Disorganisation system that modeled unit fatigue and disorder; one woud expect this from an ultra-detailed set of rules like FVTW. Unfortunately, most rules systems do not model this critical characteristic of combat well. Although it is considered the strong point of the rules, a weakness lies in the complexity of FVTW....due to the massive amount of details, there are many grey areas which are not fully explained in the rules (or difficult to find). This slowed the game down and possibly led to inaccurate results that the author did not intend.

I rated FVTW a 5 out of 10 in playability. It was a slow moving game due to the great number of die rolls and chart checks, and it had its share of hiccups. And I am reasonably fluent with the rules. Still, it played like a movie and the dramatic drop in British morale due to Stuart's death was very interesting.

I rated FVTW an 8 out of 10 for historical accuracy/realism. Most of the mechanisms and results made sense and seemed valid. I did subtract a couple of points for the overly fragile nature of artillery versus infantry and the absence of any initiative at all below the division commander level in an out of command situation. I can understand negative modifiers, but I cannot comprehend that a brigade commander, regimental commanders, and battalion commanders could not make any other decision but to run away when the division commander was killed.

Total score for From Valmy To Waterloo was 6.5 out of 10.

Note:  I highly admire the work and research that has gone into this rules set. It was my primary set of rules for many years. As for an educational read on the historical simulation of the Napoleonic Wars, I rate it very, very high.

Historicon 2016 Recap in Fredericksburg, Virginia

Historicon 2016 is just about over now, running from July 14-17 at the Fredericksburg Convention Center located in beautiful Fredericksburg, Virginia. Speaking for myself, I have had a great time ! We are in the middle of a crushing heat wave, but the Convention Center has done a great job keeping all attendees comfortable. Food, drink, and activities are plentiful. I know there are more than a few grumblings from our northern friends over the commute, but as a southerner, this has been an outstanding experience (and only a 2 hour drive). Nearby hotels have been more than adequate and very comfortable.  In addition to the convention, shuttles are provided to check out the nearby battlefields of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, and Chancellorsville. If you've never been to downtown Fredericksburg, you are missing out on one of America's most charming towns.

As for attendance, I don't have access to actual data, but the convention seems packed ! The parking lot has been consistently full and there is little room for maneuver (especially in the flea market). The vendor hall looked well attended (although some vendors were not impressed - others flirted with record-breaking sales). In particular, my buddy Doug Kline of Battlefield Terrain Concepts has had a tremendous show (congratulations) ! His outstanding terrain is top-flite product (and, I noticed, graced many of the tables throughout the gaming rooms).

Store front for Doug Kline's Battlefield Terrain Concepts, located in the vendor hall

A couple more shots of the vendor hall

As for the games, this year's crop has been very impressive. There have been several noteworthy events with outstanding terrain and extraordinarily-painted figures. The most notable games for me personally were the "Charge of the Light Brigade" game and the "Battle of Bailen, 1808" game utilizing Carnage and Glory 2.

Charge of the Light Brigade, Crimean War

British Light Cavalry on the advance

Russians in square, Crimean War

Bailen, 1808, French vs Spanish using Carnage and Glory 2

Another shot of the Bailen 1808 game

So, in summary, Historicon 2016 has been a great success for me. My son and I had a great time accumulating wargaming treasure (oops...I blew my budget....nothing new though) and the games we participated in were fun, boisterous, and lighthearted. I can't wait until next year !

So, in no particular order, here are some pictures of what I consider the highlights of games being played at Historicon 2016.