Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Age of the Big Battalions => Topic started by: braxenk on April 20, 2025, 11:46:15 AM
-
Hello,
Do you have recommendations for a set of rules for Napoleonics.
We've been through Black Powder, Lassalle, and General D'armee 2.
We'd like something straightforward that play well in 5 hours without being a struggle and that indeed has Napoleonic flavor.
I was considering Shako II. I know of Valour and Fortitude, Et Sans resultat, Absolute Emperor, Shadow of the Eagles and Soldiers of Napoleon.
It seems that Napoleonic rules are always too complex for what they do, or too generic to have enough flavor or missing something to feel truly Napoleonic. Is it a never ending quest without real outcome??
Thank for your advice in any case
-
Interesting question, but may I ask one in return? You mention “… enough flavor … feel truly Napoleonic…”. What exactly are you referring to?
Reason I ask is that I am currently designing a ruleset for the period, based on my previous set Der Söldner (mid 14th to mid 17th century), and I too had, I think, your problem. Mine was at the battalion level where I felt modern rules lump too much together so that tactically important differences and details are gone, for example. But also the distance to range and time needed for formation changes are often simply wrong… I think… etc. All this is not for a game with one base per battalion like you mention. However, I am adding a part that could fit that scale… So I am curious to learn more about your struggles for inspiration… hence the question.
-
Interesting question, but may I ask one in return? You mention “… enough flavor … feel truly Napoleonic…”. What exactly are you referring to?
We have tried Lassalle 2 by Sam Mustapha. While the rules are elegant and very streamlined, they removed a bit too much and felt more generic than representing enough of the national characteristics.
So it is really a fine balance between too much detail and not enough. I think that for flavor, the armies should feel quite different when played. Maybe by exaggerating a few of the national traits and doctrine. It doesn't have to be realistic but sometime artistic license talks way more than trying to attain reality.
-
If you are talking about one stand = one battalion, then I presume you aren't talking about column, line, square?
I could be mistaken - it happens every now and then.
-
If you are talking about one stand = one battalion, then I presume you aren't talking about column, line, square?
I could be mistaken - it happens every now and then.
Good point! What I often see is how brigade, or higher, level games tend to represent those higher level units as… units, i.e. behaving as it were battalions, etc. That’s the challenge I am now trying to crack…
-
When you say element is a battalion do you mean a unit? Ie at the scale as GdA2? If so what didn’t you like about it? It seems to tick all your boxes.
-
Valour & Fortitude is a free download and should hit all your boxes, so definitely worth a look. There's a how to play vid on YouTube too.
-
Good point! What I often see is how brigade, or higher, level games tend to represent those higher level units as… units, i.e. behaving as it were battalions, etc. That’s the challenge I am now trying to crack…
I've been using Bloody Big Battles for grand tactical Napoleonic games. Each base might represent 1,000 troops or 24 guns, although the game works with representation at larger (2,000+) and also smaller amounts (500). Basic units are usually brigades or divisions, sometimes small corps. The rules were originally aimed at mid 19th century battles, Franco-Prussian War being a typical example. But smoothbore muskets and artillery are in the mix and just three small tweaks are needed for 1792-1815 games.
Infantry and cavalry units can be in three formations: line (single rank of bases), deep (double rank of bases) and road column (single file of bases). Artillery is either deployed or limbered. Some units may have skirmish bases, which improve firing and make the unit a harder target.
It may well be too abstract for some. I have two AARS, one of Aspern-Essling https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/2024/11/aspern-essling-revdux-via-bloody-big.html (https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/2024/11/aspern-essling-revdux-via-bloody-big.html) and my in-process Quatre Bras https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/2023/12/quatre-bras-iii-bloody-big-battles-or.html (https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/2023/12/quatre-bras-iii-bloody-big-battles-or.html)
Both games played for about 4 hours or less. Aspern-Essling not complete due to theatre tickets...
Don't know if this is what you're seeking.
-
Sorry, I have not explained myself well. We are looking for the same scale as Lassalle and General d'Armee where the manoeuvering element is a Battalion.
We have tried Lassalle, and General d'Armee already.
-
Ah, I was thinking element as in DBX games, where each base is an element. Basic unit is a battalion and fast play, I'd suggest Valour & Fortitude. Free download from the Perry brothers. You'll need a lot of D6.
here's an AAR of a small game https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/2023/04/valour-fortitude-village-assault-one.html (https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/2023/04/valour-fortitude-village-assault-one.html)
-
Allow me to also share a link to an AAR of a recent test game… https://tabletopmatrixwargames689972109.wordpress.com/2025/03/15/blog-63-derlons-attack-now-the-real-deal/ (https://tabletopmatrixwargames689972109.wordpress.com/2025/03/15/blog-63-derlons-attack-now-the-real-deal/)
I also add a link to another blog what has a review of Der Söldner, so you may get an impression of the mechanics: https://pijlieblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Der%20Soldner (https://pijlieblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Der%20Soldner)
As I mentioned, this is in development, won’t be ready next week, nor next month, but I am posting reports when I have one and perhaps you might want to stay posted…
-
I tried Blucher, was not happy with that, then switched to Bloody Big Battles, very happy with them.
Cheers
Matt
-
Emperor of the Battlefield rules are designed to let you play a corps sized game in a few hours.
https://emperorofthebattlefield.com/
They might be what you're after.
-
Sorry, I have not explained myself well. We are looking for the same scale as Lassalle and General d'Armee where the manoeuvering element is a Battalion.
We have tried Lassalle, and General d'Armee already.
What didn’t you like about GdA2? It is hard to recommend a different rule set without knowing why you didn’t like the current ones. Ultimately V&F is pretty similar to BP, most games at this scale are ultimately doing a similar thing. Do you not like the variable activations? Was GdA2 too complex? Too simple?
-
... It is hard to recommend a different rule set without knowing why you didn’t like the current ones. Ultimately V&F is pretty similar to BP, most games at this scale are ultimately doing a similar thing...
Not that you asked me, but my beef with Black Powder was based on a game of Hobkirk's Hill 1781 played in a London pub some years back. Some other players were irked by units not being able to move at times. That doesn't bother me at all. My problem was seeing small cavalry forces attack large enemy infantry forces. When the cavalry, having lost the melee, passed morale, both sides were left in contact. This allowed two small forces to hold up much larger forces for two or three turns. I figure such cavalry charges would be short-lived, win or lose. For that matter, the only prolonged infantry close-quarter fights I can recall involved fortifications of some sort, usually where the defenders had no retreat possible and death the only choice if the attack wasn't repulsed. V&F doesn't have this issue: melee is resolved in one turn.
-
From your comments, I'd suggest either Shako or Valour & Fortitude.
Both are fun, fast playing and towards the easier end of the spectrum when it comes to complexity.
V&F also has the advantage of being free, so you can try without any great hassle or commitment.
-
... My problem was seeing small cavalry forces attack large enemy infantry forces. When the cavalry, having lost the melee, passed morale, both sides were left in contact. This allowed two small forces to hold up much larger forces for two or three turns. I figure such cavalry charges would be short-lived, win or lose. .... V&F doesn't have this issue: melee is resolved in one turn.
Hi Vincent,
I could be wrong here as I'm going from memory, but I think you could have BP and V&T the wrong way round.
In BP, even if a cavalry unit passes a morale check it has to fall back, usually in disorder. If cavalry has to take a morale test it either routs or falls back. Only if cavalry wins outright can it move forward or pursue etc.
And, with V&F, four of us played a game last night (with v3 rules) and a cavalry vs infantry melee went on over several turns. We could have this wrong and I'll have to go off an read the rules again. It did seem a bit strange at the time.
regards,
Tom
-
What didn’t you like about GdA2? It is hard to recommend a different rule set without knowing why you didn’t like the current ones. Ultimately V&F is pretty similar to BP, most games at this scale are ultimately doing a similar thing. Do you not like the variable activations? Was GdA2 too complex? Too simple?
GdA2 is for me a very procedural overload and gamified friction. All the rolling, sequencing, ADC-chasing, and skirmisher busywork can make the game feel like a series of subsystems, rather than a compelling Napoleonic battle narrative. I am quite ready to move on from the system
-
I don’t think you’ll like V&F as it shares a similar hesitant roll at the start of each turn for each brigade. You can’t argue with the price though!
-
This sounds like it's a job for houserules. They wouldn't give us pencils and margins if we didn't need them! It sounds like you have the core of what you like, and know what you don't like, so have at it and adjust to taste.
GdA2 is for me a very procedural overload and gamified friction. All the rolling, sequencing, ADC-chasing, and skirmisher busywork can make the game feel like a series of subsystems, rather than a compelling Napoleonic battle narrative. I am quite ready to move on from the system
This sounds very much in the vein of why I didn't like Empire III, which was the standard Napoleonic rules of the early 80s. The rulebook literally had separate fold-out flow-charts to help players navigate each phase of the game. Players were allegedly corps commanders, but had to worry about the placement of each skirmish company.
o_O
After crossing out about half the rules, we wound up with a game that our group could enjoy and did not require a single flow chart.
-
Hi Vincent,
I could be wrong here as I'm going from memory, but I think you could have BP and V&T the wrong way round.
In BP, even if a cavalry unit passes a morale check it has to fall back, usually in disorder. If cavalry has to take a morale test it either routs or falls back. Only if cavalry wins outright can it move forward or pursue etc.
And, with V&F, four of us played a game last night (with v3 rules) and a cavalry vs infantry melee went on over several turns. We could have this wrong and I'll have to go off an read the rules again. It did seem a bit strange at the time.
regards,
Tom
From the current posted V&F rules "7.2.5 Cavalry Retreat: After applying losses and taking valour tests, surviving cavalry units on the losing side must retreat (6.4). Cavalry units on the winning side may then retreat if desired."
I recall Greene's tiny cavalry holding up two Crown brigades at that pub game back in 2013 or so. Perhaps they were playing it wrong. In any case, I sold my copy of BP a while back in a purge of my bookshelves. There was something else that bugged me during an AWI game even further back, but I'm an old coot and don't recall the details.
-
after looking around, I am thinking of maybe one of those sets:
- Shako II
- Over the Hills ed 2
- Shadow of the Eagles
Not entirely sure
-
If you are interested, an AAR of a small Shadow of the Eagles game https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/2023/04/shadow-of-eagles-1815-village-attack.html (https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/2023/04/shadow-of-eagles-1815-village-attack.html)
-
From the current posted V&F rules "7.2.5 Cavalry Retreat: After applying losses and taking valour tests, surviving cavalry units on the losing side must retreat (6.4). Cavalry units on the winning side may then retreat if desired."
Thanks for that.
We were reading V&F wrong. We overlooked the "... surviving cavalry units on the losing side must retreat (6.4)"
The situation we had was the cavalry lost the melee but passed the morale test, and we couldn't see the bit about retreating. Ah, well. Next time we'll get that bit right.
Cheers,
-
If you are interested, an AAR of a small Shadow of the Eagles game https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/2023/04/shadow-of-eagles-1815-village-attack.html (https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/2023/04/shadow-of-eagles-1815-village-attack.html)
Thank you. It looks quite cinematic. I would really like to try the same scenario with all the rules I have mentioned. It would be an excellent way to see which ruleset matches best my expectation for a napoleonic wargame.
-
I've not really got much to add to the discussion but it is relevant to my own search for a ruleset. I want a set that deals with divisional size actions with a relatively low figure count. Pretty much settled on Drum and Shakos Large Battles as I like the mechanism of Ganesha Games. This thread though has reminded me of Shadow of the Eagles so looking at those again.
-
Full disclosure: I did some game testing for Shadows of the Eagles and Valour & Fortitude, no further connection with either rule set.
-
This sounds like it's a job for houserules. They wouldn't give us pencils and margins if we didn't need them! It sounds like you have the core of what you like, and know what you don't like, so have at it and adjust to taste.
This sounds very much in the vein of why I didn't like Empire III, which was the standard Napoleonic rules of the early 80s. The rulebook literally had separate fold-out flow-charts to help players navigate each phase of the game. Players were allegedly corps commanders, but had to worry about the placement of each skirmish company.
o_O
Empire III! Aaargh! There goes all those years of therapy, then . . .
After crossing out about half the rules, we wound up with a game that our group could enjoy and did not require a single flow chart.
-
I play Emperor of the Battlefield.
I love them. I get to command a whole Corps with each battery, battalion or cavalry unit on the table.
In Classic mode each unit only needs two stands to show all the Formations that make it Napoleonic for me.
The rules have a wonderful developing encounter battle setup but obviously you can use your own scenarios.
We get to finish games on a club night with up to six of us. Each commanding a Corps. Bigger battles including novices will take longer but Borodino was set up for a full day's fun.
Have a look at emperorofthebattlefield.com
There is a fledgling Facebook site too.
-
Interesting take on Emperor of the Battlefield. I like a lot of Ian's ideas and he is quick to answer questions - but I find the book is challenging as it always doesn't spell out complex game concepts in a step by step process. Instead, it has a traditional narrative approach that leaves some details and questions unanswered or requiring some searching. Still, I do like how the rules allow you to play large engagements quite decisively.
-
For one element equals a Battalion, I highly recommend DBN. Really great and fun set of rules that play a reasonably fast game, with and without attrition rules, and require minimum figures. They are the only Napoleonic rules I play and for me they work so well that I see no need to change. Here's a video of a gamke being played to give you some idea about what a game looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6kWUHsB5nw
Terry
-
Adapt the principles of Impetus to the Napoleonic - or any other - era. 'Grandeur' provisional rules can be a guide. A block of troops is assigned a combat value relative to their historical allies and opponents. French cuirassiers might be 6 in the Waterloo campaign, Dutch-Belgian hussars might be 3, relatively speaking while the ill-famed Cumberland hussars might only be 2. You can organise these blocks depending on scale of figure and scale of game. In 40mm Nap., my 'regts' consist of 6 bases, each a company of 12 figures. In 12mm WSS, each base represents about 200 men and contains about 48 figures. In my homage to the 15mm North African campaign of early 1942, a typical squad of 10 men fits with sufficient space of a 120mm x 60mm base o look like it might have been. Whether I call these units squads, platoons, companies or btns/regiments doesn't really matter. They have a particular combat ratio to each other.
We ask a lot of rules writers, I think, to roll out clauses for every concievable tabletop eventuality. Just adapt the set that grabs you most and pay respect to this fine body of rele-writing men, lol