Bloody Big Battles Napoleonics

[SJWi]

I've had my eyes on this ruleset for several years but have never quite fancied the wars of mid-late 19th century. However my mates and I have invested quite heaviiy in 6mm Napleonics, and I now see there is a set of BBB Napoleonic scenarios.  Can anyone tell me if the rules assume any basing convention for units.  I know lots of rules claim to be "basing agnostic" but when you get them they aren't quite as agnostic as you might think! My figures are all based on 70 x 35mm bases.

[jon_1066]

The rules specify about 1” per base.  However they are easily adapted.  The bases are used to take casualties and show formations.  So you could use 1 of your bases as two in BBB and just mark a hit on the odd base.  An alternative is have 1 of your bases as the unit and mark hits and formations with counters.

[ChrisBBB]

Hi SWJi, I'm glad we've piqued your interest!

The answer is broadly as jon_1066 says. BBB per the rulebook uses 1"x1" bases to form multi-base units. It uses casualty base removal, so the bases are effectively strength points.

Some players with larger bases treat them as double bases, so that's one approach you could use.

Other players just treat a single large base as a whole unit. That does mean you need a way to track strength points and formation (BBB uses three: 'Line', 'In Depth', and 'Column of March'), but that's hardly an insurmountable obstacle. This might be the best way for you to go with your 70x35mm bases.

Hope this helps.
Chris

[SJWi]

Chris. Many thanks. I have several candidate sets of rules but nothing definitive. Are the core rules the same for all periods?

[ChrisBBB]

The BBB core rules are the same from Napoleonics through to the Balkan Wars.
For Napoleonics, essentially there is just one new modifier: an additional +1 for true shock cavalry.
(Once you go back into the pre-Napoleonic 18th century, you do need a few extra constraining rules to produce the 'linear warfare' of WSS, GNW, WAS or SYW.)

This is a major reason why BBB has been the staple diet for a large group of us at OWS (not to mention plenty of other folks) for the last 15 years. We can play a different battle from a different war every week - so there is constant variety and the games stay fresh - but without having to wrestle with a new ruleset each time. The rules don't get in the way of the tactics, so we can play quickly and finish the game.

I should add that our group is a very broad church that includes all types of gamer. For the seriously competitive, the tight scenario structure and victory conditions provide the contest they want; those who want history get lots of that (we always play historical battles); those who just want a game to move reasonably quickly and have some excitement and drama to it get plenty of that. Did I mention that at Colours we encouraged a Warhammer 40K player to join in our demo game mid-morning and he then stayed and fought it through to the end, before asking where he could buy the rules and get figures?

[vtsaogames]

The "K" modifier noted above is the sole Napoleonic rule addition. Of course, scenario specific rules may apply. One of the strengths of BBB is the many scenarios. I recently played the Aspern-Essling scenario and am eager to play it again.

This is a grand tactical set of rules. Your basic units may be brigades, divisions or small corps. There won't be column/line/square formations. The three basic formations are line (single rank of bases), deep (double ranks of bases) and road column (single file of bases). Artillery is deployed (to fire) or limbered (to move). Infantry formations can have skirmisher bases, which add to outgoing fire and protect against incoming. Some irregular cavalry may have skirmisher bases and be harder to hit.

If you want to have a whole battle on a 6 X 4 foot table resolved in an evening, these are your rules. If you must have column/lines/squares, they are not. In my experience, the games don't produce results that leave you wondering how the hell that happened. From time to time you may hate your dice, but the combat results make sense. My dice tend to run hot, with others complaining, or cold, with others laughing.

Each unit rolls to see what it can do. Some won't move, some will move half speed and some will make a full move. Disrupted units in bad shape may retreat a good distance or even straight off the table.

[olicana]

I've only played one game of BBB, up in Perth about 10 years ago, but I thought it was a pretty good rule system at the time (for that level of game).

[vtsaogames]

Are the core rules the same for all periods?

Yes. For Napoleonic period, you just ignore all those ungentlemanly later weapons, like breechloaders, rifled artillery, etc.
Smoothbore muskets and artillery all the way. The way combat is supposed to be. 

[ChrisBBB]

Smoothbore muskets and artillery all the way. The way combat is supposed to be. 

I fear BBB neglects to make due provision for Austrian Girardoni air rifles ...

Apart from that: thanks for the kind words, chaps!

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

The reference to the Austrian air rifle reminded me of the one previous occasion I had heard of it: in Wargamer’s Newsletter, believe it or not. I therefore consulted Wikipedia and found an article admitting to “multiple issues”. In fact it doesn’t even spell the name consistently, sometimes saying ‘Girandoni’. The only reference to the weapon’s use is by Meriwether Lewis on the Lewis and Clark expedition. Apparently a total of 1,300 were produced. Presumably the majority of these were used by the KuK army, though as to where and when, the article is silent. Nor do the references listed seem to relate to the weapon’s use in a military context. Could you please provide some sources of further information?

[ChrisBBB]

The German Wikipedia is more informative:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni-Windb%C3%BCchse
In particular, it provides a reference to this by Geoffrey Baker and Colin Currie:
https://forum.vintageairgunsgallery.com/girandoni-girardoni-type-airguns/girandoni-book-by-g-baker-and-c-currie/
These give a little more information about the weapon's (extremely limited) deployment.

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

Thank you. At least we’ve established the correct spelling, which the English Wikipedia page fails to do.

It seems astonishing that in a wargaming and military history reading career of over half a century, much of it devoted to the Napoleonic era, I’ve come  across precisely two references to this weapon. All I remember of the first - the inventor’s name having been forgotten long ago - is due to the anecdote told by a WN contributor - name also long forgotten - of playing a Napoleonic wargame with his highly competitive nephew, who, as the Austrians, astonished him by suddenly announcing that his troops, or at any rate a portion of them, were equipped with this obscure pneumatically powered weapon, for which the rules made no provision. During a break for refreshments the elder player did some research, from which he learned - and then smugly announced - that it had last been used in the 1790’s and was therefore inadmissible. The game, as I recall, was terminated by a deus ex machina in the form of a boisterous dog chasing an errant ball into the room where the game was set up, the resulting chaos leading to its abandonment.

[Harry Faversham]

I had a mate in the MLAGB who acquired one of them original Austrian popguns. He used a petrol based cleaning product to fettle it back to full shooting condition.
He pumped it up, it exploded, he lost half his stomach and most of his fingers when the globe thingybob exploded.
Dangerous things, them original popguns!
 

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

That, I have to say, is not quite as amusing as my own anecdote and indeed most regrettable, particularly for your mate. What, may I ask, is MLAGB?

[olicana]

Dangerous things, them original popguns!

Sounds like the brother of a friend of mine. hired by his uncle to shift a huge pile of gravel (by shovel and barrow) who took the short cut of mixing weed killer and sugar. Going back to check the fuse - bang! No pile of gravel, much less brother (he lived).