Napoleon OR Black Powder OR R2E OR Lasalle?

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:18 pm

How about setting up Campaign rules for RtE?

A Campaign is the best way to get lot of "scenarios" where no one thinks a moment about the question: "Is this a balanced force?" It will never occure.
For all those Waterloo-Lovers out there would this be THE chance to have a Bluecher or a Grouchy marching to the Sound of the guns!

In my opinion is a Campaign the closest thing to a historical representation you can get to see a lot of fighting without having the same scenarios over and over again. To put it simply, the scenarios are producing themselves, without brainstorming.

Currently I'm involved in a Tyrol-Campaign 1809. We have about 3000 figures of all types, including Tyrolean Schuetzen and Landsturm. Turns, while marching, are played by mail until we see the dustcloud of the approaching enemy. Marching is done by old maps from the late 18th Century of Bavaria and Austria.

In the last 20 Years I played about 10-15 Campaigns in the TYW, Napoleonic and ACW, and many of them were just fun!

Cheers

Günter

Post by **barr7430** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:03 pm

Again chaps thank you very much for the feedback and ideas. The campaign thing is interesting.. we are about to embark on a campaign for the 1814 Battle for France with the League of Gentlemen Wargamers.
Small battles in June leading towards much larger stuff in november with all the politics, marches and fancy stuff in between by email.

The Revolutionary stuff.. yes indeed that too. It is just a matter of time at them moment, juggling the following:
1. Editing and finishing BLB #2
2. Articles for WI
3. Additions to The March of Eagles for Victrix
4. Waterloo weekender in April
5. SALUTE
6. Scenarios book for BLB
7. Other 'projects'
8. Painting
9. oh and eh.. work!

CoffinDodger · Post by **CoffinDodger** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:42 pm

barr7430 wrote: 9. oh and eh.. work!

Don't overdo it, now.

obriendavid · Post by **obriendavid** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:53 pm

barr7430 wrote:The Revolutionary stuff.. yes indeed that too. It is just a matter of time at them moment, juggling the following:
1. Editing and finishing BLB #2
2. Articles for WI
3. Additions to The March of Eagles for Victrix
4. Waterloo weekender in April
5. SALUTE
6. Scenarios book for BLB
7. Other 'projects'
8. Painting
9. oh and eh.. work!

I notice Gwen and the kids don't even get a mention

Don't worry, I won't tell.

Cheers
Dave

Captain of Dragoons · Post by **Captain of Dragoons** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:50 pm

1814

Campaign for France - Good year for wargammers, everybody is in: Russia , Austria, Prussia, Britian , France and all the smaller states. For the Allied commander chance to command Russians, Austrians or Prussians at the same time. For the French commander lots of Old Guard , Young Guard that actually get to fight.

cheers
Edward

valleyboy · Post by **valleyboy** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:16 am

Err Points have a place Gents - granted its usually at the back and not for me though!
I can see a points system influencing popularity in the long run so maybe its worth a think?

How about tying in a points system to historical OOB's though - sort of field a French division that might be X points but it might only be able to fight a British Division that might cost Y points or a Russian one that costs Z points

Eg a French Division in the Peninsula might be woth say 1800 points but the equivalent division for 1812 might be 2000 or a french allies might only cost 1500 points etc

Come to think of it one might reduce it to a brigade level except that those pesky Prussians would no doubt confound that

PS Seriously hope to get my derriere in gear soon and get RTE going in 15mm - perhaps it should take priority over painting my Crusaders and Arabs

After all we all know that 15mm is the one true scale and God rested on the 7th day - the day after he invented the 15mm wargame scale

http://wdlovesme.19.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=5846

http://wdlovesme.19.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=481

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:13 pm

Err Points have a place Gents - granted its usually at the back and not for me though!
I can see a points system influencing popularity in the long run so maybe its worth a think?

Valleyboy,

Point system "in the long run" is the same term they told us 20 years ago. Before going to point systems I would rather side with Clarence and the system Charles S. Grant brought up with his Scenarios for Wargamers, dicing a force from a pool of troops in a certain premade battle like Clarence wrote.

The Long run, as you say, bring most of these Point-players back to us, the historical players, because we want to have the full might of our beloved toys on the table and not, because of having not enough points, only 2/3rd of it.

Example:
A British brigade meets a french brigade. According to referrence books the Brits will have about 3-4 units the french between 6 and 12. All depending on where and when you are placing this. In a historical game it can happen, in a pointsystem-game the frenchies(frogs) wont have more then 6 because its over 2000 points.

In my opinion and maybe I stand alone with that kind of view, I would rather like to see how the british fight against the first line troops who invaded Russia instead of these striped and hampered "backwater-troops" they met in Spain. Their famed light division would have to fight against ONE Light Regiment containig 5 or 6 batallions and the 2nd Regiment is of 4-6 Line bataillions, supported by Regimental artillery and one Battery or maybe two.
That is what historical playing make battles so much more fun and of course interesting, because systems to fight a battle meet each other, not picked forces of unhistoric size and nature.

But as I said before its my opinion and therefore again a
NO
to point system

Cheers,

The "Redhead"
Günter

CoffinDodger · Post by **CoffinDodger** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:51 pm

valleyboy wrote: ...God rested on the 7th day - the day after he invented the 15mm wargame scale

He wasn't resting, He was hiding His head in shame.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:18 pm

Hi Valleyboy,

Your 15mm are looking quite nice. Impressive size and numbers.

Hm, how many of them would you get for 2000 points

What is to be gained out of giving historical OOBs points? 1800 or 2000 points wont change their quality or numbers.

1812 was the Year of the First World War because all arround the world were fights going on.

By historc OOBs of 1812 you get a french Division with at least 12(up to 20), a Russian with 12, a British with 8-10, a French-Allied with 8-12, a british-Allied with 8-12 units of infantry. Supporting them would be french 8-16 guns, Russian 12-36 guns, british 6-12 guns, all Allied on both sides more or less the same. On Division Level there is not one single Cavalry unit at hand, for no one. At all nations, exept Britain, they were hold on Corps-Level (British on Army-Level).

Sure someone can give the troops in OOBs points but to what end?
Mixing up point system with historical OOBs leads nowhere.

"Grand Master" BH wrote the LOGW will do a Campaign of 1814. Most interesting, but I wonder if the french will win 10 of 12 engagements as they did in history.

Vene, Vidi, Vici or how i like to say I came, I saw and I kicked them in their butt's.

Günter

Duke of Plaza-Toro · Post by **Duke of Plaza-Toro** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:19 pm

Barry – I’ve noticed you referring to the success of Lasalle in Australia (in comparison to RtE) a couple of times now. Now I’m not sure what impression Nic Robson has given you (or any other contacts you might have in Oz), but I think I should put a couple of things in context (before you assume that RtE has in some way failed here).

Firstly you say Lasalle’s “points system seems to lend it towards competition gamers”. I would put it a lot more strongly than that. I think ALL of Lasalle is unashamedly aimed at competition / tournament gamers! There’s nothing wrong with that of course, but it does explain why the rules have done so well in Australia because the tournament scene here is very strong (some of the Melbourne clubs run two or three major tournaments a year – Flames of War and Fields of Glory being very popular at the moment). Lasalle’s success in Australia should not therefore be taken as reflecting badly on RtE. RtE has still sold steadily (around 40 + copies from Eureka last time I checked – and still going) and while that might not sound like a ‘best seller’ it’s very good within the confines of Australia’s relatively limited and far flung gaming community.

And it’s selling to exactly the people I thought it would. Not so much the hardened ‘clubbers’ but more to the loosely affiliated groups of like minded gamers who usually meet up at each other’s houses or turn up at shows to put on demo and eye candy games - and then disappear again. (Sound familiar?) It’s fair to say Black Powder has attracted a similar level of interest from these same groups but they seem to be happy alternating between both BP and RtE at the moment. The Napoleon rules, on the other hand, seem to have sunk without trace here.

Now having got that off my chest – a few comments regarding points systems.

I would place myself firmly in the camp that is not interested in such beasts. As Clarence says - despite the claims made of ‘scientific’ method in their construction from their authors, points systems and army lists are invariably highly subjective, flawed, and seldom produce a balanced game anyway. Good, interesting / challenging scenarios, which can be tweaked with various ‘plug in’ options and variants (the Charles Grant approach) usually produce a more satisfying gaming experience. I would add my vote to those people urging you to go in that direction.

However – just to play devil’s advocate for a moment – Churchill’s point about “where you want to take the rules” is a valid one. If you are looking to increase the potential readership and tournament player interest in RtE (i.e. sales), then perhaps a points system is indeed in order (the rest of us can just ignore it!) If nothing else you can take the slightly cynical view that a points system invariably generates controversy and lots of debate that will – in pure commercial terms – help to keep RtE in the gaming ‘public eye’ and therefore at the forefront of Napoleonic wargaming for years to come! After all it’s probably the endless arguments about points and troop classifications that sustained interest in WRG Ancients and DBM for all those years. The flip side is you will be danger of becoming admired and loathed in equal measure - to Phil Barker-like proportions!

John

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:29 pm

Dear Duke,

I thought I have much to say about that subject but you "Outclass" me by far

And I agree with you.

Cheers

Günter

Duke of Plaza-Toro · Post by **Duke of Plaza-Toro** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:35 pm

Yes - it's often been said I do go on a bit...

One other thing in favour of army lists - or at least basic ones. They do at least help beginners / youngsters get started. Just so long as they are made to realise the lists are not meant to be 'The Gospel according to Barry'

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:43 pm

I hope it did'nt look as I am against Army lists, I am not at all.

They are the way I found my Armies to start with and the best help all newcomers will get to find theirs in the napoleonic area. In my case it was the book of Ray Johnson Napoleonic Armies

valleyboy · Post by **valleyboy** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:07 pm

valleyboy wrote:Err Points have a place Gents - granted its usually at the back and not for me though!
I can see a points system influencing popularity in the long run so maybe its worth a think?

As usual JC has put things much more eloquently than I can

@ Monsieur le Marechal please note the above before you hang me please - a points system is not for me - what I meant is that it's for others (ie as a means of increasing popularity for those that need it in any set of rules they play). My badly construed comment about it being "at the back "(well it was after a few glasses of Brookfields 2007 Malbec

) was meant to convey its place in a queue of important factors not as in back of the book! - apologies

My notion of tying points to historical OOBs was a suggestion to facilitate playing uneven games, giving perhaps a notional value of a division at a point in history - clearly the same French Division in 1814 would cost less points than the equivalent in 1809 for example. On reflection I can see that the suggestion is of absolutely no value if someone wants to play in a competition but I also have difficulty understanding why anyone would actually want to do that!

PS I have no idea what you'd get for 2000 points - it was a figure pulled out of the air - to badly illustrate "a point"

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Apologies accepted Captain Needa err Valleyboy

Btw, we French are far more civilized;
we dont hang anyone we just put them before a firing squad

(earlier we cut of their heads)

Welcome to the circle of non-pointsystem Lovers.

As Churchill and the Duke pointed out it is for Barry to decide “where he wants to take the rules".

Günter