Friday 2 November 2012

A Mixed Bag and Probably Not for Us


Preliminary Review of Napoleon At War by Ángel Saquero Hernández 
A disclaimer before I begin. This is only a preliminary review of these rules. I am the only one at the ANF to have read them to date and we have not used them in a game. While not ideal, I decided to post this review as I cannot see us using the rules in a game in the near future, mainly because of our focus on games for the remainder of the bicentennial years.
Napoleon at War is based on the premise that a "game" (and it is very much a game) should conclude in six turns. This indicates the market at which these rules are aimed, namely those who need to conclude a game in a single evening, which is, I suspect, the majority of wargamers?!! 
Despite being fast play rules, there do seem to be reasonable mechanisms for most key aspects of Napoleonic warfare. Familiar concepts like unit quality, basic formations, higher level organisation, determination test, élan test, morale test and cavalry opportunity charge are all present. Many ideas are lifted from previous rules and, as usual, there is no attribution or recognition of this ‘heritage’. In fact Hernández goes as far as to say “we have established the concept of command and control” (p. 43); hmmm...!
As with all sets these days, a lot of effort has gone into the graphic design to produce an attractive book. It is also quickly evident that they have been designed to sell boxes of the miniatures produced by the company (a common bit of vertical integration by the writers of wargames rules). I was interested, and surprised, at the use of photos of a handful of re-enactors to ‘decorate’ the text rather than pictures of miniatures in actual wargames. Certainly not my preferred option. Overall though, I found the book to be written in a friendly, conversational style and one which sets the tone of the rules and the expectation of how a game should be played.
A fine feature of the rules are the many, clear and well explained diagrams to illustrate key concepts and covering many examples. Perhaps the cleverest mechanism is the concept of valeur and discipline for morale and training ratings respectively. This enables the esprit de corps and quality of troops to be determined separately. It is however not a new concept, having featured, under different names, in many sets in the past including Quarrie and Empire.
Firing seems to be quite a good system, with increased chances if from a full strength unit, improvement with troop quality (which is somewhat debatable, but commonly used in rules). Losses are used to impact morale and effectiveness. ‘Odd’ losses are not ignored, but are attributed through a saving throw. Once again though there are rapid fire casualties.
Several aspects leapt out at me as bizarre and/or unrealistic when I read the rules. Chief amongst these is the movement. Movement is not done as units as a whole, but is conducted, DBx-style, by moving the command stand and then other stands forming around it. This allows completely unrealistic sideways movements and far too much flexibility of movement. Other mechanisms that did not sit well with me are compulsory firing even if disadvantaged (included for fast play?), cavalry being able to withdraw from small arms fire and compulsory counter-battery fire.
The rules also feature an ‘interesting’ take on rallying. This is based not on retreating or broken units, but a recovery of combat losses (although, since reading these rules, I have seen the same mechanism in Fields of Glory). To me this does not seem the most realistic way to portray higher level morale in a battle game/simulation.
I began this review with a disclaimer, or more of a confession, that I have gone against my own principles and written a review of a set of rules that I have not yet used. However, I am more confident in my assessment, in the absence of playing a game with the rules, after having read some reviews by others.
For example Sgt Steiner who concluded after their playtest “all in all I enjoyed the game rules but not sure they are sufficiently better than Lasalle or Field Of Battle to draw us back to them certainly not with army lists as currently supplied.” Or John and his Band of Wargame Brothers who have tested them twice and found that “they are fast, bloody, not too complicated and produce an enjoyable game.” Also, Torbjorn Blom who has “not been playing Napoleonics before because of they tend to be rule heavy and slow paced Napoleon at War is changing this and I hope that it will be as success full as Flames of War”.
This comment from “Superdude” on TMP (11/8/11) probably sums up why they will be ideal rules for many wargamers, but are unlikely to be a set that we’ll use beyond a single playtest: “they are just what (I) want out of a napoleonic game. I have a feeling nap heads will find them lacking. Bit like the die hard WWII players with FOW. But for me I have found the set I am happy with. I was almost settled with BP and/or Lassalle But now I think I will stick with these.”

12 comments:

  1. pretty fair first look at these rules. I own them too but won't be using them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I take it that you had the same/similar impressions to me then David?

      Delete
    2. Hi James. I thought it had some positive points. But it didn't excite me at all. Lasalle did and Black Powder basicly allowed me to make the rules I wanted. Then when I saw the NW points. Russian Battalion=60pts and French=140pts. The writer said the points were not broken and reflected the effectivness of the units.

      Delete
  2. I have always found the Avalon Hill "Napoleon's Battles" to suffice quite well, and play out in a day ... even the really complicated battles like Austerlitz with 6 players.

    I spent a half hour reviewing the rules and mini sets in a hobby store with a couple of gamers that had played the rules. The minis are 6-7 in sculpt and quality, the range is still limited, no big deal as anybody's minis can be used. For the rules they are very 'pretty' with the pictures and reasonably detailed with the descriptions and diagrams.

    I agree that they are fluffy like DBA, in that they allow for some impossible situations (that are often hard to explain to a new player, who has little or no historical knowledge or personal experience in moving large bodies of men over ground), such as the 'sideways' moves that you present. Other battlefield 'friction' is also poorly handled.

    After the review and looking over the books myself I chose to pass on even acquiring them. No more room for it here right now and those who would take the time to paint the minis and go ahead with the games would serve themselves well to include the detailed tactical and strategic study in the period. Few of the Napoleonic game players that I like to spend time with at the table will 'gloss over' these elements.

    Some will accept such 'gameisms' for the sake of the 'game' and saving the acrimony that sometimes can happen - preferring the more gentlemanly 'dice roll' or referee to anger's other outlets.

    I have played two games of FOW, having been a WWII student during my military days I found them light on detail and accuracy. Also poor in being able to do the correct things with combined arms of armor, artillery and ground strike aircraft - as I did not 'know' the rules I simply accepted the table game master's (referee) judgements and moved on, so I suspect I would 'move on' from these rules also.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for expanding this discussion with your thoughts and experiences David.

      Delete
  3. Some of the guys at the local club tried them out last weekend, and enjoyed them. I doubt they will be my cup of tea, but I'm willing to give them a try. I think one always has to keep in mind what the objective of the game designer was. In this case, I think it is pretty clear that the game is aimed at players who want a good system for short, pick up games, possibly including Tournament style play, particularly those pretty new to Napoleonics, if not to wargaming in general. That certainly doesn't limit the game to those applications, but I think it is the primary target. Nothing wrong with that, either. Rather similar to Lasalle in those terms, if not in the play of the game itself.

    Peter

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that you might be spot on with that assessment Peter. I also think it is generally worth giving a set of rules a go, if only once, as there is likely to be at least one thing in them that is useful/interesting.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure why we have lost your comment, but please see response under Napoleonic-Spain below (or are you the same person?)

      Delete
  5. good post friends very interesenting and critic

    in your opinion, what is teh best rule book for normal battles in the napoleonic world ??


    thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought that I’d add some confusion to Julian’s direct and clear response so have composed a new post!

      Delete
  6. In answer to Napoleonic-Spain, I would say, Shako, although you might want to try General de Brigade as well and choose. Two caveats to this. Firstly, Shako does really demand more than a single evening, which forces Napoleonic wargamers who would really prefer something different to use a set like Black Powder. Secondly, there are unfortunately two versions of Shako, and Shako 2, in my opinion, whilst it has some interesting and useful innovations, also has some kinks that need ironing out. I hope I am not giving too much away by saying that the ANF, after fairly substantive play-testing, is creating a combination set between the two that we propose to discuss with the authors of Shako. Certainly from what James writes above, I very much doubt I would be interested in using 'Napoleon at War'.

    ReplyDelete