Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 17 February 2022, 10:34:55 AMIf my history's correct, Napoleon couldn't beat one of the pair.

That's odd. This website
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Fourth_Coalition
mentions a War of the Fourth Coalition in which Russia has Prussia, England and others on its side, yet at the end of which a beaten Russia sues for peace, signs the Treaty of Tilsit, joins Napoleon's Continental System and engages in hostilities against Perfidious Albion. Just goes to show you can't trust Wikipedia.

QuoteI agree fully.  Most rules do not reflect the napoleonic battlefield at all.  By and large, especially of late, they are vehicles to sell miniatures.  Thus they are aimed to put as many miniatures on your painting table as is humanly possible.  You will note the distinction between painting table and game table.

This is my soap box too.

So units are always deployed in columns, just so there is enough room for all of them.  Movement has to work so everything is made as loose as possible to enable all the units to attack on frontages that would have been suicide.  Ask the Imperial Guard advancing on the British at Waterloo in closed column of companies or columns of divisions.  I cannot find the reference right now but I understand that the columns were  formed without intervals instead of the normal half or full company intervals. No way that formation could maneuver or defend itself once it came under fire. I suspect the intent was to scare the British.  I'm sure all they saw was a massed target.

I think we aim too high when it comes to playing with our toys.  But we are here to have fun so is people are happy go for it.  But Im not satisfied by what is on offer.  I'm looking far lower down the chain of command to create my battles.

Stu

Well, even the best rules can't make a wargamer clever.  The fault here, it seems to me, is not so much the rules as the people using them. 

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 16 February 2022, 11:27:44 PMI seem to spend a lot of time griping about rules here.

Keeping a reserve seems like good practice in real battles.
An awful lot of established rules are organised to make it impractical:
 * Convoluted interpenetration rules - preventing them reaching the action.
 * Army morale - they have to retreat once the main body is 4 elements down.
 * Rules designed for long lines and anchored flanks.

Can't comment on the rule you allude to but Room 101 would seem the best place for them.

Quote from: John Cook on 17 February 2022, 05:05:04 PMThe fault here, it seems to me, is not so much the rules as the people using them. 

Quite a sweeping statement. 

Personally I prefer rules that lead a player to learn and use correct tactics.  Not mandating them.  But most rules do not.  We have already heard statements about problems with interpenetrations and other tactical issues that could be solved by utilizing better mechanics. Typically that would mean recognizing that interpenetration under fire was well nigh impossible unless gaps were left between formations.  Thus needing more table space or fewer troops.

Playing a game to satisfy the whims of a computer program to reach the right precisely calculated odds sounds too much like a hex and counter board game where finding an attack factor to get to the optimal 3-1 attack is paramount. Fine for those who like that, but not my cup of tea. 



.

Hi

In my experience of playing computer moderated wargames (mainly Carnage and Glory, ECW, SYW, Napoleonics and ACW for around 30 years) they seem to work best when decisions (on the table top) are based on what (I think) happens on a real battlefield and the tactics of the time. Precisely beacuase they take into account thing like fatigue, ammunition supply etc. the kind of thing most paper based rules do not take into account but real commanders do. I'm probably not expressing this very well, but I find I am not 'playing the rules' or trying to understand what the computer is doing.

Cheers Paul

Quote from: Stewart.gibson on 17 February 2022, 06:36:06 PMQuite a sweeping statement. 

Personally I prefer rules that lead a player to learn and use correct tactics.  Not mandating them.  But most rules do not.  We have already heard statements about problems with interpenetrations and other tactical issues that could be solved by utilizing better mechanics. Typically that would mean recognizing that interpenetration under fire was well nigh impossible unless gaps were left between formations.  Thus needing more table space or fewer troops.

Playing a game to satisfy the whims of a computer program to reach the right precisely calculated odds sounds too much like a hex and counter board game where finding an attack factor to get to the optimal 3-1 attack is paramount. Fine for those who like that, but not my cup of tea.   

Not really.  It was quite specific in response to your complaint that "most rules do not reflect the Napoleonic battlefield".   I agree entirely about rules encouraging people to use the right tactics.    But which rules force people to cram an unrealistic number of units on a table that is too small to accommodate them?  That, it seems to me, is a matter of choice rather than anything else.  As far as computer moderated rules are concerned I seriously doubt that any computer program operates on a whim and what you describe is certainly not my experience, at all.  I wouldn't use them if it was.  They remove the overly inconsistent outcomes that are the bane of dice, which aren't a tool for gambling for nothing, onerous consultation of tables and reference to arcane procedures.  But, the rules one uses is not mandatory.

Quote from: T13A on 17 February 2022, 08:53:46 PMHi

In my experience of playing computer moderated wargames (mainly Carnage and Glory, ECW, SYW, Napoleonics and ACW for around 30 years) they seem to work best when decisions (on the table top) are based on what (I think) happens on a real battlefield and the tactics of the time. Precisely beacuase they take into account thing like fatigue, ammunition supply etc. the kind of thing most paper based rules do not take into account but real commanders do. I'm probably not expressing this very well, but I find I am not 'playing the rules' or trying to understand what the computer is doing.

Cheers Paul

I understand what you are driving at.  I think you mean that they allow you to concentrate on 'commanding'. The only down-side to computer rules is that somebody has to operate the computer and input the command decisions but with the advent of tablets with touch screens this is much less of an issue.  But as I get older I'm quite happy to sit anyway and in my small group of a couple of like-minded friends, it has never been the issue it is for some.   

A brief read of scenarios provided with rules like black powder suggests that playable battles can be played by two people on a 4x6 table with anywhere between 35 and 95 standard sized units.  Yes you are correct people could choose to play the 35 unit scenario but by and large we try to play Waterloo. 

Thé Plancenoit scénario calls for 78 standard sized units on a 4 foot front.  Obviously far too many.  That is typical of what I'm finding so I do find that is a trend.


No doubt the old school, to many modifiers paradigm is tedious as are buckets of dice.  That does not mean that computers are the solution.  After all they are the embodiment of the beliefs of the algorithm writers, often opaque to the user and once learned usually quite predictable and manipulatable.  So by whims you are correct, not of the software, it is after all simply a data manipulation and storage tool. More correctly the whims of the designer(s) Are there full designers notes?

I think if we change the scope of the action we make additional tools available to us that with some creative measure can result in new paradigms.  Am I the guy with the smrt's to do that, doubt it, but I am looking to start the conversation.

Quote from: T13A on 17 February 2022, 08:53:46 PM....... are based on what (I think) happens ........

What I also meant to say was that you are spot on.  It is all about our perceptions.  It is our perceptions that make rules acceptable to us, or not, and there really is no possibility that any of us really perceive what Medieval/17th Century/Napoleonic warfare etc was like. 

Quote from: Stewart.gibson on 18 February 2022, 04:24:33 AMA brief read of scenarios provided with rules like black powder .......

I'm not familiar with Black Powder so, obviously, I can't comment except to say that the suggestion for Placenoit seems ludicrous to me but would it not be affected by the size of the figures used, for example it might well be possible with 2mm or 6mm figures but not with 28mm.  But I don't really see the need for spoon-feeding scenarios anyway.  I also don't like armies constructed around points and prefer to think for myself in the context of scenarios.  Similarly I don't like standard sized units – there's no such thing and, while were on the subject of dislikes, I dislike Waterloo intensely for all kinds of reasons, not least because it is an atypically Napoleonic battle, in my view.

But, returning to computer moderated wargaming, and not because I'm on a crusade to convert people but because you ask. 

They are only the solution if they meet the players perception of warfare in the period concerned and, of course, they do not suit everybody.  The two most popular, indeed the only ones I know of are Carnage and Glory and Computer Strategies.  The ones I'm really familiar with are Computer Strategies.  I like them because they allow the player to either accept the defaults or tailor them to suit their own preferences.  But, they have no influence on the player's generalship.  The players' are at complete liberty to make fools of themselves and competence is their own responsibility.  If you want to cram 78 units on a 4ft front you can, but, on the whole, you will be rewarded if you are sensible. 
 
The 'whims' of the designer are no less apparent than the whims of the designers of conventional paper rules and, yes, they do have user documentation, more comprehensive than some paper rules I've seen.  There are 73 pages of them, downloadable if you want to, with diagrams, explanations and rationale for the Battle (tactical) Module to Iron Duke (Computer Strategies' Napoleonic program) alone.  There is further user documentation for the Grand Tactical Module (wargaming at formation level), Naval Module, Campaign Module and Solo Module.  Far from constraining the gamer, they are far more dynamic than any paper rules I know, which I concede is not many these days.

John

I don't necessarily disagree. However, I think they are only suitable for multiplayer games with one player operating the program. My wargaming friend and tried them some years ago but found that, with only two players, the need for one player to input the information to progress the game was not a satisfying experience as regards playing the game. Another friend runs a monthly multiplayer game using computer software and this leaves the players free to focus on the table itself and gives a very enjoyable game.

If computer moderated games work for people then why not.

Personally, if a computer is going to run the game I'd sooner go the whole hog and play an actual computer game. Beautiful and varied terrain, ready "painted" figures, no storage problems. A no-brainer, surely.

I like dice for the same reason I like little lead men. It's a tactile, analogue experience in an increasingly digital world.

Do we sometimes often get some aspect of the rules wrong? Of course. Do we care? Not at all, providing it doesn't skew the game to badly and everyone has fun. I don't think we've ever got anything significant wrong.

Anyway,

"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the adherence of fools"

Well, Stu, I use them with two players all the time, and over the past two years for a lot of solo games too.  Having to input information is not much of an impediment and since I bought a tablet with touch screen you can do it at the point of the 'action'.  It is much more portable than any lap-top and no more onerous than having to consult paper rules really.  I understand people like to use dice but I can do that with Snakes and Ladders if I want to.  Good luck with your quest to find the perfect rules.   

I doubt that there are any perfect rules.  If only because we cannot know exactly what transpired on the battlefield. I think that we all have perceptions based upon our reading of the materials available to us.  From that understanding we develop a model that replicates the factors we feel most important. 

I'll continue on my quest. 

 

I think it fair to say that the plethora of rules available at variable game scales shows that there are no perfect rules and only represent the authors view of the period, as you indicated. Different but not necessarily perfect. No disrespect, but you are probably searching for the Holy Grail oF rules. Good luck.