My old friend and occasional online wargame opponent Professor Gary Sheffield has been playing around with the rules in THE PORTABLE NAPOLEONIC WARGAME and come up with some very interesting rule modifications.
The battle was set in 1806 and saw the French fighting the Prussians. According to Gary, it was a very tough fight, with the French advantage in manoeuvrability being effectively cancelled out by superior Prussian musketry. In fact, both sides reached their respective Exhaustion Points during the same turn!
The French attacked the Prussians and captured some of the high ground being defended by the Prussians, but having done so, they were unable to exploit their advantage as they were exhausted. At this point Gary diced to determine what would happen next and adjudicated that the Prussian commander would withdraw his forces in good order, leaving the battlefield in French hands.
The amendments that Gary made to the basic rules included units becoming Disordered after Close Combat, and having to fight at a disadvantage until they were able to reform … which costs them one activation points. He also added some specific pluses and minuses for the French and Prussians to reflect their differences. Gary also shortened the range of musketry to better reflect actual effect range of Napoleonic muskets.
Please note that the photographs featured above are © Professor Gary Sheffield.
.jpg)
I purchased a copy of your The Portable Napoleonic Wargame in paperback a week ago. Am reading them yesterday and today, Wow I love these rules and the simple use of unit formations in line, column etc. perfect for Napoleonic and even later 19th Century. I noticed you have a chapter on that too. These rules are great flexible and will certainly help me play fun games on a grid very impressed Bob. Quinn
ReplyDeleteGlory to Ruritania (Quinn),
DeleteI’m pleased that you are enjoying the PNW rules. They seem to be quite adaptable and I understand that - with a few changes - they can be used for battles from 1750 to 1870 … and even slightly later.
All the best,
Bob
Bob, Becoming Disordered after Close Combat is an excellent idea that could be applied to other periods as well. Perhaps a personal visit from a general could be an alternative way of removing the disorder instead of spending an activation point - but the general is unable to issue any new orders whilst rallying the troops?
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to know his new musketry range, and also what he used to create those very attractive terrain squares.
I have a pile of square drinks coasters I bought very cheaply from Cats Protection to make terrain squares that can be moved around to make different layouts, but have been uncertain how best to cover the pictures of cats thereon. I had thought of using felt, if I can obtain several slightly different shades of green and brown.
A happy Easter to you and Sue! Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteIt is an excellent idea, and may well be included in the next PW Compendium, along with several other ideas regarding Close Combat that have appeared on the PW Facebook page.
I’m sure that Gary would be willing to share his expertise regarding the creation of terrain tiles.
May I wish a Happy Easter to you and your family.
All the best,
Bob
Great to see more of this, some great ideas well done chaps
ReplyDeleteDemitri Ioannou,
DeleteThere is a more detailed battle report on the PW Facebook page.
All the best,
Bob
Looking forward to seeing the finale version in the next Portable Wargame Compendium.
ReplyDeleteMark Cordone,
DeleteI suppose that I’d better start working on the next Compendium soon!
All the best,
Bob
If there is anything I can do to assist or contribute, I would be delighted to do so!
DeleteMark Cordone,
DeleteThank you for your kind offer … and I hope to take you up on it!
All the best,
Bob
The disorder rule change is interesting, and I'm glad to read that you are planning the next Compendium Bob. I'm looking forward to it!
ReplyDeleteMaudlin Jack Tar,
DeleteIt certain is an interesting idea that I can see lots of PW players using. As for the Compendium … well, I’d better start work on it soon!
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob
ReplyDeleteAs you know I use my own "house rules", so my comment is not based on play experience your Portable Wargames.
But I do think that there should be a disadvantage after close combat, or indeed anything which would leave the formation disordered.
My rules have four stages of loss of morale. Rout is a full move directly away from the enemy, and friendly units within 4" have to test their morale. Shaken is the same, but friendly units ignore. Disordered and retreat full move away from the enemy. Disordered but remain in position.
Rout and Shaken units have to make their morale to restore their morale. Rout becomes Shaken, Shaken becomes Disordered.
Disordered units automaticall regain their morale at the start of their next turn, providing that they are within 12" (command range) of their commander.
I have found that this range of morale adds greatly to the unexpected loss of control which is so important in wargames.
Units can become disordered as a result of the morale test, or because an attack has had to be abandoned, for example infantry forming square when charged by cavalry. It is a temporary thing, but can be critical if it happens at the wrong time.
regards
Paul
Thistlebarrow (Paul):
DeleteI must admit that your morale rules are much better suited to the Napoleonic period than the more generic ones in my rules. I particularly like the way that units pass through various stages of morale change.
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
ReplyDeleteInteresting ideas expressed here, but necessary? I'm not so sure. A lot in my view is subsumed in the Strength Point (SP) system. It may be that a good deal of what is being discussed reflects a personal style of play.
The reduction in musketry range for the Brigade-level rule set makes sense, but I would probably retain it as a difference from the Div and Corps level games. There again, I hardly ever play the Brigade level game!
I am reminded, though, of Paddy Griffith's method. Units/ formations were never moved into contact, but stopped about 5cm apart (I'm going by memory here). ALL combat (apart from artillery fire) occurred at that table-top range, and represented musketry or close combat, crossing of sabres and bayonets (possibly), or even just the moments before one side decided the skyline back there was the place we oughta be.
I'm not yet persuaded of the necessity for including a 'disordered' status in the PNW rule sets. Scales are not mentioned specifically in the Brigade game, but I suggest that it would be somewhere around 1:1000 ground scale, which suggests (to me) a time scale of 1 IGoUGo turn/bound representing about half an hour.
How long does it (did it) take to rally a battalion-sized unit from disorder? Did the cause of disorder make a difference (not all causes involved contact with the enemy).
It may be argued (I think) that the SP system not only reflects numerical strength but also cohesion, and willingness to confront the enemy. A unit down to 1 SP seems to me sufficiently 'shaken'.
I am reminded of the very first Napoleonic rule set I played: a drastic makeover of 'Charge!' rules for 9-figure units. There was but one morale/ cohesion rule. A unit with more than 50% of its figures remaining was OK; with fewer, it was un-OK (though still on the table).
But an infantry unit with 5 (out of 9) figures remaining you wouldn't trust to hold a line for very long. A very unhappy unit if it were ordered once more 'unto the breech'. So it is, I believe, with a unit down to 1SP. Incidentally, the 5-figure cavalry units tended, as historically, to be one-shot deals. It was very rare to see such units essay two charges in the one battle.
There is one 'house rule' I use - something not specifically stated in the rules, but reasonably inferrable, I think. I treat all situations involving opposing units in adjacent grid areas as 'close combat' (in the Paddy Griffith style) and automatic. No activation required. My reasoning is that (a) units within fighting range of the enemy require no command from on high to shove in the hurt, and (b) it makes 'holding attacks' workable and reasonable, permitting the bringing up of reserves and organising break-through attacks.
One possibility that might be worth a look - and this comes from a rule set for the occasional club games I get involved in - is to permit lost SPs to be 'rallied back'. The First SP lost is lost for good, but, using an activation point, perhaps a unit down to 1SP can recover to 2SP. This might be subject to a die roll according to the unit's quality, or be automatic if a general in line of command were present - in the same or adjacent grid area, say.
I'm not sure I'd bother with it, but it's a thought!
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteWhat an interesting online discussion this is turning out to be! My problem is that I can see both sides of the discussion, and due to my somewhat fickle nature, seem to be swaying this way and that depending upon the latest comments that have been made.
I was very interested to note that you had also tried the CHARGE! rules with smaller-sized units. Back when I was a student and could not afford to build up large units of the size favoured by people like Brigadier Peter Young and Charles Grant Snr., I tried the rules with 8-man units plus an officer and had some great battles.
My notion of what constitutes Close Combat is very heavily influenced by Paddy Griffith. I always thought of it as being the sort of combat that takes place at close range (e.g. 50 yards or less) but not necessarily the sort of hand-to-hand combat that many wargamers seem to think it ought to be. The use of the term 'melee' by Donald Featherstone and others always engendered in me the feeling that what they were talking about was the rough and tumble of fighting where you close enough to use your spear, bayonet, or bare hands. I am not sure that this happened anywhere as often as some wargamers think that it did. To me, Close Combat would be those devastating short-range exchanges of musketry, followed by the fixing of bayonets and the obvious preparations to charge the enemy. More like the situation at Waterloo when the Imperial Guard's advance stuttered to a halt in the face of Allied firepower or the 20th Maine at Gettysburg running low on ammunition and fixing bayonets before charging down the slopes of Little Round Top, thus stopping the Confederate attacks in their tracks.
All the best,
Bob