Hello Chris!

I didn't say battalions didn't use different formations. I said "encourage players to change battalion formations". For me it's a red flag that indicates the game is based on the fantasy that Napoleonic commanders played rock/paper/scissors on the battlefield. Highlighted by the other major fantasy that cavalry commanders were told to wander around the battlefield and attack any infantry they want not in square. All pretty much in line with your recent comments "it is better if a game allows the chance of catching an enemy in the wrong posture". Which is true if your objective is to simply play a game. On the other hand if your objective is to try and reflect historical Napoleonic tactics you have missed the boat.

Rule sets that put the onus on players for battalion formation changes generally ignore brigade formations and brigade movements. Some rule designers call these shotgun games. They basically allow all battalions, cavalry regiments and artillery batteries to go where ever they please. Sometimes only limited by an artifical command zone.

Ascarin,

As you can see, Glenn has different views to every one else. If in doubt, stick with what the vast majority of people are suggesting, rather than the lone voice.

I don't think that is a fair charaterisation of the 6 mm napoleonic scene.  There are two effective schools of thought on this.  If you want formation changes then you will be micro managing your bases.  This is OK for a small battle but once you get to something with 50 batalions?  Do you really want to be deciding which battalion is in line and try and track that?  It bogs the game down.  The dice can represent a colonel's confusion as to what formation he should be in.  Also think about your game scale.  If a French battalion in line is 1" long then in attack column it will be 8 mm wide.  Do you really want to get into that? 

Hello Nick!

As usual extremely odd advice, as you seem to be the lone voice!

Thanks both. Why would you have to change the width? Why not just use an indicator for the formation? And rather than ordering the formation it can just be performed as one of their "actions"?

As someone who has been on the fence about historical wargaming for some time, I have to say it is very disappointing to get myself committed to it to only find that the general wargaming community seems very disorganised. It would seem every man and his dog has written a rule set.

That said I'll do one of three things:

1) just paint a few models and not play

2) play black Powder or Blucher that seem to be more popular. 

3) write my own rules, this adding to the confusion

Hardly Glenn. I'd encourage you to try to read the posts by myself, Chris (in this thread), and MattiT in the formation change thread (as well as the others in that thread who disagree with you) to see that you're clearly the lone voice here. Unless you can point to others in this thread that are agreeing with you?

Anyway, I ws replying to Ascarin and trying to answer his statement. Given that you appear to be here only to troll others, you'll excuse me if I don't reply to you further, and I'd appreciate the same from you.

Hello Ascarin!

Napoleonic warfare is an extremely complicated subject and even more complicated to try and fit it into a set of rules. I think there are a few hundred of them.

I don't recall any rule set that actually says formations don't matter. They are simply dealt with in different ways. Some low level games generally put the onus on players to change formations. Some high level games assume the formation changes have taken place at a level below that of the game design. So if infantry is attacked by cavalry it's in square or some other approriate formation for the situation at hand. They have simply removed the "gamey" element that has caused endless problems with most low level game designs. 

Lines and attack columns can move at the same speed. Most low level rule designs ignore this fact and encourage players to use attack columns whenever they want to move faster. Thus changing the entire dynamic of the game from reality to fiction.

Over the last 30 years or more a number of rule writers have embraced the concept that cohesion or the loss of it is the cause of a units demise, not casuaties. So some games don't track casualties. Instead they track the units cohesive status. The Polemos series of rules don't track casualties.

There are two types of brigade games. The single base like Blucher and MdE and multi base like RdG. Your idea of having different bases working in tandem is the format of RdG.

The use of objectives and point values is a completely made up system used only by certain writers. Napoleonic commanders did not assign point values to any objectives. So your observations about objectives being a little strange is 100% correct.

If I missed anything or I didn't explain something very well, just ask. Glad to try and help you anyway I can.

Ascarin, I'm afraid you're right - every wargamer and their dog seem to have their own wargames rules for the Napoleonic period, so your idea number 3 has a lot of merit to it, and you'd be in the fine tradition of Napoleonic wargaming with that approach.

I would say have a look at a few good rules sets though, either because you might find one worth playing as is, or with only a little tweaking, but if nothing else, the other rules you look at should give you a good idea of what to include or avoid when writing your own. I'm not a big fan of Black Powder, but it does have a lot of fans, so it's a good one to look at. I do like Sam Mustafa's Bluecher, and can recommend both that and the same author's Lasalle (as well as his earlier big battle game Grand Armee if you can find it, and Fast Play Grand Armee which is available here: https://www.deepfriedhappymice.com/html/gw_ga_fastplay.html for free).

I'd also recommend taking a look at the Polemos Napoleonic book and companion, the main rules offer two types of battle, corps sized and bigger battles, and the author, Chris Grice, is someone who I started wargaming with back in the mid 80s, and who knows his stuff.

Nick!

This forum is designed and intended to be a place where people can openly express themselves and discuss hobby related issues and conduct themselves in a respectful manner. If you can't do that you should have a serious review with yourself about why you are here.

Glenn is very much an advocate for 60 by 30 basing with no formation changes but he is hardly a lone voice and certainly not a troll - he is passionate about his hobby and provides a lot of encouragement and advice.

Don't be put off by the plethora of rule sets.  My background is Warhammer as well.  Think of it as trying to decide which edition of Warhammer to play: 1st Edition and Age of Sigmar are two fairly different games.   Or perhaps Dragon Rampant is more your cup of tea, or Frostgrave, or ...

I would say have some fun painting the little guys and  buy a couple of rule sets that appeal to you or that you know someone plays.  I would chuck in Et Sans Resultat as worth a look as well.