Imperial Eagles: I want a Napoleonic CM !!!!

[Guest Napoleon1944]

Looks like I will have make due with my 2000+ 15mm Napoleonics. I have mine mounted at 1:60 and you need a lot of figures and table space obviously but it looks awsome!

------------------

The only enemy I fear is nature.

-Napoleon

[The Commissar]

Once my computer is able to function properly, Ill make a scenario based on some of this stuff and see how it does.

I'll probably need a pair of people (or more) to volunteer to play it in PBEM, since the computer isnt to be trusted with keeping formations intact...

Ill outline a few rules, make a few adjustment, try to keep it realistic.

Cheers!

------------------

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Cavall]

I’ve been a table top wargamer for many years and cut my teeth on Napoleonic wargames. When CM first came out the first thing that a friend at my local wargames club said was tabletop wargaming is dead! The second thing he said was how cool a Napoleonic CM would be and I couldn’t agree more

CM will surely revolutionise computer wargaming as we know it. On a fundamental level CM has killed the traditional I go you go system or real time click fest. The CM “play-back” system is definitely the future and I hope we will see this becoming the norm in computer wargames whatever the period.

As to a Napoleonic/ACW conversion I think this is a logical next step and I would have thought it would be a lot easier to do than WWII. The game mechanics are much easier and there are plenty of miniature rule sets with good ideas that could be adopted. As for the engine following the tabletop methods of 15 to 20 figures per battalion with appropriate base sizes and a scaled terrain will work look at SMG and Shogun! (A reworking of the CM engine would probably be required but Im sure its technically possible).

Above all if someone does use the CM system for other periods lets hope they remember that a big part of CM’s success is due to the first rate game mechanics, superb quick battle generator and map editor and the inclusion of almost every conceivable unit allowing vast scope for new scenarios and endless replayability! As a few people have said look at Talonsoft’s Battleground Waterloo. An otherwise very good game totally ruined by stupid game mechanics. How on earth did the Cavalry infantry melee system get past the beta testers? It always amazes me how games companies can ruin perfectly good wargames with stupid game mechanics when miniature wargamers have been using basic but workable rule sets for years. It would take a competent program a matter of hours to implement one of these sets! Ok rant over J Thank god for CM its put my faith back into computer wargames and for the first time we have a computer system that has tabletop wargaming beat hands down.

What took so long?!!!!

[Guest Space Thing]

Originally posted by Cavall:

CM will surely revolutionise computer wargaming as we know it. On a fundamental level CM has killed the traditional I go you go system or real time click fest. The CM “play-back” system is definitely the future and I hope we will see this becoming the norm in computer wargames whatever the period.

Above all if someone does use the CM system for other periods lets hope they remember that a big part of CM’s success is due to the first rate game mechanics, superb quick battle generator and map editor and the inclusion of almost every conceivable unit allowing vast scope for new scenarios and endless replayability!

Don't forget BTS's commitment to listening to their customers and this excellent discussion board.

[Holdit]

Originally posted by Cavall:

CM will surely revolutionise computer wargaming as we know it. On a fundamental level CM has killed the traditional I go you go system or real time click fest. The CM “play-back” system is definitely the future and I hope we will see this becoming the norm in computer wargames whatever the period.

So do I. Especially since you might well end up spending more time watching playbacks than issuing orders, since 1 minute action would probably be a bit short for the slower scale of Napoleonic battles. 10-15 minutes would probably be better. Suddenly you're directing feature-length war films .

As to a Napoleonic/ACW conversion I think this is a logical next step and I would have thought it would be a lot easier to do than WWII. The game mechanics are much easier and there are plenty of miniature rule sets with good ideas that could be adopted. As for the engine following the tabletop methods of 15 to 20 figures per battalion with appropriate base sizes and a scaled terrain will work look at SMG and Shogun! (A reworking of the CM engine would probably be required but Im sure its technically possible).

I couldn't agree more. I only wish someone who could make a difference was reading all this...

Above all if someone does use the CM system for other periods lets hope they remember that a big part of CM’s success is due to the first rate game mechanics, superb quick battle generator and map editor and the inclusion of almost every conceivable unit allowing vast scope for new scenarios and endless replayability!

Yes! This is what I've been saying for ages. Give the players the tools, and they'll provide the battles. Just get the bloody engine and the editor right is all I ask.

As a few people have said look at Talonsoft’s Battleground Waterloo. An otherwise very good game totally ruined by stupid game mechanics.

My thoughts exactly. A lovely-looking game, but a wasted opportunity.

How on earth did the Cavalry infantry melee system get past the beta testers?

My guess would be that (a) their knowledge of the period was sketchy at best, and ( their focus was more on playability than realism.

It always amazes me how games companies can ruin perfectly good wargames with stupid game mechanics when miniature wargamers have been using basic but workable rule sets for years. It would take a competent program a matter of hours to implement one of these sets!

It used to amaze me too, but not any more. You're quite right. In fact, I reckon that with some knowledge of the period and a few good sets of rules, you could come up with a design for an excellent Napoleonic wargame. I'm doing something along these lines as a long-term on-and-off project by using BGW as a virtual tabletop.

What we really need, I think, is something like "Saving Fusilier Dupont" to generate a bit of interest and, hopefully, when all the publishers have finished jumping on the bandwagon, one or two decent games will result...

Bah!

[This message has been edited by Holdit (because his keyboard can't spell)]

[This message has been edited by Holdit (edited 02-22-2001).]

[Guest AussieJeff]

Hi Commissar,

What about setting the battles at dawn/dusk or night to shorten down the weapons range (while retaining NO FOG setting to maintain 'daytime' type enemy intelligence).

Would that make it more 'realistic' for representing effective weapon ranges the Napoleonic period?? Just a thought......

BTW, I would be game to give you a PBEM test run with whatever setup you come up with :0)

Cheers,

Jeff

[Guest Napoleon1944]

Bump. I actually thought miniature gaming might become extinct soon, but I find miniature gaming is more of a social gathering as well. I also like painting the figures and the terrain can be as micro-detailed as you want.

------------------

The only enemy I fear is nature.

-Napoleon

[Guest Space Thing]

No minatures isn't dead. (Not with me at least.)

Anyways, last night as I was falling asleep, I had a great idea. Using the 1 fig (or onscreen image) to 60 men ratio isn't a bad idea at all.

Look at it from the company perspective and not the battalion perspective. A twelve man battalion is what we're (I'm) after with 6 - TWO man companys. If you look at the French pattern of 1st through 4th companys, a voltigeur & a Grenadier company that makes up the usual French 720 man battalion easy when you consider the 1:60 ratio.

All of a sudden, it is easier than CM with it's 3 men displayed per squad. A routine of some sorts to handle formation maintenance is real important with all the different formations possible. Larger anti-Napoleon & French Old Guard battalions would have 3 men displayed per company. No problem there as CM already can do that.

What do ya think?

[Spook]

What do I think? I think I'd like to tape together the CM premise of we-go and its command/control limiters to the media of Breakaway's upcoming Waterloo game (based on Sid's Gettysburg! or SMG). THEN you'd have something that could enable full battles and PBEM options, unlike what the Sid Meier engine for SMG/SMA can provide now.

But 1:60 while zooming in close enough to shake hands with the soldiers as now for CM? Nope, it wouldn't look right at all for me. CM's "ratio" is about 1:3 or 1:4 for its squad representations. I could get into zooming close-up for Napoleonics if the ratio was 1:5 or 1:10 at the high end.

At higher ratios, the 3D close-up zoom would fall flat to me. What I see in the Breakaway project looks fine to me from the graphics/media end, and gives a good impression of a live-action miniatures game.

For those of you who still play miniatures games, I salute you. I have about 2,000 painted 15mm Naps and ACW, won a few painting awards with the same. But I just don't have the time to play minis anymore.

[Guest Napoleon1944]

I was hoping someone would do a mod for Napoleonic uniforms, just for fun. It would be neat just to see the troops deployed. Someone has a waterloo map out there as well. It looks awsome at ground level "walking" the terrian.

------------------

The only enemy I fear is nature.

-Napoleon

[The Commissar]

Aussie Jeff,

An excellent idea! I still wish we could somehow produce smoke when a volley fires though

Napoleon,

I plan to do some rules and several fictional maps at first, to see how it works. Then, if some are interested, maybe go beyond this and get a few folks to do the mods and research the terrain.

It will never be 'realistic' but it can be something. I curse my rotten luck with my computer, and the fact that the computer I am now on cannot support CM

------------------

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Guest Space Thing]

Hey Spook,

Great idea about Breakaway's Waterloo marrying the "we-go" system. We-go is the only way to go. :0 I'm for that. Although I'm not a fan of RTS, I'll probably buy Waterloo, simply because it is a Napoleonic title.

As for the 1:60 ratio, that is the ratio that I play my minatures at. I'm used to it and I like it a lot. Empire V (and others) use it.

I was thinking along the lines of having a Napoleonic battle at a Corps+ level. 1:60 is perfect for battles of that size and still have tactics as an important focus. Having it at the level that you suggest limits things down to a company and maybe a little bigger level.

"Chef de baitallon" by Scott Bowden uses a 1:5 ratio and it is very heavy on formations/ tactics. Maybe that was what you were thinking about?

[Spook]

I've seen Bowden's rules in action at a minis convention, where either side could only play a couple of battalions.

Actually, I use 1:60 figures basing for Napoleonics too, although I prefer 1:30 for ACW for some odd reason or another. I never quite found the ACW rules to be happy with, but "Legacy of Glory" worked good with Naps for me, and "From Valmy to Waterloo" always looked very intriguing.

What I meant in my last post was that using 1:60 in a CM engine just wouldn't "look right" at the closer zoom scales. It would be OK for the farther zoom levels (4 or higher), but then this would be kind of like the upcoming Breakaway game looks like now.

In terms of "troop mechanics" (weapons, formations, tactics), the Breakaway Waterloo game appears to be a significant evolution over the earlier Sid ACW games. I think multiplayer games with this could be a blast. The command-and-control aspect, however, doesn't look to improve much over the unsatisfactory system (IMO) for the Sid ACW games.

But the present Sid Meier ACW games don't do a good job for larger "connected" battles, and some gamers prefer PBEM. And in the Sid ACW games, I can't handle any more than 2-3 brigades of troops in the real-time setting. (PS: the Breakaway game is battalion-level, NOT brigade-level as someone else earlier might have alleged.) So with we-go, large-scale battles and PBEM would be enabled.

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 02-24-2001).]

[Joe Shaw]

(PS: the Breakaway game is battalion-level, NOT brigade-level as someone else earlier might have alleged.)

Now that is VERY good news. I couldn't tell from the screenshots but it LOOKED as if the basic unit was a brigade so the battalion level is welcome news.

I understand the preference of many people for the 1/60 ratio, but as I mentioned earlier I really prefer the smaller level actions ... each to their own I guess

Also, I would prefer that the basic unit (be it a company or battalion or regiment) be depicted in two lines ... I think it gives a better depiction of linear formations.

Joe

[Guest Space Thing]

Originally posted by Spook:

I've seen Bowden's rules in action at a minis convention, where either side could only play a couple of battalions.

Spook,

Bowden has two out. Empire V and Chef de baitallon. You probably saw Chef de baitallon(1:5). Empire V is Grand Tactical (1:60) in scale.

[Spook]

Yep, Space, "Chef" is the rules I was talking about. Interestingly, in the years that I was able to attend Historicon (the mid '90's) I don't think that I saw the "Empire" rules in frequent play. The Avalon Hill minis rules "Napoleon's Battles" was popular for a time, maybe it still is. But the last I followed, many other minis gamers related the same feeling as for me in that Napoleon's Battles seem too contrived.

Actually, I thought that playing the computer-assisted "Carnage & Glory" rules was a hoot, and gave consistent play for both Naps and the ACW. (Campaign rules for that game series was available too.) But "Carnage" got slow in play when the computer-operating referee had to absorb and give out the combat results.

[Hussar]

I have all of Talonsofts Nap games plus many of the addon battles available on the web. Most people just use the system to play each other, it is very good for that. But your right the AI sucks.

Looks like you have a market waiting, BTS...

[Guest Napoleon1944]

I am working on a battalion level rules set now. Battalion level is the way to go for Napoleonics. 1:60 is a nice size. I hope that the Waterloo game is in fact at this level and not brigade level.

------------------

The only enemy I fear is nature.

-Napoleon

[badinfo]

You mean you actually figured LoG out?

We tried it for awhile, but was seemingly incomplete, ended up back with E5 in the end.

Soooo many little Adler fellows to paint yet

[Spook]

Some parts of LoG always seemed a little incomprehensible (like WHEN to resolve artillery fire), but for a fleeting period of time, yeah, I & others were able to use it.

LoG was a bit limited in its "troop mechanics" details, where by example, most cavalry was differentiated only by morale rating instead of also by "heavy/light" classes. But it had a very intriguing command & control scheme.

[Spook]

I may run afoul of BTS by linking to another game producer's site, but to help confirm that Breakaway's Waterloo is battalion-scale, the following screen is shown:

[Guest Space Thing]

Originally posted by Napoleon1944:

I am working on a battalion level rules set now. Battalion level is the way to go for Napoleonics.

Napoleon1944

I quite agree with battalion level, yet you read so much about cavalry squadrons here and a company of infantry there. Dividing ip the Regts. & Bns should be allowed -somehow.

Is this by chance a computer game???? Ala CM? Or table top?

[Joe Shaw]

I quite agree with battalion level, yet you read so much about cavalry

squadrons here and a company of infantry there. Dividing ip the Regts. & Bns should be allowed -somehow.

Good point, perhaps we should define our terms For example, in CM the smallest regular infantry "stand" (if I can use miniature terminology) is the squad (ignoring for the moment AT, MG, etc.), but you can't buy a UNIT smaller than a platoon. In a Napoleonic game, the smallest UNIT may well be a battalion, while the smallest stand would be a company. It's been so long since I've looked at miniature rules that I'm not familiar with how they break the units up. It does seem reasonable that a battalion be able to refuse a flank, for example, or conform to terrain, but there would be significant penalties if the integrity of the line were to be broken.

Joe

[Guest Napoleon1944]

It is a tabletop game. Shhh, I was an original playtester for LOG. I have found that most gamers don't want to learn another complicated set of rules for Napoleonics. Unhappy that nobody wants to play E5 or LOG I have to develop a more "user friendly" system. I hate the fact that I have so many figures sitting around due to lack of interest. A buddy of mine developed a computer aid for E5 and approached the people that own Empire games, but they were skiddish. It is nice with all the charts and combat tables easily calculated by computer. It also had the entire rules in a hyper-text help file. Maybe BTS could just write us a miniatures rulesset!

------------------

The only enemy I fear is nature.

-Napoleon