I just purchased a copy of Monmouth and Brandywine/Germantown. I’m going to also purchase the player guide. I’m going to take a deep dive into this system and I’ll probably end up falling in love and collecting all the volumes of BAR. The complexity is actually what attracts me to the system. The formations and procedures. Thank you for this video comparison!
Wise guy, very informative video. This is bringing me back to my true wargaming love - Napoleonics. I played a lot of 25mm First Empire in my time, which some consider the height of wargaming. I do plan to start playing The OSG system and the Jour de Glorie game series by Fredrick Bey. After watching your video I think I am going to try La Batallie and BAR and use the best rules for each segment of the game as you suggested. Thank you for posting.
Great video. I only know La Bat and really enjoy the complexity. First with ML and now with Regs30. Seeing your video I will surely give BAR a try. Many thanks.
Really nice comparison! Thanks for this. I have avoided the La Bat series for the last few decades (if I played tactical Napoleonics it was with miniatures), but seeing La Bat de Dresde in your recent video on games you've soured on has tipped me over the edge (ironically enough). I decided to take the plunge with La Bataille de Bautzen. Seeing this video, though, has actually piqued my interest on the BAR series, so I'll likely get one of those to give it a try. FYI, the ability of infantry battalions to fire at greater than 1 hex range in BAR is a reflection of the battalion guns in those units rather than the muskets they used. In the mid-18th century, it was common practice to assign two light field guns (usually 6lbers, sometimes 3lbers) to every infantry battalion to provide direct support. The practice was largely ended in the transition to Napoleonic warfare as massed batteries were deemed a more effective use of artillery. Although late in the Napoleonic Wars (1813-ish) Napoleon considered the reintroduction of battalion guns because of the positive morale effect they would have on his young, inexperienced conscripts.
Great analysis. Thanks Our group has converted the rules for miniatures. We simply ignore rules we dislike and change ones that are too complicated. The result - A streamlined, fast-paced game that never gets bogged down, or becomes too overwhelmingly complex. We can re-fight Kolin, or Fontenoy from start to finish in four to five hours.
Thanks for a nicely done overview Nathan -- I recently picked up Prague to study the system, and this was a great intro. I think your hesitation about LaBat mirrors mine -- the Brigade and Divisional structure that I think should be there has been lopped off to make the game easier to play -- replaced with Command Distances and unevenly-supplied Brigade commanders.
A superb video! I have no experience of La Bat, but a fair bit in BAR. I've always wanted to dip my toe in La Bat but wasn't sure how similar/dissimilar their rules are. You pretty much nailed everything on the head with regard to BAR. My biggest issues are the same as yours. Firstly the event system. Extremely painful - and given they get triggered by either die being zero, you are looking at an almost 20% chance of them occurring! In my battles they came up far too often. One battle even had 5 in a row :/ I have found that certain events have the power to drastically alter a battle though. Your observations on BAR melee are bang on too. To much mental juggling. I play solo too and tend to use other dice to record modifiers for each side and the odds so I don't forget them. Tip of the day: Roll your dice before working through the combat. Why? There is a 19% chance (again on a 0 on either die) of a special result. When these kick in, a simplified, different procedure is used. I really disliked BAR special results in melee. They come up way too often and the results have no bearing on the units taking part. For example, you could have a shaken and disordered unit, charged on all sides. If it somehow manages to stay in place, your intuition would be that it would be wiped out. However, if you roll a special result, there is a possibility on doing a lot of damage to the attackers whilst receiving little yourself. When you combine the above with the pre-contact morale checks, it kind of turns melee into a crapshoot, in that you have no real idea what's going to happen. There are things you can do to stack things in your favour, like concentrating cavalry in one hex, so only one morale check is taken, but other than that, literally anything can, and does happen. This all sounds very negative - but I do like playing BAR. It's one of those games that calls out to me to play it, then when I have finished a battle, I'm utterly exhausted and don't want to touch another BAR game ever again..... until I get bitten by the bug once more! I have been considering getting Lat Bat Quatre Bra. Some of the things you describe sound really good. A chit pull system, no special results/events and combat that is a little more deterministic! I might just take the plunge. I am an advanced gamer in that I play many complex games, ASL, OCS etc etc, is it worth me getting the regulation 30 rules? Or should they be avoided for the first battle?
Thanks Really Virtual! Yeah my experience is a lot like yours. If you're familiar with BAR, I'd recommend jumping straight into Regs XXX. The Cavalry Rules are probably the biggest challenge, but most of the other rules will seem familiar.
I have only played a little of La Bat but I so far agree with your comparisons and contrasts. I seem to recall that in BAR, aside from the different mechanic to a derive firepower, BAR cannon are often of a smaller calibre. The more convoluted mechanic in BAR for melee is reasonable to me; it depends on factors affecting/inherent to both participants to determine the final outcome. It also makes the outcome perhaps a bit less predictable (in terms of knowing the odds, etc) and a bit risky (I liken it a bit to scoring a hit, let alone to an effective hit with artillery in ASL and thus revealing that hidden gun before the enemy screening infantry get to it). That slow movement in BAR is SLOW but, as you say it feels historically accurate; as you also say/imply, you have to think way ahead as where you are going to deploy your forces because an opportunity to plug developing or unforeseen gaps will be limited. Reinforcement arrival in BAR can be like two snails having a race. Anyway thanks for the comparison. I hope to play a bit more of La Bat soon (cant quite get my head around the ease of activation and breadth of movement.
Personally I like both systems I think they both do a good job representing warfare of the time. Also graphically wonderful escpecially the newer titles
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the Blind Swords System, e.g. Longstreet Attacks: The Second Day at Gettysburg, At Any Cost: Metz 1870, Stonewall's Sword: The Battle of Cedar Mountain. A simpler system than LaBat or BAR, that's for sure.
Have you ever played operational 18th/19th century games? For example, Kevin Zucker's Campaigns of Napoleon System: 1x Series, 2 miles per hex; unfortunately the games are out of print. He seems to concentrate on grand tactical games these days, at a scale of around 500m per hex. Another well regarded series is Great Campaigns of the American Civil War. Anyway, just some suggestions in case you need a change from tactical games.
@@Pericalypsis Yeah I used to own and play a lot of Zucker's games, but I don't play many brigade/operational games anymore. Battle Hymn [played 2018] was an exception t that. Having said that, I've just today received in the post my first CWB Series game [Strike them a blow].
I too prefer the d10. I remember years ago converting the 2D6 results for AH's Bismarck to base 10 to make calculations easier - and Maths is my thing.The distinction between shaken and disordered states are also nice. It subtly affects what an affected unit can do (more table looking up). I didn't like the special results either; for the same reasons as you, as well as I didn't like that randomness of them. What?! more modifiers in La Bat - Gawd! I terms of a streamlined BAR - you should try the command structure for the rebels in Monmouth - the Brits have independent units that they can attach at a drop of a cocked hat, almost none of that for the rebels, not to mention the convoluted command structure (which admittedly the designer says reflects the structure of the day). My rebel opponent was frustrated - poor command structure, smaller units with poorer morale, even his Combes Hill arty seemed to bounce of my grenadiers).
One thing that frustrates me about this particular choice is... I find it much harder to get excited about the BAR battles than the much more well known Napoleonic ones!!! So, while I might be tempted to choose BAR (if nothing else, to escape the godawful 3-ruleset CHAOS of the La Bat... series), I don't even know where (or when) Fontenoy or Lobositz *ARE*!!!!
Yeah i felt the same! Fortunately I kinda 'fell into' BAR when a guy offered to sell me his three BARs all at once, so I grabbed them without any knowledge of the battles they represented!
I'll also add this, after just finishing Fontenoy, I was very tempted to go back to starting setup and run through it again as I felt there were so many tactical/operational opportunities to explore.
I was the same as Nathan in that I had never heard of any of the battles. I am glad I did get them though. Many tactical permutations. I think Nathan did something similar to the Duke of Cumberland - frontal assaults and leading from more or less the front. I was surprised that he got as far in the centre as he had (a bit down to die roles, albeit multiple times), and that the Dutch got as far as they did. Avoiding stumbling through the woods probably a good idea. Seriously, if you have invested time in La Bat then go for BAR. I'm in the reverse process atm.
I would add the qualifier that for BAR games before Fontenoy (or Prague?), you have to download new charts and tables. I did that for Monmouth and just copied them into an A4 booklet (from A3 paper). Waiting for Seven for the South to come out.
![La Bataille de Mont Saint Jean [Waterloo - Full Battle - 3+ HOURS]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/V9S1y2Na0Sg/mqdefault.jpg)
![La Bataille de Mont Saint Jean [Waterloo - Full Battle - 3+ HOURS]](/img/tr.png)
![Game Comparison: 'War of the Ring' [2012] versus 'The Battle of Five Armies' [2014]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IPZgkLnjaTA/mqdefault.jpg)
I just purchased a copy of Monmouth and Brandywine/Germantown. I’m going to also purchase the player guide. I’m going to take a deep dive into this system and I’ll probably end up falling in love and collecting all the volumes of BAR. The complexity is actually what attracts me to the system. The formations and procedures. Thank you for this video comparison!
Wise guy, very informative video. This is bringing me back to my true wargaming love - Napoleonics. I played a lot of 25mm First Empire in my time, which some consider the height of wargaming. I do plan to start playing The OSG system and the Jour de Glorie game series by Fredrick Bey. After watching your video I think I am going to try La Batallie and BAR and use the best rules for each segment of the game as you suggested. Thank you for posting.
Great video. I only know La Bat and really enjoy the complexity. First with ML and now with Regs30. Seeing your video I will surely give BAR a try. Many thanks.
Really nice comparison! Thanks for this. I have avoided the La Bat series for the last few decades (if I played tactical Napoleonics it was with miniatures), but seeing La Bat de Dresde in your recent video on games you've soured on has tipped me over the edge (ironically enough). I decided to take the plunge with La Bataille de Bautzen. Seeing this video, though, has actually piqued my interest on the BAR series, so I'll likely get one of those to give it a try.
FYI, the ability of infantry battalions to fire at greater than 1 hex range in BAR is a reflection of the battalion guns in those units rather than the muskets they used. In the mid-18th century, it was common practice to assign two light field guns (usually 6lbers, sometimes 3lbers) to every infantry battalion to provide direct support. The practice was largely ended in the transition to Napoleonic warfare as massed batteries were deemed a more effective use of artillery. Although late in the Napoleonic Wars (1813-ish) Napoleon considered the reintroduction of battalion guns because of the positive morale effect they would have on his young, inexperienced conscripts.
Yeah I've been re-watching my old Mont Saint Jean video, and it's tempted me to set that up again. I'll have to add it to the list!
Great analysis. Thanks
Our group has converted the rules for miniatures. We simply ignore rules we dislike and change ones that are too complicated. The result - A streamlined, fast-paced game that never gets bogged down, or becomes too overwhelmingly complex. We can re-fight Kolin, or Fontenoy from start to finish in four to five hours.
Thanks for a nicely done overview Nathan -- I recently picked up Prague to study the system, and this was a great intro. I think your hesitation about LaBat mirrors mine -- the Brigade and Divisional structure that I think should be there has been lopped off to make the game easier to play -- replaced with Command Distances and unevenly-supplied Brigade commanders.
A superb video! I have no experience of La Bat, but a fair bit in BAR. I've always wanted to dip my toe in La Bat but wasn't sure how similar/dissimilar their rules are. You pretty much nailed everything on the head with regard to BAR. My biggest issues are the same as yours. Firstly the event system. Extremely painful - and given they get triggered by either die being zero, you are looking at an almost 20% chance of them occurring! In my battles they came up far too often. One battle even had 5 in a row :/ I have found that certain events have the power to drastically alter a battle though.
Your observations on BAR melee are bang on too. To much mental juggling. I play solo too and tend to use other dice to record modifiers for each side and the odds so I don't forget them. Tip of the day: Roll your dice before working through the combat. Why? There is a 19% chance (again on a 0 on either die) of a special result. When these kick in, a simplified, different procedure is used. I really disliked BAR special results in melee. They come up way too often and the results have no bearing on the units taking part. For example, you could have a shaken and disordered unit, charged on all sides. If it somehow manages to stay in place, your intuition would be that it would be wiped out. However, if you roll a special result, there is a possibility on doing a lot of damage to the attackers whilst receiving little yourself.
When you combine the above with the pre-contact morale checks, it kind of turns melee into a crapshoot, in that you have no real idea what's going to happen. There are things you can do to stack things in your favour, like concentrating cavalry in one hex, so only one morale check is taken, but other than that, literally anything can, and does happen.
This all sounds very negative - but I do like playing BAR. It's one of those games that calls out to me to play it, then when I have finished a battle, I'm utterly exhausted and don't want to touch another BAR game ever again..... until I get bitten by the bug once more!
I have been considering getting Lat Bat Quatre Bra. Some of the things you describe sound really good. A chit pull system, no special results/events and combat that is a little more deterministic! I might just take the plunge. I am an advanced gamer in that I play many complex games, ASL, OCS etc etc, is it worth me getting the regulation 30 rules? Or should they be avoided for the first battle?
Thanks Really Virtual! Yeah my experience is a lot like yours. If you're familiar with BAR, I'd recommend jumping straight into Regs XXX. The Cavalry Rules are probably the biggest challenge, but most of the other rules will seem familiar.
I have only played a little of La Bat but I so far agree with your comparisons and contrasts. I seem to recall that in BAR, aside from the different mechanic to a derive firepower, BAR cannon are often of a smaller calibre. The more convoluted mechanic in BAR for melee is reasonable to me; it depends on factors affecting/inherent to both participants to determine the final outcome. It also makes the outcome perhaps a bit less predictable (in terms of knowing the odds, etc) and a bit risky (I liken it a bit to scoring a hit, let alone to an effective hit with artillery in ASL and thus revealing that hidden gun before the enemy screening infantry get to it). That slow movement in BAR is SLOW but, as you say it feels historically accurate; as you also say/imply, you have to think way ahead as where you are going to deploy your forces because an opportunity to plug developing or unforeseen gaps will be limited. Reinforcement arrival in BAR can be like two snails having a race.
Anyway thanks for the comparison. I hope to play a bit more of La Bat soon (cant quite get my head around the ease of activation and breadth of movement.
Personally I like both systems I think they both do a good job representing warfare of the time. Also graphically wonderful escpecially the newer titles
Excellent comparison video- well done.
Thanks!
I would add that BAR rulebook is well indexed.
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the Blind Swords System, e.g. Longstreet Attacks: The Second Day at Gettysburg, At Any Cost: Metz 1870, Stonewall's Sword: The Battle of Cedar Mountain. A simpler system than LaBat or BAR, that's for sure.
I don't have any from that series, I'll have to add them to the queue!
Have you ever played operational 18th/19th century games? For example, Kevin Zucker's Campaigns of Napoleon System: 1x Series, 2 miles per hex; unfortunately the games are out of print. He seems to concentrate on grand tactical games these days, at a scale of around 500m per hex. Another well regarded series is Great Campaigns of the American Civil War. Anyway, just some suggestions in case you need a change from tactical games.
@@Pericalypsis Yeah I used to own and play a lot of Zucker's games, but I don't play many brigade/operational games anymore. Battle Hymn [played 2018] was an exception t that. Having said that, I've just today received in the post my first CWB Series game [Strike them a blow].
@@Pericalypsis I did a quick report of The Coming Storm here: ua-cam.com/video/APVWxpOyKLc/v-deo.html
And here's the first of four videos on Napoleon's Last Battles: ua-cam.com/video/9FTMrtDfwTk/v-deo.html
There have been more La Bataille games publish ed with the Premier rules than any other. Perhaps you should have started there
Do you have any tutorials for Regs XXX rules of La Bat?
No sorry, I only did Dresde with Regs XXX and it was the last time I played La Bat...
I too prefer the d10. I remember years ago converting the 2D6 results for AH's Bismarck to base 10 to make calculations easier - and Maths is my thing.The distinction between shaken and disordered states are also nice. It subtly affects what an affected unit can do (more table looking up). I didn't like the special results either; for the same reasons as you, as well as I didn't like that randomness of them. What?! more modifiers in La Bat - Gawd!
I terms of a streamlined BAR - you should try the command structure for the rebels in Monmouth - the Brits have independent units that they can attach at a drop of a cocked hat, almost none of that for the rebels, not to mention the convoluted command structure (which admittedly the designer says reflects the structure of the day). My rebel opponent was frustrated - poor command structure, smaller units with poorer morale, even his Combes Hill arty seemed to bounce of my grenadiers).
That's pronounced "La Ba-TYE!!!!" Come on... if you're going to deal with this series, you have to "French it up" a little!!! :D
Ha! I'm usually so good, but I was all over the place in this video!!!
@@WiseGuyHistory Glad you have a sense of humor about it!! I enjoyed your comparison greatly, though!!!
One thing that frustrates me about this particular choice is... I find it much harder to get excited about the BAR battles than the much more well known Napoleonic ones!!! So, while I might be tempted to choose BAR (if nothing else, to escape the godawful 3-ruleset CHAOS of the La Bat... series), I don't even know where (or when) Fontenoy or Lobositz *ARE*!!!!
Yeah i felt the same! Fortunately I kinda 'fell into' BAR when a guy offered to sell me his three BARs all at once, so I grabbed them without any knowledge of the battles they represented!
I'll also add this, after just finishing Fontenoy, I was very tempted to go back to starting setup and run through it again as I felt there were so many tactical/operational opportunities to explore.
I was the same as Nathan in that I had never heard of any of the battles. I am glad I did get them though. Many tactical permutations. I think Nathan did something similar to the Duke of Cumberland - frontal assaults and leading from more or less the front. I was surprised that he got as far in the centre as he had (a bit down to die roles, albeit multiple times), and that the Dutch got as far as they did. Avoiding stumbling through the woods probably a good idea. Seriously, if you have invested time in La Bat then go for BAR. I'm in the reverse process atm.
I would add the qualifier that for BAR games before Fontenoy (or Prague?), you have to download new charts and tables. I did that for Monmouth and just copied them into an A4 booklet (from A3 paper). Waiting for Seven for the South to come out.