This game kicks ass, it's the only horse & musket game my spouse has not only expressed an interest in but actually enjoyed playing. Being able to yell STOP every time your opponent goes over moment is a nice bonus. Completely agree with you on BUA's being insanely overpowered.
@@LittleWarsTV Can't recommend enough the OldMelDrum Wargames Group Blucher scenarios. Big scale, detailed games and all the card files needed to play it at an affordable price.
WOW! And I was asking for this video last night. What timing. We(my wargaming group) are refighting the battle of Aspren-Essling in two weeks. And we are using "Blucher".
If the organizer comes with scenario in place, to me this is arguably the most accessible historical wargame that still maintains play depth ever designed.
How could you skip over the Scharnhorst campaign system? To me that outshines the need to play scenarios. Surely those battles are not historical, but it's so dynamic and fits well with any strategy table top game, fantastic tool! To me it would have added to the overall score quite a bit.
"Villages as bunkers" is a plague among Horse and Musket games. I've seen a village or two completely kill a big battle game: Black Powder and Valour and Fortitude rules. I believe the fix lies in making the built up area a representative size, much bigger than the occupying unit in dense formation. If the ground footprint is the same as a battalion column, the troops would not be in cover, or unable to fight and shoot. Most rules provide a defence bonus, but fail to represent how a BUA disperses its occupants.
weirdly enough our more competitive club felt the predecessor, M&R, did a really good jobs with this. VIllages are hard to take in combat but tend to lose shooting battles as long as your opponent controls 2 or more approaches to the town. Therefore towns reliably became about positioning rather than big assaults, and could go back and forth as units were fed in.
I've never played this game so do not have much knowledge of the rules (but wouldn't turn down the chance to, if offered) but Greg's suggestion, i.e, treating built up areas as rough ground ("difficult terrain?") looks like a viable solution with perhaps only using the "garrison"(?) modifier for scenarios that include tough, historical strongpoints like, Hougoumont, La Haye Sainte at Waterloo and the Granary at Essling, etc. Interesting that Might & Reason (see other comment), might also provide a solution.
Imho, General d’Armee 2 does a very good of representing villages and built up areas on the battlefield. They’re not at all difficult to take but will be a thorn in the side because of the nuisance firepower that the garrison can put out.
@@LittleWarsTV I made an edit, since the line before last originally said the opposite of what I intended. In short, a line (or column) represents the maximum achievable density of muskets to frontage. A line (obviously) presents more. A battalion dispersed across a town and shooting from windows ought to occupy a much larger footprint than a line.
I take the 'brittleness" (two hits for a failed attack) as the game's way of telling you don't attack unless you are sure you can win. If you only have a 50/50 chance of winning , perhaps just fire a volley this turn. Of course desperate times call for desperate measures. :)
I've never played a single minute of a table-top war game, but I love this channel! I'm a history buff, so I guess that explains it. These videos are really enjoyable.
You should dip your toe in! Some of the Vitrix Miniatures have 60 Figure de facto armies for a reasonable price, and 2mm is really cheap and accessible. Irregular and 3d printing are fantastically cheap.
I ran my first campaign at my club using Blucher and it went great. I actually used the 1809 campaign map y'all posted on the Army Group York blog years ago. Thanks for all of the great stuff you put out.
Good review chaps, Blucher is one of my favourite rules sets, I love the simplicity of the combat and I feel that the attacker losing strength encourages players to have fresh reserves to throw in after the initial attack has blown. From my POV, it makes it quite historical in that aspect.
It absolutely rewards reserves, but with a unit really only being able to launch 2 effective attacks over a standard 30 turn game, you better make sure you have enough units to afford it! Definitely a game well suited to bigger armies. I’ve seen several of your Blucher reports. Good to know others are still playing this game like we are!
Blucher's a great game. Definitely agree on several of the points. 1) On unit fragility: we 100% agree. Our solution has been to give the attacking unit (and only attacking units) a "saving throw" against that loss of Elan which comes from the attack. So you will lose 1 Elan during and attack, and you MIGHT lose 2. Simple and doesn't add much time to the combat resolution process. In 5 years of play with Blucher, this is the *only* house rule we have felt the need to include. 2) Historical flavor: it doesn't have "tactical" flavor, but does it make one feel like they're a Corps or Army commander who has to make the decisions that someone at that level makes? The key there is in the Momentum system; what the high-level CO is concerned mostly about is resource distribution and focus, and viewed through that specific lens, IMO it should score well on historical flavor. 3) Lack of scenario support is annoying, but there's so many worse ones out there. We tried to pick up Snappy Nappy recently, and with the death of Yahoo Groups, you guys and the Blunders on the Danube blog are basically the only support there is whatsoever. 4) Use of the optional commander traits is not optional. It's desperately needed. Finally, what would be very interesting is to see you guys do a compare/contrast between games sometime. For example, a comparison between an abstract mass-battle game like Blucher, and a high-fidelity mass-battle game like Avalon Hill's "Napoleon's Battles". Both games are INTENDED to fill roughly the same niche (large Napoleonic battles, with the Brigade as the primary unit of maneuver, in a playable time frame), but go about it in tremendously different ways.
I'm a Naps Battles player myself. Or was years ago before I got out of wargaming. From what I see of this I would not be interested. Far too little realism and random rules. The thing about having your opponent throw for your movement ability just seems stupid to me.
Thank you both. Tom's instinct regarding Playability is correct, I believe. Winning is often defined by 'crushing' the enemy (removing opponent's units), rather than achieving objectives, such as position. This often results in a frustrating no-result after 3 hours of play, as both players withdraw units which are about to break. Of course, easily solved as Greg proved with his Maloyaroslavets scenario. Agreed with Greg's view on Historical flavour, but I think that's because so much of Napoleonic era fighting hinged on morale.
My main problem with scenario design for Blucher is deciding how much of the artillery should be attached and how much is formed into "Batteries". It's not a problem in point based games as you can choose how to divide them. But for historical battles you don't always have enough info for that.
Hey guys, nice video. Love the globe and very glad you have the globe focused on my country of New Zealand with our large island to the left of us. I use to play Napoleonic war games in my teen years and have had a fascination for this period. Great uniforms too! Happy New Year btw.
To answer Greg's question what big battle napoleonic system is easier to get into that may be "2x2" Napoleonics". It's a really fun game that requires only a small table and about 16 bases.
I am a huge fan of both LWTV and Blücher. I long expected this video and was pleased to see it pop up this morning. While this review is a thorough discussion of the rules, I think there's one important thing to add that was not expressly discussed: Blücher's mini-campaign system, "Scharnhorst." As discussed in the video, there are many Blücher scenarios available from 3rd parties. Also, scenarios for other battle Napoleonic rules (esp. Volley and Bayonet) are easily convert for Blücher. However, historical scenarios remove or greatly reduce some essential choices of being a Napoleonic general. In a historical scenario, the enemy has been located and positioning is usually done for you. While this can be fun in its own way (it's fun to win Waterloo as the French, proving for once and for all that you are more brilliant than Napoleon) it only represents part of the experience of being a Napoleonic general. Enter "Scharnhorst" - Blücher's mini-campaign system. "Campaign?" I hear you say, "must be long and tedious." Well, not Scharnhorst! The system is fast and simple. It's limited in scope to setting up *one* battle, although it can be expanded to cover larger campaigns with ease. Importantly, it restores to the players historical choices: "Should I cross the river here?" "Is that enemy force a scouting force or the main body?" "Can I support that corps in time?" Napoleonic generals weren't trying to recreate specific battles, they were trying to win a war. Napoleon's true strength was his ability to bring forces to bear at a single point on the operational campaign map: and Scharnhorst allows players to try their hand at this often overlooked aspect of generalship, adding to the overall "feel" of the game. I believe the lack of historical scenarios from the author, Sam Mustafa, is simply because he expects people to generate their own scenarios with Scharnhorst. It doesn't take more work than setting up a historical scenario, but it's a different kind of work. For instance, you want to have an inventory of terrain on-hand to lay out the board once the armies meet. Map maneuvering takes about 30 mins, which you could do at the conclusion of a game session one week, setting up the battle for the next week. Wargaming Big Battles' Ottoman vs. Russians video shows what this looks like: ua-cam.com/video/zEZZbRrKgzs/v-deo.html In conclusion, historical scenarios are all fine and good, but Scharnhorst is where Blücher shines. Even if you aren't fighting a historical scenario, Bonaparte wasn't either. If you haven't tried it, I sincerely encourage you to give it a go!
Thanks for a very engaging review. It confirms my experience with the game, that it has huge plusses - it is easy to play and enjoyable to play in a club afternoon - but equally can wind down very quickly and leave one without a sense of having fought a distinctively Napoleonic battle.
Good to see the land down under taking center stage on LWTV, so early in the year. As for Blucher, I know more about it now than I did, so cheers for the review.
Perhaps next to bringing in flavour and joy of gaming and delivering truly valuable info, the best thing about Little Wars and their vids is you just really want to hang out with these guys, play a game or two or five (and probably drink yourself silly at the bar) "I give them a solid 100"
My major criticism of Sam’s content is that he publishes the rules and then abandons it for the next project. Scenario support is negligible other than asking questions on the forum or very very few third party sites. I would like to at least see collaboration with someone to publish scenario books. I don’t mind doing research (one of my favourite parts) and writing scenarios but it’s the huge amount of play testing required to work out the kinks that I don’t have time for.
A valid criticism I think. We enjoy his rules and find them well done-always an innovative idea or two in his games. And also expertly written. But the support is usually sparse.
Great to see a new review in the new year. Your reviews is a goto when getting into a new system. Have wanted to get into Napoleonics for some years, both for Napoleonics, but hopefully also to find a ruleset for the Schleswig wars of 1848-51 and 64. Or should I look more into American Civil War rulesets? But the many rule sets and scales makes it a big mouth full.
thanks for the great rivew. i appreciate the BLOO-KER pronounciation. the momentum system sounds a lot like rolling for PiPs in DBA. the movement system also has similarities to DBA. i play my own system where each stand is a division. i definitely think brigades/divisions should have a lot more staying power than they do in blucher. when i do a melee, only one of the units would sustain a hit- with my divisions also having around 5 hit-points. love the mustafa honour site and their free scharnhorst maps.
I wonder how well you could mitigate the fragility of attacking units by increasing default base to 8 HP, and/or increasing the damage that an attacking base deals by 1 if they win a combat (to reward commanders with a touch more Elan). It might even help to mitigate the overwhelming defender's advantage granted by villages.
Hey guys. :-) Any chance you do a similar evaluation for the computer moderated rule Carnage & Glory II Tactical (and possibly Strategic) module(s) with its creator as the Game Master? My feeling is that it allows more than a historical gaming perspective and could be of use for simulations (with an objective going beyond entertainment... perhaps acquiring a good comprehension of the tactics used by each nation which is especially interresting for the Napoleonic Era). In other words, a contemporary version of the good ol' Kriegspiel.
We played "Bücher" many years ago. We played "Maurice" before. I had the impression that a lot of thought went into the rules - but it just had to less of fun to me. I mostly was frustrated - maybe I never understood how to win using the rules.
I have to disagree with your assessment of units as "too brittle"; that's true to the period and to the reality of the warfare. A brigade would usually be very used up after fighting several intense fights - which the assault element represents (close range firefights, bayonet rushes, etc.) and even if casualties were relatively light, would leave a very strong level of disorganization and have combat elements scattered about. If an attack loses steam, I tend to blame it on the commander not properly identifying their schwerpunkt and ensuring there are sufficient reserves to carry on the attack - in other words, feature, not a bug, and as intended.
The brittle units do make the game faster, and that is a genuine feature. Blucher can be played in 3 hours or less and a big reason why is that, whether you like it or not, the unit do go away.
Have you thought about a type of "quality save" for brigades taking damage, so they're less brittle? E.g. your elite brigades can avoid taking damage on a 5+, regulars on a 6+ and green get so save at all? You could also adjust it up or down by one for high/low morale.
General D' Brigade for me, I have a lot of mini's in 15mm but sadly due to space restraints, now looking at 6mm. Strange thing is found on a forum some very nice chap whohas converted the organsiations to 6mm. So my first army is Rolica 1808 French. I'd be more than happy to email via your website the conversion for GD'B 6mm. As for army lists wikipedia has a nice set of Napoleonic battles and oragnisations.
I am disappointed by how few groups look to 'Napoleon's Battles' for big battle Napoleonics. It is packed with historical flavour and big battles can be played over a long day.
Napoleons Battles is an interesting one. The guys at Marks Game Room have a nice streamlined house variant they use that I think improves the rules and modernizes them without taking away what makes NB distinctive
Naps Battles was revolutionary when published and transformed the experience of playing big battle games. I played them for 25 years! But i found the game time taken to ‘check command distances’ in the bigger games frustrating. And especially in later years odd the period how many generals were on the table - think a French cavalry corps in 1815 with a Corps commander and two divisional commanders for three or four brigades. By 2015, to me, aspects like 4 figures on a base and base removal felt old fashioned. When Blucher was published it felt to me like a next gen game compared with NB. And i quickly converted.
I played quite a few games when it arrived on the scene, I agree with your points about assaults and villages, another was the artillery rules for me almost useless, when the artillery caused a majority of the casualties. I found it more like a board game than a Napoleonic miniatures game, I also played his 7YW game and had the same gripe. You are correct about the leadership value not really adding anything to the game. I am loving general de Armee, you should have a good look at those.
Eh..a bite late on the review, but still a good review of rules. Years ago when these came I was curious how thy would compare to "La Salle", another rule system from S. Mustafa? I think I like La Salle much better than Blucher based off of you game review. What are your thoughts of La Salle?
Lasalle is a game that never caught on here in the club. Not sure why but od offer two observations. One, it’s a scale (divisional) that’s inherently less popular here. We prefer bigger battles usually. Two, Lasalle has a bit more of a “gamey” feel in its mechanics that left us feeling less like we were playing a Napoleonic battle. That’s a fully subjective assessment and it’s a very good game-but it felt a bit too much like a game separated from a historical command experience. I think this is why we never played it as much as some of Sams other games
@LittleWarsTV Aaaah...tracking. we played several games and know thinking about it, we were also not fully satisfied with it...thus leaving my huge 15mm Nap collection in boxes for years. Again curious on your guys thoughts...maybe I missed somthing. Our new Nap gane system for 15s is Valour &Fortitude...using your 15mm mod game sheet. Thanks for the reply back.
Personally, I really enjoy all aspects of the game. I do agree with Greg about scenario support, but that can be solved by 3rd party people. I also started playing the game only a few years ago, so scenarios were out there. I also do campaign games, so scenarios are not a high priority since the campaign creates the scenario. I also find that strong points are hard to attack, but for as many historical accounts of towns changing hands many times, there are numerous accounts of single buildings holding out for hours. So I think the game needs some differentiation on the two(?). My biggest issue has to do with the challenge of being the attacker (for both combat and shooting). If you move in a turn you cannot shoot in that turn, which doesn't really make sense to me considering how long a turn is in real time. So I often house rule that you can move and shoot, but with a penalty (according to how penalties work in the rules). For combat I have not figured out a way that I like that doesn't cause problems. The historical flavor is not as big an osie for me in this game. Since it is representative of large battles, the abstraction should be expected. If you abstract any battle of any period on the scale that Blucher represents its going to be this way until you start to get into the modern era were available technology of each side my alter things.
Hello, ive got a question for you (or anyone interested in anwering it).. how do you deal with multiplayer battles in historical scenarios or campaign. In the ruleset there are only sugestions that really work only for pickup games..
@LittleWarsTV Im getting into miniature wargaming because of you guys. So that would be amazing help! Im interested in Napoleonics and was debating between 6mm and 10mm till I saw a size comparison to 15's in someones hands. Now its just a matter of locking down some good 15's. Ordered a flank company through old glory yesterday
In campaigns we restore lost hits to most units so they return at or near full strength. We didn’t try giving brigades higher values but that’s absolutely possible and a fine idea
Blucher is solid. I regred basing our 6mm armies on 60x40mm bases, however. Our European kitchen tables with my historical gaming friend are just not large enough for such base sizes to feel like you are maneuvering meaningfully.
I have the exact same proble with my bases being 76x62mm but it is hella worth it as i made them really look like large advancing formations (also in 6mm with labels)
I know! I'm going to develop some Napoleonic rules and name them after the fourth best general at the battle of Waterloo! The rules sound great, I just thought that was humorous.
Our group has done Blucher a few times in 54mm (HaT, Airfix, Timpo ). Two 4" beermats with 16 infantry/6 Cavalry make a BDE. Use 6X18'table. Substitute cards for momentum dice . Lots of games in 15mm as well. Old Meldrum club in Scotland made a cottage industry out of scenarios and maps. Also ran an "Ensign Blucher" 7yw game with modified unit cards and a few tweaks to enhance period flavor. (RSM 25mm).
Blucher is excellent for what it does. And I agree the most that its greatest weakness is lack of historical flavor. Age of Eagles 2 is better in this area, but adds a lot more complexity as the price paid for it.
Disagree with the issue around scenarios. Developing scenarios has always been a great pleasure of mine and to me it seems part of the hobby to do that kind of development. Research, and applying that research, is one of the things that make the hobby so fascinating and I don't expect to get this from rule writers 'on a plate', as we say in the UK. My own issue would be the momentum system you both like - rolling 3D6 just seems too random for me. Your army suddenly becomes immobilised - why? Just because of an unlucky roll. I would need more reasons for such an issue, based around situation and quality of commanders for example. But overall, many thanks for an absorbing insight into the game.
Double would probably be too many and unbalance the mechanics (you only hit 17% of the time on a standard roll) but adding a couple SP to every infantry unit is something that could work pretty well and not alter the basic core mechanics or slow down play
Better? That’s subjective. Blucher has proven more popular here, so maybe that means it’s better for us? They are radically different games with entirely unique approaches. Would suggest trying both honestly!
I used to be an avid wargamer, heavily into Napoleonics and our club used Napoleons Battles. In comparrison this sounds trivial or perhaps "trite"? My biggest dislike is with the movement portion where your opponent rolls for your movement. I can't see any reason to have something like that in a game. I also used to play DBM (Ancients) and there was a similar system except you were rolling for yourself, not your opponent. And if you think rolling ones in perpetuity can't happen, and it'll "average out" over the course of the game - you've not had my experience to be sure.
I think the comment on the scenarios is a bit harsh. It takes a lot time to research, design, playtest and edit an historical scenario, not to mention to format it in way that will please its readers. Then you have to add the cost of publishing which add us. If you are very busy like Sam, or most of us to be honest, you can decide to either not publish anything because the all package will take more time than you can give or publish a set of interesting rules that will support well scenario creation. Blucher is probably not beginner friendly in this sense but that doesn't mean support is low. On the contrary, I was impressed by the amount of free (quality) material made available.
For me, the lack of support is a pretty big downside. I really value balanced gameplay/scenario design in my minis wargames. I'm not saying I need a mathematically computed value system (though those are nice!) but I don't like being told to go make up scenarios for myself. I much prefer that the game have some scenarios, even if ahistorical ones, where I'm confident that they were played out several dozen times to make sure it's good. Whereas if I'm making things up myself, well, it's unlikely I'll be able to put something really well balanced together just by eyeballing it. An experienced player might be able to do that with a fair degree of accuracy sure but as a new player I won't have that. And again I'm not saying everything must be perfectly balanced, of course not, and you can absolutely still have fun in an imperfect scenario. But having something that's had any amount of playtesting is appreciated. Honestly I think that this is the sort of thing that effects Playability myself. It's extra work for whoever's teaching to come up with this stuff, and if someone's learning it on their own or with friends then that's added work to entirely new players.
How does ground scale actually work from a realistic perspective if the cards are all the same size ? Where as in real life a cavalry unit would take up more space than a foot unit? Think about the size of a French cavalry brigade compared to a battalion? I am not advocating producing different size cards. You can’t squeeze a gallon into a pint glass, think Thermopylae. What should happen is larger units, generally cavalry should have 2 cards or maybe 3 as they can’t all attack a smaller unit at the same time and have an effective fighting factor!
All units in Blucher are the same base size. The size bases you use are left open to your choice. Ours are 45mm square with 6mm minis, but we’ve played with 15mm minis using 3” square bases too. The cards work well as long as you’re using a table that’s 6x4’. You are right that the footprint of the cards would become an issue if you’re trying to play on a table that’s smaller.
Missed my point totally! It’s not about cards on the table, it’s what the cards represent in real terms if they were to actually represent units of the day on the ground. How can you have a frontage of a 1000 man battalion fighting 4000 men on horses and have the full affect of the cavalry!
Small point, cavalry Brigades where small in numbers but had a bigger radius of 'control'. There were very few 4000 sized cavalry brigades. Thats a corp
There's a level of abstraction in the game as soon as you start reflecting brigades (the infantry in the game are brigades as well, not battalions). A pair of cards, or bases, "fighting" aren't in a literal single line, there's a lot going on that doesn't get played out.
You aren’t alone in that view. It’s abstract, but it does also allow you to play really big engagements a lot faster than other games too. So there are some compromises
@@LittleWarsTV Yes I understand the need to simplify large battle, but I have played big battles with Empire IV with it's zoom in and zoom out on units that are not in engagement range, it's a lot more like the period, and yes it is a lot more complex, but we like it back in the 80's...!!
Also printed mats for Blucher scale games available from Cigar Box Minatures (Waterloo Mat, Quatre Bras Mat, and most lately Marengo Mat) not to mention old Meldrum Wargames offer about 30 superb scenarios, with cards, OOBs and also battle mats to support each scenario
I’m happy that you have started to bring old content of the channel back
Agree brother
This game kicks ass, it's the only horse & musket game my spouse has not only expressed an interest in but actually enjoyed playing. Being able to yell STOP every time your opponent goes over moment is a nice bonus. Completely agree with you on BUA's being insanely overpowered.
Right?? It is hugely satisfying to tell your opponent you rolled super low and he can’t do anything else.
@@LittleWarsTV Can't recommend enough the OldMelDrum Wargames Group Blucher scenarios. Big scale, detailed games and all the card files needed to play it at an affordable price.
Every turn is a game of Musical Chairs.
I was told we were reviewing Blucher? (Horses neighing in the distance)
"What Knockers! Thank you Doctor!" 🤣
WOW! And I was asking for this video last night. What timing. We(my wargaming group) are refighting the battle of Aspren-Essling in two weeks. And we are using "Blucher".
We played that exact battle in 2015 and it was a great time!
Where's the video? Was it placed on the UA-cam channel?
This was years before we had a channel!
If the organizer comes with scenario in place, to me this is arguably the most accessible historical wargame that still maintains play depth ever designed.
My history teacher played a video where you toured the Alamo, and that’s how I found this masterpiece😂
Good teacher :D
How could you skip over the Scharnhorst campaign system? To me that outshines the need to play scenarios.
Surely those battles are not historical, but it's so dynamic and fits well with any strategy table top game, fantastic tool!
To me it would have added to the overall score quite a bit.
It’s an excellent system and what we used as the basis for our own campaign
Any chance you could post a link to the Danube Campaign. OOB's, Campaign Maps, etc ? Thanks
yes please if you can.
"Villages as bunkers" is a plague among Horse and Musket games.
I've seen a village or two completely kill a big battle game: Black Powder and Valour and Fortitude rules.
I believe the fix lies in making the built up area a representative size, much bigger than the occupying unit in dense formation.
If the ground footprint is the same as a battalion column, the troops would not be in cover, or unable to fight and shoot.
Most rules provide a defence bonus, but fail to represent how a BUA disperses its occupants.
Interesting solution here Steve
weirdly enough our more competitive club felt the predecessor, M&R, did a really good jobs with this. VIllages are hard to take in combat but tend to lose shooting battles as long as your opponent controls 2 or more approaches to the town. Therefore towns reliably became about positioning rather than big assaults, and could go back and forth as units were fed in.
I've never played this game so do not have much knowledge of the rules (but wouldn't turn down the chance to, if offered) but Greg's suggestion, i.e, treating built up areas as rough ground ("difficult terrain?") looks like a viable solution with perhaps only using the "garrison"(?) modifier for scenarios that include tough, historical strongpoints like, Hougoumont, La Haye Sainte at Waterloo and the Granary at Essling, etc. Interesting that Might & Reason (see other comment), might also provide a solution.
Imho, General d’Armee 2 does a very good of representing villages and built up areas on the battlefield. They’re not at all difficult to take but will be a thorn in the side because of the nuisance firepower that the garrison can put out.
@@LittleWarsTV I made an edit, since the line before last originally said the opposite of what I intended.
In short, a line (or column) represents the maximum achievable density of muskets to frontage.
A line (obviously) presents more.
A battalion dispersed across a town and shooting from windows ought to occupy a much larger footprint than a line.
I take the 'brittleness" (two hits for a failed attack) as the game's way of telling you don't attack unless you are sure you can win. If you only have a 50/50 chance of winning , perhaps just fire a volley this turn. Of course desperate times call for desperate measures. :)
This channel inspired me to start a 6mm Napoleonic army.
A friend and I have chosen Blucher as our ruleset.
Good luck! My wargaming club is doing the same thing.
Excellent choice! It’s a very fun game and a great entry point. We think you’ll enjoy it
I've never played a single minute of a table-top war game, but I love this channel! I'm a history buff, so I guess that explains it. These videos are really enjoyable.
You should dip your toe in! Some of the Vitrix Miniatures have 60 Figure de facto armies for a reasonable price, and 2mm is really cheap and accessible. Irregular and 3d printing are fantastically cheap.
You should try it, pal...
I ran my first campaign at my club using Blucher and it went great. I actually used the 1809 campaign map y'all posted on the Army Group York blog years ago. Thanks for all of the great stuff you put out.
Good review chaps, Blucher is one of my favourite rules sets, I love the simplicity of the combat and I feel that the attacker losing strength encourages players to have fresh reserves to throw in after the initial attack has blown. From my POV, it makes it quite historical in that aspect.
It absolutely rewards reserves, but with a unit really only being able to launch 2 effective attacks over a standard 30 turn game, you better make sure you have enough units to afford it! Definitely a game well suited to bigger armies. I’ve seen several of your Blucher reports. Good to know others are still playing this game like we are!
Glad you guys are back after your much needed break!
Blucher's a great game. Definitely agree on several of the points.
1) On unit fragility: we 100% agree. Our solution has been to give the attacking unit (and only attacking units) a "saving throw" against that loss of Elan which comes from the attack. So you will lose 1 Elan during and attack, and you MIGHT lose 2. Simple and doesn't add much time to the combat resolution process. In 5 years of play with Blucher, this is the *only* house rule we have felt the need to include.
2) Historical flavor: it doesn't have "tactical" flavor, but does it make one feel like they're a Corps or Army commander who has to make the decisions that someone at that level makes? The key there is in the Momentum system; what the high-level CO is concerned mostly about is resource distribution and focus, and viewed through that specific lens, IMO it should score well on historical flavor.
3) Lack of scenario support is annoying, but there's so many worse ones out there. We tried to pick up Snappy Nappy recently, and with the death of Yahoo Groups, you guys and the Blunders on the Danube blog are basically the only support there is whatsoever.
4) Use of the optional commander traits is not optional. It's desperately needed.
Finally, what would be very interesting is to see you guys do a compare/contrast between games sometime. For example, a comparison between an abstract mass-battle game like Blucher, and a high-fidelity mass-battle game like Avalon Hill's "Napoleon's Battles". Both games are INTENDED to fill roughly the same niche (large Napoleonic battles, with the Brigade as the primary unit of maneuver, in a playable time frame), but go about it in tremendously different ways.
I'm a Naps Battles player myself. Or was years ago before I got out of wargaming. From what I see of this I would not be interested. Far too little realism and random rules. The thing about having your opponent throw for your movement ability just seems stupid to me.
Check out Old Meldrum Wargames…. Plenty of scenarios there. Also Hexes and Minatures
Thank you both. Tom's instinct regarding Playability is correct, I believe. Winning is often defined by 'crushing' the enemy (removing opponent's units), rather than achieving objectives, such as position. This often results in a frustrating no-result after 3 hours of play, as both players withdraw units which are about to break. Of course, easily solved as Greg proved with his Maloyaroslavets scenario.
Agreed with Greg's view on Historical flavour, but I think that's because so much of Napoleonic era fighting hinged on morale.
My main problem with scenario design for Blucher is deciding how much of the artillery should be attached and how much is formed into "Batteries". It's not a problem in point based games as you can choose how to divide them. But for historical battles you don't always have enough info for that.
Hey guys, nice video. Love the globe and very glad you have the globe focused on my country of New Zealand with our large island to the left of us. I use to play Napoleonic war games in my teen years and have had a fascination for this period. Great uniforms too! Happy New Year btw.
10 years. Well its about time you guys showed up! Great review, btw.
To answer Greg's question what big battle napoleonic system is easier to get into that may be "2x2" Napoleonics". It's a really fun game that requires only a small table and about 16 bases.
I am a huge fan of both LWTV and Blücher. I long expected this video and was pleased to see it pop up this morning. While this review is a thorough discussion of the rules, I think there's one important thing to add that was not expressly discussed: Blücher's mini-campaign system, "Scharnhorst."
As discussed in the video, there are many Blücher scenarios available from 3rd parties. Also, scenarios for other battle Napoleonic rules (esp. Volley and Bayonet) are easily convert for Blücher. However, historical scenarios remove or greatly reduce some essential choices of being a Napoleonic general. In a historical scenario, the enemy has been located and positioning is usually done for you. While this can be fun in its own way (it's fun to win Waterloo as the French, proving for once and for all that you are more brilliant than Napoleon) it only represents part of the experience of being a Napoleonic general.
Enter "Scharnhorst" - Blücher's mini-campaign system.
"Campaign?" I hear you say, "must be long and tedious." Well, not Scharnhorst! The system is fast and simple. It's limited in scope to setting up *one* battle, although it can be expanded to cover larger campaigns with ease. Importantly, it restores to the players historical choices: "Should I cross the river here?" "Is that enemy force a scouting force or the main body?" "Can I support that corps in time?" Napoleonic generals weren't trying to recreate specific battles, they were trying to win a war. Napoleon's true strength was his ability to bring forces to bear at a single point on the operational campaign map: and Scharnhorst allows players to try their hand at this often overlooked aspect of generalship, adding to the overall "feel" of the game.
I believe the lack of historical scenarios from the author, Sam Mustafa, is simply because he expects people to generate their own scenarios with Scharnhorst. It doesn't take more work than setting up a historical scenario, but it's a different kind of work. For instance, you want to have an inventory of terrain on-hand to lay out the board once the armies meet. Map maneuvering takes about 30 mins, which you could do at the conclusion of a game session one week, setting up the battle for the next week.
Wargaming Big Battles' Ottoman vs. Russians video shows what this looks like: ua-cam.com/video/zEZZbRrKgzs/v-deo.html
In conclusion, historical scenarios are all fine and good, but Scharnhorst is where Blücher shines. Even if you aren't fighting a historical scenario, Bonaparte wasn't either. If you haven't tried it, I sincerely encourage you to give it a go!
Thanks for a very engaging review. It confirms my experience with the game, that it has huge plusses - it is easy to play and enjoyable to play in a club afternoon - but equally can wind down very quickly and leave one without a sense of having fought a distinctively Napoleonic battle.
Great review! Looks fun!
thanks glad to see you back
Good to see the land down under taking center stage on LWTV, so early in the year. As for Blucher, I know more about it now than I did, so cheers for the review.
Glad to see a review return!
Even if it’s 10 years late. 😉
Thanks for this great review! Sam needs to thank you for inspiring me to purchase Blucher.
My favorite set of miniature wartime rules
"YOUR LUCK WILL AVERAGE OUT" HOW DARE YOU SIR, YOU'VE NEVER SEEN ME ROLL DICE....
Perhaps next to bringing in flavour and joy of gaming and delivering truly valuable info, the best thing about Little Wars and their vids is you just really want to hang out with these guys, play a game or two or five (and probably drink yourself silly at the bar) "I give them a solid 100"
My major criticism of Sam’s content is that he publishes the rules and then abandons it for the next project. Scenario support is negligible other than asking questions on the forum or very very few third party sites. I would like to at least see collaboration with someone to publish scenario books. I don’t mind doing research (one of my favourite parts) and writing scenarios but it’s the huge amount of play testing required to work out the kinks that I don’t have time for.
A valid criticism I think. We enjoy his rules and find them well done-always an innovative idea or two in his games. And also expertly written. But the support is usually sparse.
We need more reviews!
We will return to reviews and aim to more this year!
Great to see a new review in the new year. Your reviews is a goto when getting into a new system.
Have wanted to get into Napoleonics for some years, both for Napoleonics, but hopefully also to find a ruleset for the Schleswig wars of 1848-51 and 64. Or should I look more into American Civil War rulesets?
But the many rule sets and scales makes it a big mouth full.
Schleswig Wars, wow! That’s a niche period for sure. Age of Eagles would be a consideration there, as I think he has a variant for this period?
@LittleWarsTV Thanks.
Have ancestors who fought on both sides of the second war. (:
@@andersand6576 Have you tried the ruleset 1859 from Bruce Weigle?
@thomask4552 Not yet, but after reading a bit about it, it does sound like it hits the mark. Does it have an American Civil War version?
thanks for the great rivew. i appreciate the BLOO-KER pronounciation. the momentum system sounds a lot like rolling for PiPs in DBA. the movement system also has similarities to DBA. i play my own system where each stand is a division. i definitely think brigades/divisions should have a lot more staying power than they do in blucher. when i do a melee, only one of the units would sustain a hit- with my divisions also having around 5 hit-points. love the mustafa honour site and their free scharnhorst maps.
Just for info. Regarding the rulebook. I ordered and got mine 2 month ago. It's still the same hard back.
Good to know! The hardback is excellent quality
I wonder how well you could mitigate the fragility of attacking units by increasing default base to 8 HP, and/or increasing the damage that an attacking base deals by 1 if they win a combat (to reward commanders with a touch more Elan). It might even help to mitigate the overwhelming defender's advantage granted by villages.
Hey guys. :-) Any chance you do a similar evaluation for the computer moderated rule Carnage & Glory II Tactical (and possibly Strategic) module(s) with its creator as the Game Master? My feeling is that it allows more than a historical gaming perspective and could be of use for simulations (with an objective going beyond entertainment... perhaps acquiring a good comprehension of the tactics used by each nation which is especially interresting for the Napoleonic Era). In other words, a contemporary version of the good ol' Kriegspiel.
I really enjoy playing Blucher. Fun to play, great design philosophy.
Would love to see a review of Sams new game Eisenhower!
"I wish the night came or Blücher!" Wellington
Great line!
Honestly it’s the most elegant rules set I think I have ever played!
As always, a great video - Greetz from Germany!
Guten Morgen!
Also reference unit elan/fragility - we allow very unit the ability to Rally as detailed in the book.
That’s a very fine idea. We never allowed it for every unit but that makes sense!
We played "Bücher" many years ago. We played "Maurice" before. I had the impression that a lot of thought went into the rules - but it just had to less of fun to me. I mostly was frustrated - maybe I never understood how to win using the rules.
We were never as high on Maurice as Blucher for some reason
Great review - would you consider doing a review of classic 'Volley & Bayonet' - that would only be about 30 years later, but still very relevant ;)
We should yes! It’s a great game, even 30 years on
Keep it up! Love what ya'll do!
I have to disagree with your assessment of units as "too brittle"; that's true to the period and to the reality of the warfare. A brigade would usually be very used up after fighting several intense fights - which the assault element represents (close range firefights, bayonet rushes, etc.) and even if casualties were relatively light, would leave a very strong level of disorganization and have combat elements scattered about. If an attack loses steam, I tend to blame it on the commander not properly identifying their schwerpunkt and ensuring there are sufficient reserves to carry on the attack - in other words, feature, not a bug, and as intended.
The brittle units do make the game faster, and that is a genuine feature. Blucher can be played in 3 hours or less and a big reason why is that, whether you like it or not, the unit do go away.
Interesting, thank you!
Or hobby club did some house rules for buildings in Black Powder, and it really made it fun fighting for them
I actually really liked Sam’s turn sequence for his earlier Napoleonic rules Fast Play Grande Armee better than Blucher.
Others in our club would agree with you!
Have you thought about a type of "quality save" for brigades taking damage, so they're less brittle? E.g. your elite brigades can avoid taking damage on a 5+, regulars on a 6+ and green get so save at all? You could also adjust it up or down by one for high/low morale.
General D' Brigade for me, I have a lot of mini's in 15mm but sadly due to space restraints, now looking at 6mm. Strange thing is found on a forum some very nice chap whohas converted the organsiations to 6mm. So my first army is Rolica 1808 French. I'd be more than happy to email via your website the conversion for GD'B 6mm. As for army lists wikipedia has a nice set of Napoleonic battles and oragnisations.
Blucher was the game that got me into miniatures. Ironically I’ve never played it with miniatures.
I am disappointed by how few groups look to 'Napoleon's Battles' for big battle Napoleonics. It is packed with historical flavour and big battles can be played over a long day.
Napoleons Battles is an interesting one. The guys at Marks Game Room have a nice streamlined house variant they use that I think improves the rules and modernizes them without taking away what makes NB distinctive
Naps Battles was revolutionary when published and transformed the experience of playing big battle games. I played them for 25 years! But i found the game time taken to ‘check command distances’ in the bigger games frustrating. And especially in later years odd the period how many generals were on the table - think a French cavalry corps in 1815 with a Corps commander and two divisional commanders for three or four brigades.
By 2015, to me, aspects like 4 figures on a base and base removal felt old fashioned.
When Blucher was published it felt to me like a next gen game compared with NB. And i quickly converted.
I played quite a few games when it arrived on the scene, I agree with your points about assaults and villages, another was the artillery rules for me almost useless, when the artillery caused a majority of the casualties.
I found it more like a board game than a Napoleonic miniatures game, I also played his 7YW game and had the same gripe. You are correct about the leadership value not really adding anything to the game.
I am loving general de Armee, you should have a good look at those.
We have played quite a few games of GdA here in the last couple years
Our group tried it out a few times. The momentum rules we liked, but the rest left us cold. YMMV.
Does the momentum rule make solo play impossible? Are there any established work arounds, like a simple app?
Eh..a bite late on the review, but still a good review of rules. Years ago when these came I was curious how thy would compare to "La Salle", another rule system from S. Mustafa? I think I like La Salle much better than Blucher based off of you game review. What are your thoughts of La Salle?
Lasalle is a game that never caught on here in the club. Not sure why but od offer two observations. One, it’s a scale (divisional) that’s inherently less popular here. We prefer bigger battles usually. Two, Lasalle has a bit more of a “gamey” feel in its mechanics that left us feeling less like we were playing a Napoleonic battle. That’s a fully subjective assessment and it’s a very good game-but it felt a bit too much like a game separated from a historical command experience. I think this is why we never played it as much as some of Sams other games
@LittleWarsTV Aaaah...tracking. we played several games and know thinking about it, we were also not fully satisfied with it...thus leaving my huge 15mm Nap collection in boxes for years. Again curious on your guys thoughts...maybe I missed somthing. Our new Nap gane system for 15s is Valour &Fortitude...using your 15mm mod game sheet. Thanks for the reply back.
Personally, I really enjoy all aspects of the game. I do agree with Greg about scenario support, but that can be solved by 3rd party people. I also started playing the game only a few years ago, so scenarios were out there. I also do campaign games, so scenarios are not a high priority since the campaign creates the scenario. I also find that strong points are hard to attack, but for as many historical accounts of towns changing hands many times, there are numerous accounts of single buildings holding out for hours. So I think the game needs some differentiation on the two(?).
My biggest issue has to do with the challenge of being the attacker (for both combat and shooting). If you move in a turn you cannot shoot in that turn, which doesn't really make sense to me considering how long a turn is in real time. So I often house rule that you can move and shoot, but with a penalty (according to how penalties work in the rules). For combat I have not figured out a way that I like that doesn't cause problems.
The historical flavor is not as big an osie for me in this game. Since it is representative of large battles, the abstraction should be expected. If you abstract any battle of any period on the scale that Blucher represents its going to be this way until you start to get into the modern era were available technology of each side my alter things.
Hello, ive got a question for you (or anyone interested in anwering it).. how do you deal with multiplayer battles in historical scenarios or campaign. In the ruleset there are only sugestions that really work only for pickup games..
Have you guys ever played/run DBN for Napoleonics? I was/am a fan of the DBx series of Aincient/Medeval games and this is a distant relative.
Would y'all ever do reviews on miniatures like Old Glory, Pendraken, etc?
We did one miniature review years ago…28mm AWI, comparing different ranges. We never did one since. Maybe we should consider it again?
@LittleWarsTV Im getting into miniature wargaming because of you guys. So that would be amazing help!
Im interested in Napoleonics and was debating between 6mm and 10mm till I saw a size comparison to 15's in someones hands. Now its just a matter of locking down some good 15's.
Ordered a flank company through old glory yesterday
Would you add a hit point for each unit that won a previous combat? Or consider it for campaign settings?
In campaigns we restore lost hits to most units so they return at or near full strength. We didn’t try giving brigades higher values but that’s absolutely possible and a fine idea
Blucher is solid. I regred basing our 6mm armies on 60x40mm bases, however. Our European kitchen tables with my historical gaming friend are just not large enough for such base sizes to feel like you are maneuvering meaningfully.
I have the exact same proble with my bases being 76x62mm but it is hella worth it as i made them really look like large advancing formations (also in 6mm with labels)
Have you tried Bloody Big Battles?
I know! I'm going to develop some Napoleonic rules and name them after the fourth best general at the battle of Waterloo! The rules sound great, I just thought that was humorous.
Our group has done Blucher a few times in 54mm (HaT, Airfix, Timpo ). Two 4" beermats with 16 infantry/6 Cavalry make a BDE. Use 6X18'table. Substitute cards for momentum dice . Lots of games in 15mm as well. Old Meldrum club in Scotland made a cottage industry out of scenarios and maps.
Also ran an "Ensign Blucher" 7yw game with modified unit cards and a few tweaks to enhance period flavor. (RSM 25mm).
any idea how Blucher compares to Volley&Bayonet both are brigade scale and both have certain similarities
Blucher is excellent for what it does. And I agree the most that its greatest weakness is lack of historical flavor. Age of Eagles 2 is better in this area, but adds a lot more complexity as the price paid for it.
10 years ago feels like yesterday
Somehow it really does! Maybe we are just old now.
Any chance you would put the 1809 campaign materials online?
This is good stuff, and it has been for years
Disagree with the issue around scenarios. Developing scenarios has always been a great pleasure of mine and to me it seems part of the hobby to do that kind of development. Research, and applying that research, is one of the things that make the hobby so fascinating and I don't expect to get this from rule writers 'on a plate', as we say in the UK.
My own issue would be the momentum system you both like - rolling 3D6 just seems too random for me. Your army suddenly becomes immobilised - why? Just because of an unlucky roll. I would need more reasons for such an issue, based around situation and quality of commanders for example.
But overall, many thanks for an absorbing insight into the game.
A Brigade can only make about two attacks,.. The seems very realistic. 😊
Blücher are excellent rules imho.
The only napoleonics I have ever gotten to the table because of the cards!
What about doubling hit points. Not for attack. Just for damage
Double would probably be too many and unbalance the mechanics (you only hit 17% of the time on a standard roll) but adding a couple SP to every infantry unit is something that could work pretty well and not alter the basic core mechanics or slow down play
Is Blücher better than Snappy Nappy at this scale?
Better? That’s subjective. Blucher has proven more popular here, so maybe that means it’s better for us? They are radically different games with entirely unique approaches. Would suggest trying both honestly!
Yes, better
Tales from a Wargames Shed has an excellent OOB for Waterloo if anyone is interested 👍
You took a Decade? Well, better late than never.
Totally worth the wait though right? Hah
I used to be an avid wargamer, heavily into Napoleonics and our club used Napoleons Battles. In comparrison this sounds trivial or perhaps "trite"? My biggest dislike is with the movement portion where your opponent rolls for your movement. I can't see any reason to have something like that in a game. I also used to play DBM (Ancients) and there was a similar system except you were rolling for yourself, not your opponent. And if you think rolling ones in perpetuity can't happen, and it'll "average out" over the course of the game - you've not had my experience to be sure.
I think the comment on the scenarios is a bit harsh. It takes a lot time to research, design, playtest and edit an historical scenario, not to mention to format it in way that will please its readers. Then you have to add the cost of publishing which add us. If you are very busy like Sam, or most of us to be honest, you can decide to either not publish anything because the all package will take more time than you can give or publish a set of interesting rules that will support well scenario creation. Blucher is probably not beginner friendly in this sense but that doesn't mean support is low. On the contrary, I was impressed by the amount of free (quality) material made available.
For me, the lack of support is a pretty big downside. I really value balanced gameplay/scenario design in my minis wargames. I'm not saying I need a mathematically computed value system (though those are nice!) but I don't like being told to go make up scenarios for myself. I much prefer that the game have some scenarios, even if ahistorical ones, where I'm confident that they were played out several dozen times to make sure it's good. Whereas if I'm making things up myself, well, it's unlikely I'll be able to put something really well balanced together just by eyeballing it. An experienced player might be able to do that with a fair degree of accuracy sure but as a new player I won't have that. And again I'm not saying everything must be perfectly balanced, of course not, and you can absolutely still have fun in an imperfect scenario. But having something that's had any amount of playtesting is appreciated.
Honestly I think that this is the sort of thing that effects Playability myself. It's extra work for whoever's teaching to come up with this stuff, and if someone's learning it on their own or with friends then that's added work to entirely new players.
How does ground scale actually work from a realistic perspective if the cards are all the same size ? Where as in real life a cavalry unit would take up more space than a foot unit? Think about the size of a French cavalry brigade compared to a battalion? I am not advocating producing different size cards. You can’t squeeze a gallon into a pint glass, think Thermopylae. What should happen is larger units, generally cavalry should have 2 cards or maybe 3 as they can’t all attack a smaller unit at the same time and have an effective fighting factor!
All units in Blucher are the same base size. The size bases you use are left open to your choice. Ours are 45mm square with 6mm minis, but we’ve played with 15mm minis using 3” square bases too. The cards work well as long as you’re using a table that’s 6x4’. You are right that the footprint of the cards would become an issue if you’re trying to play on a table that’s smaller.
Missed my point totally! It’s not about cards on the table, it’s what the cards represent in real terms if they were to actually represent units of the day on the ground. How can you have a frontage of a 1000 man battalion fighting 4000 men on horses and have the full affect of the cavalry!
Small point, cavalry Brigades where small in numbers but had a bigger radius of 'control'.
There were very few 4000 sized cavalry brigades. Thats a corp
There's a level of abstraction in the game as soon as you start reflecting brigades (the infantry in the game are brigades as well, not battalions). A pair of cards, or bases, "fighting" aren't in a literal single line, there's a lot going on that doesn't get played out.
The phrase, "that issue disappears into the abstraction", gets a lot of play in our Blucher games.
Mieux vaut tard que jamais...😉
*Whinnney!"
Blücher! *Horse neigh*
You might as well paint Mr Potatoe Headsm the colour of an Army and stick them on boards and game with , lacks colour and any historical colour ,
The game is too abstract, and don't have any Napoleonic feeling, their is no sense on the period...!!
You aren’t alone in that view. It’s abstract, but it does also allow you to play really big engagements a lot faster than other games too. So there are some compromises
@@LittleWarsTV Yes I understand the need to simplify large battle, but I have played big battles with Empire IV with it's zoom in and zoom out on units that are not in engagement range, it's a lot more like the period, and yes it is a lot more complex, but we like it back in the 80's...!!
Also printed mats for Blucher scale games available from Cigar Box Minatures (Waterloo Mat, Quatre Bras Mat, and most lately Marengo Mat) not to mention old Meldrum Wargames offer about 30 superb scenarios, with cards, OOBs and also battle mats to support each scenario
Nah..