@@NapoleonicWargaming Hi after completing 5 ,28 mm Napolonic Battalions and two Buildings , my Grandmanner Prussian Church is outstanding , I Was painting along whilst Watching your Game , I was painting a shed load of ww 2 Germans , Brits for my Clubs Battle Group /Rapifire Games.
In some of the games we have played , when a unit is withdrawn or interpenetrates another unit , each formation throws a d6 and if a natural 6 then it is disordered. This introduces an element of risk and possibly help restrict the unfetted movement around the battlefield Black Powder sometimes has in games. Like Tim suggested in his video, helping reward more organised commanders that get their troops in better positions during a game. Like the suggestions regards assaults on buildings and possibly reflects the ebb and flow in this type of engagement. Not all built up areas are fortresses😁
With regards to interpenetration, I would have thought you could make it a two unit move session. The damaged unit falls back, (does not route) to the supporting unit. The supporting unit then moves to the original position of the damaged unit and no further. In other rule sets I played there was a dice roll to determine if the supporting unit was disrupted and would need to reform, but this was also based on the quality of troops. However I don't understand your point on how the Brigade commander is responsible for the disposition of his troops has anything to do with the interpenetration. The supporting troops are not stationed behind the forward unit in error. They are there to fill the gap in light of need. It is not uncommon that this was done through history. For example at Alam Al Halfa the Scots Greys drove through the positions of the London Yeomanry following the devastation of the unit by the German armour. The Greys plugged a gap and stopped the Germans at their position. Also, as I recall, Nathanial Greene allowed his militia to withdraw through his continentals as a part of his actual battle plan in the American Revolutionary War. Can't remember the name of the battle but it stopped the British army from crushing his and he repulsed their attack.
Hi Tim. Still new to the rules myself but my comments at this stage are two fold. I really like the idea of a brigade commander being very aware of the deployment and formation of their troops to avoid interpenetration. In other words making the brigade commander more accountable and responsible for the period albeit a wargame. So on that side to completely ban interpenetration I'm inclined to go with that. On the second point based on the size of battlefield table interpenetration may make it easier but then to put in place that 3 move requirement "penalty" to action it. One move up to the other battalion, one move to get through and third move to move away.
Down here in NZ we've played innumerable games of Black Powder since circa 2011. For a long time we tried various house rules to "improve" the BP rules. However, passage of lines wasn't something we every stressed about - I guess an argument can be made when troops are "close" (i.e, within 12" of an enemy) that a restriction or penalty is required. But doing so would be contrary to the philosophy of the game, which is to provide generally low stress movement but stressful "order-making" (which may or may not come off), while understanding that the toy-soldier battlefield is an abstraction of the real thing, and isn't subject to the constant movement that would otherwise be going on. The funny thing is that after years of tweaking BP, we've largely gone back with Second Edition to pure rules as written (we ignore all the rules in Clash of Eagles - they're mostly terrible), but with clarifications on interpretation of some rules. As the author of many of the tweaks and changes for our group, I've come to accept that BP, while not perfect, is still a great set of rules to play very big games at speed. Priestly pretty much got it "right" as an internally consistent rule-set, even if many purists would complain about aspects of it. I suspect with your battle of Ligny, your table either wasn't big enough, or you didn't quite scale troop numbers to the table size quite right. There's a bit of an art to it. When we game bigger battles, we typically scale 1:2 for battalions, or 2:3, depending on the board size and player numbers. That often means that an historical "division" is played as a Black Powder "brigade". We also introduce "reserve tables", back from the main battle area, and allow troops to move forward and backward from them. Table width is not as big a problem typically as table depth. But keep up the excellent work. Such games are fantastic fun and satisfying. We've played Borodino twice relatively recently, with a custom-made "battle board". See: terrysgaragegaming.com/2020/11/15/borodino-refight-7-8-november-2020day-1/, terrysgaragegaming.com/2020/11/27/borodino-refight-7-8-november-2020day-2/, and terrysgaragegaming.com/2021/06/03/battle-of-borodino-the-rematch/ Final observation - despite not tweaking the main rules any more, we do often adjust or adapt terrain rules, depending on the battlefield. For example, I've always seen the BP rules for "houses" as being for substantial, stone and fortified buildings - say the granary at Aspern-Essling, or La Hay Sainte at Waterloo - which require attackers to be hitting it from at least two sides, and ideally bombarding it with artillery before hand to reduce the defenders' stamina. However, when we've played games such as Leipzig (at a 2:5 abstraction), where villages were fought over and changed hands multiple times, we modelled a single building on the tabletop with an 8" x 8" footprint, including hedges, etc. (and holding a maximum of one unit), as entire village. Troops in the "village" got +2 morale save against shooting, but only +1 against hand to hand. The defenders did not get a +3 to post-combat resolution but could count support from nearby units as normal. The defenders also fought with all their dice, making the fights very bloody affairs. We also had a rule for setting villages on fire. This seemed to work pretty well - essentially the village was like being in soft cover, but hard cover against shooting. We've got other terrain rules for open woods, streams (no artillery crossing), etc., etc.
There was a manoeuvre called ‘Passage of Lines’ where a unit has been taking casualties so that the brigadier can notice that they would be at risk if they engaged the enemy again without being able to reform or reorganise. They would be ordered to fall back through a supporting unit. If the enemy falls back far enough the supporting unit could pass forward to hold the position or even to follow up to be ready to close with the enemy. Remember that this is a simultaneous action well practiced by well trained troops. If Hoplites can do this with an 8 ft spear or 17th century troops with 16ft. Pikes, then it should be a piece of cake with a musket. The command is to open order for units involved then they just pass through each other.
Excellent video . Love your ideas on rules changes. I’m going to try them out with my next game ;) . I like the idea of the unit stopping and using orders to pass through other units. Keep up the great content
Nice you almost got Blucher!! Isn't there historical evidence that units would pass though each other, like the union brigade at waterloo passing through British infantry to get at the french?
Not sure about Napoleonic ere, that sort of thing did happen in the American Civil War. Particularly in battles like Shiloh, Chickamuga, and The Wilderness. Nasty, confusing, exhausting, long, messes of battles, with very little control. Grant and Lee couldn't even see most of the Wilderness, 'cause of all the trees, and then most of the trees caught fire.
Im in agreement on your take on interpenetration. In the game Batielle Empire it refers to Passage of lines. The game has a set movement template based on scale. in15mm/18mm the game requires 1UD (universal distance) roughly an inch on the side or both sides of a battalion, to allow another unit to pass "through" such as fast moving calvary. I think thats the right way.
Passage of lines part of the interpretation theme is a very interesting topic. I would think a commander had to be very careful that the fresher unit relieving wasn't affected by the decreased order of morale of the unit being relieved. There was a chance both units would become a disordered mass at no fault of the relieving unit with potential for the lot to panic and rout. I know in the ACW veteran units didn't like to do it. Instead a commander would form a second line further back which would become.a.second.line of attack enabling space for units.from.the.first line space to move through to the rear. Once done the formed second.line units then could close to.a.firing line after the obstacles of the first line had passed. So no theory no actual unit penetration took place. Gaps would be left in the second line formations enabling pass through. Similar at Naesby and I believe Culloden. ...thanks for posting interesting to hear your feedback on BP.
Second comment. With regards to assault on a building, it would seem your solution to the assault guarantees success to the attackers regardless of what the defenders rolled. Rather than removing an entire unit I would think if the defenders are pushed out of the building, they are moved out directly in line with their own table edge and roll for moral to see if they can reform. Then determine if they can assault the building themselves. I believe this happened a couple of times when the Prussians assaulted the French at Plancenoit at Waterloo before they drove them out entirely. Having said that, I am new to the rules of Black Powder as I just bought the Epic sets.
Beautiful figures great works of art. Three biggest failings in most Napoleonic Wargaming is artillery ammunition, fighting in towns and skirmishers in woods. 1) Artillery no penalty for committing all batteries into grand batteries and not keeping much in reserve 2) Elite units and those that could skirmish fought in towns. Less experienced troops were more of a liability fighting in towns 3) Skirmishers in woods were very common yet formed troops push them back with no penalty other than standard movement penalty for this type of terrain Just food for thought.
I think they are definitely a great middle ground. Its a rule id be happy to play with in BP in general tbh! The rotating dials are General Dan's, I'll ask him! The ones with the beads were made be me!
@@NapoleonicWargaming My first game was with the Epic ACW starter and it was one of the rules differences that really jumped out to me between the two games. The beads seem super smart and like a great idea, but I'm not sure how well they would work for a smaller scale.
For what it’s worth, my take on inter penetration NOT ALLOWED-Horse through Foot -Artillery through any unit ALLOWED-Foot through all units -Artillery through foot. Units wishing to inter penetrate must pass a command roll. If the unit fails it can not pass(cue Gandalf), a failed role does not affect the overall command roll like a normal failed roll but the moving unit can not do anything else. Something different, if a unit moves three times it can not then fire unless skirmishers. In my mind the n it is too busy rushing forward to think of anything else.
Passage of lines, or interpenetration, has been a technique in battle for a long time. I am pretty sure, but an be corrected, that Napoleon’s forces did use it in some of the battles of 1804-1806. As such, Either as a proper (planned) passage of lines, or as a relief in place (which has many similar technical issues in combat), I would suggest it is a valid order. However, it is REALLY HARD! Most passages occurred with well trained and experienced troops, something it is often hard to simulate in a Wargame without getting into too much “crunch”. So What - I would treat the passage of lines in the way you suggest: in a similar way to obstacles, and therefore takes three moves. However, I wouldn’t jus t”let” forces move through others. passages of lines are deliberate decision, and should not be undertaken lightly - even in modern warfare with all our comms and Battlespace command systems. Therefore they should be penalised as such as a difficult order (or set of orders)
Oh, sorry, in the cases where you want to simply move through another unit for other reasons, like moving through artillery, or cavalry moving through infantry, how about just halving the penalty, well actually 1/3rd the river penalty. So the penetrating unit moves either (one rule, one or the other not both) up to (the back of) or through (to the front of) the penetrated unit (one turn) and the next turn moves as normal. No penalty to the penetrated unit at all. This could provide a bunch of secondary effect rules for vignettes like ambulances or cantinieres with water carts and the like.
Interpenetration was a thing with archers in medieval times for sure. Archers at front of formations then retreating through ranks to the back. As far as Napoleonics, wasn't there training that allowed for the third rank to also fire in position? If so, there had to be effective training allowing for shifting in position to allow for lanes through the formation. Just thinking out loud here, have no definitive idea historically speaking. Would be surprised to find out that a regiment positioned deeper has no way to get through towards to front...
Hi! Im new to napoleonics so this question might sound stupid, but its about your start collecting prussians video. You see, when reading about Von Hiller's brigade at waterloo, the infantry regiment is marked as a reserve regiment. Would it then be more accurate to get the Prussian Reserve box from Wargames Atlantic instead of the Perry's line infantry? If not, do you have any ideas on how to use the Prussian Reserve box in particular? Thanks in advance
Great looking game & by the sounds of it, lots of fun. You don’t seem totally sold on BP, have you tried General d’Armee? Utterly excellent for large games like this.
Only a Sith believes in absolutes! I've not played GdA, though I have watched it played. I don't think any set of rules is perfect, but I feel that BP allows you to change things you don't like, most other sets are a bit too rigid for that
Look out Tim. I've noticed I'm often the wordiest of your commenters and I do have some thoughts on your ideas, so be forewarned. By the way, I have a project in mind of going through many of the NW videos (which I do obsessively anyway) and making hard copy notes of all the BlkPwdr rule changes & or tactics you've mentioned before. As an aside from the over abundance of old gamer heads in the video, I didn't miss the occasional view of the opposite end of an old man gamer, bending over to look for lost dice ! On the subject of BUA's, particularly on this table & scenario, the table did seem awfully crowded. Couldn't some of those battalions been off table till needed, even if they were from a brigade that already had units on table, just for maneuver purposes. I like the idea of the "foothold rule" a lot. I've certainly wondered about the near invincibility of troops in built up areas, since my first reading of the rules. I think it'd be easier to append such a rule to game play generally and avoid book keeping if someone with a 3D printer (the author of said rule) and not inconsiderable artistic talent, were to sculpt a flat silhouette of a small, bare foot, to lay beside the unit that'd won a "FOOTHOLD". On the issue of interpenetration, I was shocked, HAPPILY shocked when I realized I could move through a friendly unit without the common rule that one are both of the units involved would become disordered. For the same reasons, I think your movement penalties are too punitive, especially in terms of time (3 turns!) and would result in the continuation of the problem I see in most online, BlkPwdr, battle report videos which is that temporary withdrawals with a rally order are rare to nonexistent. So, generals tend to push units to extinction rather than pulling them out to rejuvenate. Where as, as you pointed out regarding village combat, was more the rule than the exception. How about the forward unit (in need of rally) can be withdrawn to the front of the relief unit which can immediately jump (move through) the withdrawing unit. The relief unit may not move forward more that turn and so has been penalized the the depth of the withdrawing unit as its frontline (the former frontline of the withdrawn unit) position has been reduced. I wouldn't want to put a disorder on the withdrawn unit as this might further delay its first rally order. Perhaps, however, it could be placed turned away from the front, requiring an extra move to face the enemy once again, unless charged by some means (sweeping charge?) where it should be allowed to face or form square if capable.
I skim read this, but it's half 11 and i think it deserves the attention commensurateto the effort you put in typing it! Remind me tomo to give it a proper read!
Defensive walls protect the attacker as much as the defender once they move up to them. Upper stories might offer protection for skirmishers. Overall though it seems like morale played an equally important role as casualties did. Units were rarely "destroyed" but lost their nerve and ran for their lives. Almost like a contagion. Units saw how their fellow units would be faring beside them, if they were losing fear would spread of being outflanked. At best they would hesitate moving forward without support on the flank. The integrity of the line was paramount and when full of elan could often be unstoppable. I'm not sure any rule set really addresses these factors very well. Interpenetration makes no sense for units in line or column, skirmish could got through skirmish order sure. To get through artillery infantry would be in column so must change if in other formation. if forced to retreat it should be straight back unless blocked in which case they would run between formations flowing like water IF THERE IS SPACE ENOUGH. If forced through units in line or column they they should become disordered automatically as in real life. Your rules for built up areas sounds very sensible. I'd almost like having morale in 2 types: positive and negative where the amount of each has results, too many negative you run, enough positive you can charge built up areas or uphill, or trade positive morale to lose negatives to protect unit cohesion. Gotta think on this one a bit.
One thing you get wrong with all that interpenetration talk is looking at it as an actual "penetration". What it really was (and what is depicted on the tabletop) is unit A stands behind unit B, and then A is moved to stand in front of the B (or B is ordered to move behind A). Now, there are multiple ways of doing it in period drill manuals (notably French 1791 manual). Some involve marching by files, outside the flank of unit in front of you, and reforming back in line. Others might involve multiple wheelings by both units. Truth be told, the term "unit" within Black Powder is kind of ambiguous. Is it a company/platoon? Battalion? Brigade? I guess the most popular "scale" is Battalion, in which case you can take the interpenetration as all the companies in unit A marching by files to their left (effectively turning the line into several snake columns), while the unit B marches by files to their right, and so they bypass each other. Once it's done, A reforms back into line. They could also do the same maneouver but by whole battalion, though it would take longer. All of this might sound complicated, and surely it wasn't very easy to do, that's why there's the possibility for units to get dezorganized by this. Now, I haven't checked the rules for quite some time, but I believe that the chance of dezorganization is a flat roll (5+ ?); I think it should to some extent be modified by the units overall quality, i.e. better drilled/experienced units should have it easier than freshly raised militia.
A good question, which hopefully Tim will have an opinion on. Seems like if the attackers fail their moral test, they should have to withdraw from the building but not contact. So +2 would be regained but no +1 on the following combat for winning the previous.
Are you familiar with "Pas de Charge" rules? They haven't any building rules, per say, but have straight up rules that allow impetus factors to "overrun" less trained troops.
The Brunswick series will get finished! (Eventually!) No plans on more starting prussians yet, (got a lot of Spanish to get through first!) but never say never!
Thanks for the video. A couple of points, the passage of lines was a thing in the Napoleonic Wars, see, for example, the British regulations of 1792, which all the British infantry used. One more complex option is to use the Glory Hallelujah test (p.59). On the buildings I tend to agree with you, but I would just reinstate the retire results for 5 and 6 in the Break test, but I haven't playtested this. Your idea of a set of rules interpretations is a good one, essential on the occasions you describe. The toolset tag on BP is, in my opinion, much overused but demands the sort of interpretations you describe as part of the scenario set up. All the best. Garry
I thought the table layout was impressive but a bit narrow. had the table been wider the troops could have been formed in more depth. And the old guys could have enjoyed the challenge of stretching during their movement phases.
I am 100% against unit penetration. I prefer the rules to be a realistic as possible. What about a penalty to both units. The unit moving forward would have to stay in place after penetration for two turns to get back in order.
As Rick Priestly comments; modify the rules to what suits you and your group, if you don't like something then change it - the rules were never meant to be a bible or hard and fast legal document but what they designed to fit with their way of playing a game that could be done in a night.
Lots of old men lol 😂 if this game had an easy entry skirmish starter rule set more youngsters would play. I personally think the scale puts so many off
Napoleonics is a period not a game. You can play with any rules you fancy using the same figures. Personally, I think Sharp Practice is an excellent and fun ‘starter set’ - lots of vids here on yt to help you along while you learn. And you don’t need too many figures - about 40-50 per side is plenty to start with. Nothing forcing you to use 28mm figures. You can use any figure scale you want, from 6mm upward.
Can not think that troops in this period passing through one another, so why bother putting this rule in. I do not like rules that are just Guide lines. May result in disagreements. I like rules that say what you have to do not what you would like to do. This is why I think General D' Armee rules are the best rules on the market. I do not like rules that say "May" in the text. it Leaves it open for interpretation.
It’s called “passing of lines” and was standard drill in the period. It’s dealt with very clearly in the updated version of GdA. Of course units retreating or withdrawing from action would flow around rather than pass through formations to their rear, which is why spacings between units were so vital, especially for cavalry.
rwow , what great weekend ,I,m still so jealous. Your channel is rather addictive, to watch whilst I,m painting my 20mm Scale Battle Group forces
Thanks! Ooh, nice! What you painting?
@@NapoleonicWargaming Hi after completing 5 ,28 mm Napolonic Battalions and two Buildings , my Grandmanner Prussian Church is outstanding , I Was painting along whilst Watching your Game , I was painting a shed load of ww 2 Germans , Brits for my Clubs Battle Group /Rapifire Games.
In some of the games we have played , when a unit is withdrawn or interpenetrates another unit , each formation throws a d6 and if a natural 6 then it is disordered. This introduces an element of risk and possibly help restrict the unfetted movement around the battlefield Black Powder sometimes has in games. Like Tim suggested in his video, helping reward more organised commanders that get their troops in better positions during a game. Like the suggestions regards assaults on buildings and possibly reflects the ebb and flow in this type of engagement. Not all built up areas are fortresses😁
With regards to interpenetration, I would have thought you could make it a two unit move session. The damaged unit falls back, (does not route) to the supporting unit. The supporting unit then moves to the original position of the damaged unit and no further. In other rule sets I played there was a dice roll to determine if the supporting unit was disrupted and would need to reform, but this was also based on the quality of troops.
However I don't understand your point on how the Brigade commander is responsible for the disposition of his troops has anything to do with the interpenetration. The supporting troops are not stationed behind the forward unit in error. They are there to fill the gap in light of need. It is not uncommon that this was done through history. For example at Alam Al Halfa the Scots Greys drove through the positions of the London Yeomanry following the devastation of the unit by the German armour. The Greys plugged a gap and stopped the Germans at their position.
Also, as I recall, Nathanial Greene allowed his militia to withdraw through his continentals as a part of his actual battle plan in the American Revolutionary War. Can't remember the name of the battle but it stopped the British army from crushing his and he repulsed their attack.
Hi Tim. Still new to the rules myself but my comments at this stage are two fold. I really like the idea of a brigade commander being very aware of the deployment and formation of their troops to avoid interpenetration. In other words making the brigade commander more accountable and responsible for the period albeit a wargame. So on that side to completely ban interpenetration I'm inclined to go with that. On the second point based on the size of battlefield table interpenetration may make it easier but then to put in place that 3 move requirement "penalty" to action it. One move up to the other battalion, one move to get through and third move to move away.
Nice to see this AAR... Watching live was a little hard was hoping to see nice pictures and your thoughts Thanks buddy
Down here in NZ we've played innumerable games of Black Powder since circa 2011. For a long time we tried various house rules to "improve" the BP rules. However, passage of lines wasn't something we every stressed about - I guess an argument can be made when troops are "close" (i.e, within 12" of an enemy) that a restriction or penalty is required. But doing so would be contrary to the philosophy of the game, which is to provide generally low stress movement but stressful "order-making" (which may or may not come off), while understanding that the toy-soldier battlefield is an abstraction of the real thing, and isn't subject to the constant movement that would otherwise be going on.
The funny thing is that after years of tweaking BP, we've largely gone back with Second Edition to pure rules as written (we ignore all the rules in Clash of Eagles - they're mostly terrible), but with clarifications on interpretation of some rules. As the author of many of the tweaks and changes for our group, I've come to accept that BP, while not perfect, is still a great set of rules to play very big games at speed. Priestly pretty much got it "right" as an internally consistent rule-set, even if many purists would complain about aspects of it.
I suspect with your battle of Ligny, your table either wasn't big enough, or you didn't quite scale troop numbers to the table size quite right. There's a bit of an art to it. When we game bigger battles, we typically scale 1:2 for battalions, or 2:3, depending on the board size and player numbers. That often means that an historical "division" is played as a Black Powder "brigade". We also introduce "reserve tables", back from the main battle area, and allow troops to move forward and backward from them. Table width is not as big a problem typically as table depth.
But keep up the excellent work. Such games are fantastic fun and satisfying. We've played Borodino twice relatively recently, with a custom-made "battle board". See: terrysgaragegaming.com/2020/11/15/borodino-refight-7-8-november-2020day-1/, terrysgaragegaming.com/2020/11/27/borodino-refight-7-8-november-2020day-2/, and terrysgaragegaming.com/2021/06/03/battle-of-borodino-the-rematch/
Final observation - despite not tweaking the main rules any more, we do often adjust or adapt terrain rules, depending on the battlefield. For example, I've always seen the BP rules for "houses" as being for substantial, stone and fortified buildings - say the granary at Aspern-Essling, or La Hay Sainte at Waterloo - which require attackers to be hitting it from at least two sides, and ideally bombarding it with artillery before hand to reduce the defenders' stamina. However, when we've played games such as Leipzig (at a 2:5 abstraction), where villages were fought over and changed hands multiple times, we modelled a single building on the tabletop with an 8" x 8" footprint, including hedges, etc. (and holding a maximum of one unit), as entire village. Troops in the "village" got +2 morale save against shooting, but only +1 against hand to hand. The defenders did not get a +3 to post-combat resolution but could count support from nearby units as normal. The defenders also fought with all their dice, making the fights very bloody affairs. We also had a rule for setting villages on fire. This seemed to work pretty well - essentially the village was like being in soft cover, but hard cover against shooting. We've got other terrain rules for open woods, streams (no artillery crossing), etc., etc.
Yeah, that's certainly a few in our group! There's a lot to be said for accepting the rules as they are, foibles and all!
There was a manoeuvre called ‘Passage of Lines’ where a unit has been taking casualties so that the brigadier can notice that they would be at risk if they engaged the enemy again without being able to reform or reorganise.
They would be ordered to fall back through a supporting unit.
If the enemy falls back far enough the supporting unit could pass forward to hold the position or even to follow up to be ready to close with the enemy.
Remember that this is a simultaneous action well practiced by well trained troops.
If Hoplites can do this with an 8 ft spear or 17th century troops with 16ft. Pikes, then it should be a piece of cake with a musket.
The command is to open order for units involved then they just pass through each other.
Interpenitration rule , use maybe (something i,ve got to read up on) IN THE GRAND MANNER?
Excellent video . Love your ideas on rules changes. I’m going to try them out with my next game ;) . I like the idea of the unit stopping and using orders to pass through other units. Keep up the great content
Nice you almost got Blucher!!
Isn't there historical evidence that units would pass though each other, like the union brigade at waterloo passing through British infantry to get at the french?
Not sure about Napoleonic ere, that sort of thing did happen in the American Civil War. Particularly in battles like Shiloh, Chickamuga, and The Wilderness. Nasty, confusing, exhausting, long, messes of battles, with very little control. Grant and Lee couldn't even see most of the Wilderness, 'cause of all the trees, and then most of the trees caught fire.
Im in agreement on your take on interpenetration. In the game Batielle Empire it refers to Passage of lines. The game has a set movement template based on scale. in15mm/18mm the game requires 1UD (universal distance) roughly an inch on the side or both sides of a battalion, to allow another unit to pass "through" such as fast moving calvary. I think thats the right way.
Passage of lines part of the interpretation theme is a very interesting topic. I would think a commander had to be very careful that the fresher unit relieving wasn't affected by the decreased order of morale of the unit being relieved. There was a chance both units would become a disordered mass at no fault of the relieving unit with potential for the lot to panic and rout. I know in the ACW veteran units didn't like to do it. Instead a commander would form a second line further back which would become.a.second.line of attack enabling space for units.from.the.first line space to move through to the rear. Once done the formed second.line units then could close to.a.firing line after the obstacles of the first line had passed. So no theory no actual unit penetration took place. Gaps would be left in the second line formations enabling pass through. Similar at Naesby and I believe Culloden. ...thanks for posting interesting to hear your feedback on BP.
I would.think.POL would be trained but.to what extent it was conducted at the firing lines I'm not so sure. Fir the practical.concerns mentioned.
Second comment. With regards to assault on a building, it would seem your solution to the assault guarantees success to the attackers regardless of what the defenders rolled. Rather than removing an entire unit I would think if the defenders are pushed out of the building, they are moved out directly in line with their own table edge and roll for moral to see if they can reform. Then determine if they can assault the building themselves. I believe this happened a couple of times when the Prussians assaulted the French at Plancenoit at Waterloo before they drove them out entirely.
Having said that, I am new to the rules of Black Powder as I just bought the Epic sets.
Beautiful figures great works of art. Three biggest failings in most Napoleonic Wargaming is artillery ammunition, fighting in towns and skirmishers in woods. 1) Artillery no penalty for committing all batteries into grand batteries and not keeping much in reserve 2) Elite units and those that could skirmish fought in towns. Less experienced troops were more of a liability fighting in towns 3) Skirmishers in woods were very common yet formed troops push them back with no penalty other than standard movement penalty for this type of terrain Just food for thought.
In our home rules, we don't allow interpenetration of columns and squares and interpenetration always disorders both units.
What are your thoughts on the ACW rules for interpenetration? Alos, where did those amazing stamina dials come from? Thank you!
I think they are definitely a great middle ground. Its a rule id be happy to play with in BP in general tbh! The rotating dials are General Dan's, I'll ask him! The ones with the beads were made be me!
@@NapoleonicWargaming My first game was with the Epic ACW starter and it was one of the rules differences that really jumped out to me between the two games. The beads seem super smart and like a great idea, but I'm not sure how well they would work for a smaller scale.
What about inter-penetration in revers eg unit falling back through friendly support, whether voluntary or forced withdrawal or routing.
For what it’s worth, my take on inter penetration
NOT ALLOWED-Horse through Foot
-Artillery through any unit
ALLOWED-Foot through all units
-Artillery through foot.
Units wishing to inter penetrate must pass a command roll. If the unit fails it can not pass(cue Gandalf), a failed role does not affect the overall command roll like a normal failed roll but the moving unit can not do anything else.
Something different, if a unit moves three times it can not then fire unless skirmishers. In my mind the n it is too busy rushing forward to think of anything else.
I think all the changes are well thought out and valid. An improvement to our game.
Any ideas on how to implement "Grand Battery Fire "
It's a tough one. We did one for our wagram game and allowed them a turn of firing before the game started
Passage of lines, or interpenetration, has been a technique in battle for a long time. I am pretty sure, but an be corrected, that Napoleon’s forces did use it in some of the battles of 1804-1806. As such, Either as a proper (planned) passage of lines, or as a relief in place (which has many similar technical issues in combat), I would suggest it is a valid order.
However, it is REALLY HARD! Most passages occurred with well trained and experienced troops, something it is often hard to simulate in a Wargame without getting into too much “crunch”.
So What - I would treat the passage of lines in the way you suggest: in a similar way to obstacles, and therefore takes three moves. However, I wouldn’t jus t”let” forces move through others. passages of lines are deliberate decision, and should not be undertaken lightly - even in modern warfare with all our comms and Battlespace command systems. Therefore they should be penalised as such as a difficult order (or set of orders)
Yeah I think that's the best compromise. Treating them as a obstacle is an elegant way that demonstrates the difficulty of command
Oh, sorry, in the cases where you want to simply move through another unit for other reasons, like moving through artillery, or cavalry moving through infantry, how about just halving the penalty, well actually 1/3rd the river penalty. So the penetrating unit moves either (one rule, one or the other not both) up to (the back of) or through (to the front of) the penetrated unit (one turn) and the next turn moves as normal. No penalty to the penetrated unit at all. This could provide a bunch of secondary effect rules for vignettes like ambulances or cantinieres with water carts and the like.
great game, really enjoyed. unfortunately i hate black powder, but hey ho i prefer GdA or GdB
Interpenetration was a thing with archers in medieval times for sure. Archers at front of formations then retreating through ranks to the back. As far as Napoleonics, wasn't there training that allowed for the third rank to also fire in position? If so, there had to be effective training allowing for shifting in position to allow for lanes through the formation. Just thinking out loud here, have no definitive idea historically speaking. Would be surprised to find out that a regiment positioned deeper has no way to get through towards to front...
Hi! Im new to napoleonics so this question might sound stupid, but its about your start collecting prussians video. You see, when reading about Von Hiller's brigade at waterloo, the infantry regiment is marked as a reserve regiment. Would it then be more accurate to get the Prussian Reserve box from Wargames Atlantic instead of the Perry's line infantry? If not, do you have any ideas on how to use the Prussian Reserve box in particular?
Thanks in advance
It certainly would! I'm not sure if they were out when I was writing the video, bit that's absolutely a great use for that (lovely) set!
@@NapoleonicWargaming great, tysm!!
Great looking game & by the sounds of it, lots of fun. You don’t seem totally sold on BP, have you tried General d’Armee? Utterly excellent for large games like this.
Only a Sith believes in absolutes!
I've not played GdA, though I have watched it played. I don't think any set of rules is perfect, but I feel that BP allows you to change things you don't like, most other sets are a bit too rigid for that
Look out Tim. I've noticed I'm often the wordiest of your commenters and I do have some thoughts on your ideas, so be forewarned. By the way, I have a project in mind of going through many of the NW videos (which I do obsessively anyway) and making hard copy notes of all the BlkPwdr rule changes & or tactics you've mentioned before. As an aside from the over abundance of old gamer heads in the video, I didn't miss the occasional view of the opposite end of an old man gamer, bending over to look for lost dice ! On the subject of BUA's, particularly on this table & scenario, the table did seem awfully crowded. Couldn't some of those battalions been off table till needed, even if they were from a brigade that already had units on table, just for maneuver purposes. I like the idea of the "foothold rule" a lot. I've certainly wondered about the near invincibility of troops in built up areas, since my first reading of the rules. I think it'd be easier to append such a rule to game play generally and avoid book keeping if someone with a 3D printer (the author of said rule) and not inconsiderable artistic talent, were to sculpt a flat silhouette of a small, bare foot, to lay beside the unit that'd won a "FOOTHOLD". On the issue of interpenetration, I was shocked, HAPPILY shocked when I realized I could move through a friendly unit without the common rule that one are both of the units involved would become disordered. For the same reasons, I think your movement penalties are too punitive, especially in terms of time (3 turns!) and would result in the continuation of the problem I see in most online, BlkPwdr, battle report videos which is that temporary withdrawals with a rally order are rare to nonexistent. So, generals tend to push units to extinction rather than pulling them out to rejuvenate. Where as, as you pointed out regarding village combat, was more the rule than the exception. How about the forward unit (in need of rally) can be withdrawn to the front of the relief unit which can immediately jump (move through) the withdrawing unit. The relief unit may not move forward more that turn and so has been penalized the the depth of the withdrawing unit as its frontline (the former frontline of the withdrawn unit) position has been reduced. I wouldn't want to put a disorder on the withdrawn unit as this might further delay its first rally order. Perhaps, however, it could be placed turned away from the front, requiring an extra move to face the enemy once again, unless charged by some means (sweeping charge?) where it should be allowed to face or form square if capable.
I skim read this, but it's half 11 and i think it deserves the attention commensurateto the effort you put in typing it! Remind me tomo to give it a proper read!
Defensive walls protect the attacker as much as the defender once they move up to them. Upper stories might offer protection for skirmishers. Overall though it seems like morale played an equally important role as casualties did. Units were rarely "destroyed" but lost their nerve and ran for their lives. Almost like a contagion. Units saw how their fellow units would be faring beside them, if they were losing fear would spread of being outflanked. At best they would hesitate moving forward without support on the flank. The integrity of the line was paramount and when full of elan could often be unstoppable. I'm not sure any rule set really addresses these factors very well.
Interpenetration makes no sense for units in line or column, skirmish could got through skirmish order sure. To get through artillery infantry would be in column so must change if in other formation. if forced to retreat it should be straight back unless blocked in which case they would run between formations flowing like water IF THERE IS SPACE ENOUGH. If forced through units in line or column they they should become disordered automatically as in real life. Your rules for built up areas sounds very sensible. I'd almost like having morale in 2 types: positive and negative where the amount of each has results, too many negative you run, enough positive you can charge built up areas or uphill, or trade positive morale to lose negatives to protect unit cohesion. Gotta think on this one a bit.
One thing you get wrong with all that interpenetration talk is looking at it as an actual "penetration". What it really was (and what is depicted on the tabletop) is unit A stands behind unit B, and then A is moved to stand in front of the B (or B is ordered to move behind A). Now, there are multiple ways of doing it in period drill manuals (notably French 1791 manual). Some involve marching by files, outside the flank of unit in front of you, and reforming back in line. Others might involve multiple wheelings by both units.
Truth be told, the term "unit" within Black Powder is kind of ambiguous. Is it a company/platoon? Battalion? Brigade? I guess the most popular "scale" is Battalion, in which case you can take the interpenetration as all the companies in unit A marching by files to their left (effectively turning the line into several snake columns), while the unit B marches by files to their right, and so they bypass each other. Once it's done, A reforms back into line. They could also do the same maneouver but by whole battalion, though it would take longer.
All of this might sound complicated, and surely it wasn't very easy to do, that's why there's the possibility for units to get dezorganized by this. Now, I haven't checked the rules for quite some time, but I believe that the chance of dezorganization is a flat roll (5+ ?); I think it should to some extent be modified by the units overall quality, i.e. better drilled/experienced units should have it easier than freshly raised militia.
I really like your built-up area combat rule suggestion. If on the following round of combat the Defenders win, can they claw back their +2 modifier?
A good question, which hopefully Tim will have an opinion on. Seems like if the attackers fail their moral test, they should have to withdraw from the building but not contact. So +2 would be regained but no +1 on the following combat for winning the previous.
Yeah, again they throw the attackers back out. Seems like a reasonable (and cool!) Thing to happen!
Building assaults… I see your logic but how about avoiding book keeping all together and simply go 5,6 no effect, 3,4 fall back, 1,2 explode?
Are you familiar with "Pas de Charge" rules? They haven't any building rules, per say, but have straight up rules that allow impetus factors to "overrun" less trained troops.
Kind of unrelated, but will you make more content on Brunswick or more on starting a prussian force? Loving your videos man!
The Brunswick series will get finished! (Eventually!) No plans on more starting prussians yet, (got a lot of Spanish to get through first!) but never say never!
Thanks for the video. A couple of points, the passage of lines was a thing in the Napoleonic Wars, see, for example, the British regulations of 1792, which all the British infantry used. One more complex option is to use the Glory Hallelujah test (p.59). On the buildings I tend to agree with you, but I would just reinstate the retire results for 5 and 6 in the Break test, but I haven't playtested this. Your idea of a set of rules interpretations is a good one, essential on the occasions you describe. The toolset tag on BP is, in my opinion, much overused but demands the sort of interpretations you describe as part of the scenario set up.
All the best.
Garry
The Glory Hallelujah 'passage of lines' test is simple & would solve the interpenetration issue without 'reinventing the wheel'.
Every time I watch your video's, it just makes me wish I lived in the Uk 🇬🇧 The miniature wargaming capital of the world 🌎
I thought the table layout was impressive but a bit narrow. had the table been wider the troops could have been formed in more depth. And the old guys could have enjoyed the challenge of stretching during their movement phases.
Haha, not old...seasoned!
Your game your rules.
I am 100% against unit penetration. I prefer the rules to be a realistic as possible. What about a penalty to both units. The unit moving forward would have to stay in place after penetration for two turns to get back in order.
A video of old man’s backs? I just assumed the young ladies were hanging out in a different room 👀
For me if we don’t allow interpretation then we need smaller units or a bigger table, a bit like WRG 🤬
nice pictures
As Rick Priestly comments; modify the rules to what suits you and your group, if you don't like something then change it - the rules were never meant to be a bible or hard and fast legal document but what they designed to fit with their way of playing a game that could be done in a night.
too many historical examples of the Napoleonic battlefield getting congested by troops in the way of each other and having to wait for a gap
Same folks wrote GW rules so ….. same inconsistencies and vague rules. 😑
wall to wall no where to move.
Try GDA
hoi
Lots of old men lol 😂 if this game had an easy entry skirmish starter rule set more youngsters would play. I personally think the scale puts so many off
Napoleonics is a period not a game. You can play with any rules you fancy using the same figures.
Personally, I think Sharp Practice is an excellent and fun ‘starter set’ - lots of vids here on yt to help you along while you learn. And you don’t need too many figures - about 40-50 per side is plenty to start with.
Nothing forcing you to use 28mm figures. You can use any figure scale you want, from 6mm upward.
Can not think that troops in this period passing through one another, so why bother putting this rule in. I do not like rules that are just Guide lines. May result in disagreements. I like rules that say what you have to do not what you would like to do. This is why I think General D' Armee rules are the best rules on the market. I do not like rules that say "May" in the text. it Leaves it open for interpretation.
It’s called “passing of lines” and was standard drill in the period. It’s dealt with very clearly in the updated version of GdA. Of course units retreating or withdrawing from action would flow around rather than pass through formations to their rear, which is why spacings between units were so vital, especially for cavalry.