I can play ByForum or ByEmail, I need to play some more games…
The problem was I use to play LowLuck but we can play normal dicey, just a bit of editing… if the targem is to tray and learn new strategies… :grinning:
Can someone make an A&A style Napoleonic game?
-
@CWO:
…the basic four-cycle mechanism of “Income buys units / Units fight battles / Battles win territory / Territory generates income”.
Hmmm so that’s what: blow/bang/squeeze/suck?
#641
-
Well I must admit I was thinking of A&A as found in global games, so excluding Guadalcanal, BOTB and D-Day.
#644
-
OK BD, not sure what your point is… are we to presume from your cut n paste that you foresee no difficulties in creating such a game?
Admiral:
Altough this isn’t an Axis & Allies clone, it will look and feel a lot like it, with area movement, dice rolling, and plastic units."
Well yes dice and plastic pieces I can see although IMTO that may be better at a tactical level.
But when you picture this game, do you see multiples pieces moving across the globe in different directions and being generated like A&A?I guess a horsed piece could represent an army with a cavalry brigade while the infantry piece would represent minimal cavalry assets… a screening force only? The grouping just seems to drag down into details that scream tactical to me.
Mind you it could just be me. Dragging and screaming etc.
And definitely I applaud any serious attempt by someone to craft his or her own game.
Even IL, ha ha. :-DAnd finally:
@Dylan:http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=18813.0 !!! :D
No comment.
#632
NO COMMENT!!! (111111)
-
@i:
dyaln…. are you… er…syico?(spelling)
Go back to school.
-
I am not sure that it would be that difficult to make an A&A type of Napoleonic game. Eagle Games makes Napoleonic figures in a variety of colors, covering infantry, cavalry, and artillery. That covers your basic unit types, although ships would be a problem, since the only way to get sailing ships would be to get the Sid Meier Civilization military runners and cut out the ships, although that would give you additional cavalry and artillery units, so the pieces are there.
While some of Napoleon’s campaigns were over with a single battle, some, like the Spanish campaign lasted from 1809 to the 1814, while the Russians and the French sparred a couple of times prior to the disastrous invasion of Russia in 1812. Austria kept renewing the fight on a regular basis, while the Prussians proved to be less than dependable auxiliaries. You might want to restrict the number of infantry and cavalry units that can be raised by Great Britain, while allowing the British unlimited ship building. Also, you probably would want to have some what of adjusting for British superiority at naval combat, along with allowing for national revolts to occur, based on either a cumulative die roll or French setbacks. You would have to play with the exact manner of creating new units, but something like the way the Chinese get to muster units based on the number of territories held would be a good starting point for infantry and cavalry units, possibly with a terrain adjustment for cavalry based on plain verses mountainous, watery (i.e. the Netherlands), or poor terrain (such as Spain).
It would take some work and development time, say 6 to 9 months, but I do not think that it is in any way impossible.
-
I am not sure that it would be that difficult to make an A&A type of Napoleonic game. Eagle Games makes Napoleonic figures in a variety of colors, covering infantry, cavalry, and artillery. That covers your basic unit types, although ships would be a problem, since the only way to get sailing ships would be to get the Sid Meier Civilization military runners and cut out the ships, although that would give you additional cavalry and artillery units, so the pieces are there.
While some of Napoleon’s campaigns were over with a single battle, some, like the Spanish campaign lasted from 1809 to the 1814, while the Russians and the French sparred a couple of times prior to the disastrous invasion of Russia in 1812. Austria kept renewing the fight on a regular basis, while the Prussians proved to be less than dependable auxiliaries. You might want to restrict the number of infantry and cavalry units that can be raised by Great Britain, while allowing the British unlimited ship building. Also, you probably would want to have some what of adjusting for British superiority at naval combat, along with allowing for national revolts to occur, based on either a cumulative die roll or French setbacks. You would have to play with the exact manner of creating new units, but something like the way the Chinese get to muster units based on the number of territories held would be a good starting point for infantry and cavalry units, possibly with a terrain adjustment for cavalry based on plain verses mountainous, watery (i.e. the Netherlands), or poor terrain (such as Spain).
It would take some work and development time, say 6 to 9 months, but I do not think that it is in any way impossible.
Okay why are you talking about video games now.
-
I am not sure that it would be that difficult to make an A&A type of Napoleonic game….
Well, I’m not doubting the availability for figures. But I understand that Risk has those now and it’s a far, far cry from what A&A does, right?
As for Spain… hmmm, well you could increase the number of territories in a given nation without permitting army generation to match it so you’d still have the Napoleonic tendency to launch one campaign and not a broad front approach…
Still what you seem to be leaning towards is a tactical game with a strategic supply-driven backdrop… most of the Napoleonic games I’m seeing have that level of conflict, not A&A scale.
Mind you that’s very likely just me and my all too brief survey of what’s out there…Adding some comments:
At a quick glance, for instance, Napoleon in Europe seems to have this dual approach requiring a… tactical/inter-relational battleboard so to speak… front rank, rear, flanks etc.http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/178138/napoleon-in-europe
To me, this is straying from the style of A&A.
Now on the other hand there’s Age of Napoleon which seems to remain above the tactical level…
But the trade-off, as you can see in doing so uses army chits that give us detailed strengths and weaknesses of the formations / generals…
But horror of horrors! those formations amalgamate the branches (inf, cav, art) represented by our cherished A&A-style playing pieces!http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/443140/age-of-napoleon
So in other words, if we want pretty horses on our Age of Napoleon mapboard we’d have to use them in a goofy manner like Risk… infantry = a weak army, cannon = a moderate army, and cavalry = kick-@$$ army.
Again, not A&A-style IMTO.#648
-
@i:
why would you say that dylan? and im in school you dont be mean, and insulot my spelling(wicth im not good at anyway) :x :x :x :x :x :x
I got B in english, what did you get.
And I said that as a punnishment because I know your in school (unless your one of those gangster kids.)
and now I’m no a phyco
Also stop using internet exploer, Chrome you can right click and it’s like a spell check.
-
Why I would say that is I don’t think that given the crude tech / C4I of the time that a cavalry piece, for instance, was a unit of independent manouevre that would stray too far from a inf piece.
A bunch of guys on horse back wouldn’t invade Poland much less blitz thru.
Problem appears to me that in Napoleonic warfighting which to me seems very similar to the move/countermove of Rock Paper Scissors (Rank), they’re too homogeneous to strike out on their own. Run into some inf squares and… well, it was a fun hack lads, back to stables.
In contrast to A&A where each piece is actually a WW2 all-arms formation of varying composition such that even a tank piece would have intrinsic inf; ballpark it at 1/3 - 1/2 of the sharp end?
So in that case tanks run into Built Up Area, dismount the PBI and away you go: Game On.I dunno maybe it’s just a question of what is your level of comfort with abstraction in order to get the cool sculpts on board?
#658
-
One thing that might need to be considered in designing a realistic (as opposed to an abstract) A&A-style Napoleonic wargame is the fact that battles of that period (and of earlier periods) generally weren’t structured in the same way as those of the Second World War. Generally speaking, the combat phases of pre-twentieth century wars tended to be concentrated into a very small number of decisive engagements occurring on a single primary battlefield and lasting for just a day or so – Waterloo being a good example. The outcome of a war would often depend on what amounted to a single roll of the dice by the opposing forces, and most of the direct combat casualties of the war would take place during that single engagement. Apart from those concentrated battles, serious fighting tended to be limited or nonexistent the rest of the year; armies engaged in a war spent a lot of time marching, maneuvering, training and so forth, but spent comparatively little time in outright combat. Ditto for naval forces: battles like Trafalgar were decisive and produced many casualties, but they were rare events within the overall course of a war, with much of the rest of the time spent on operations like blockades.
In the First and Second World Wars, the structure of armies, fronts and battles changed radically, owing to such factors as scientific and technological progress (which led to the creation of weapons which could deliver ever-increasing volumes of increasingly lethal fire, like the machine gun), industrialization (which allowed the mass production of these improved weapons) and urbanization (which allowed the conscription and/or recruitment of millions more soldiers than could be supported by the primarily agricultural societies of earlier times). These factors produced continuous fronts hundreds or even thousands of miles long. Rather than being concentrated in location and in duration, fighting became stretched out: major battles might last days, weeks or even months, and lesser battles were taking place in multiple places more or less continuously (an example being the bomber offensive against Germany, which saw almost daily combat over the course of several years).
The A&A gaming system used in the various global editions, and in the AA Europe / AA Pacific games, works well in the context of a war in which there is more or less continuous fighting on multiple fronts. I think the problem it runs into when transplanted into the Napoleonic period is that combat in the Napoleonic wars didn’t involve continuous fighting on multiple fronts. (Allboxcars mentioned some points along these lines in his original post, for instance when he talked about whether a diplomatic phase might be used to fill in parts of the game taking place during the long intervals between battles.)
-
Good points finely said.
Probably why the idea of a campaign map + battle map on different levels seems to be so appealling.#665
-
Admiral:
Altough this isn’t an Axis & Allies clone, it will look and feel a lot like it, with area movement, dice rolling, and plastic units."
Well yes dice and plastic pieces I can see although IMTO that may be better at a tactical level.
But when you picture this game, do you see multiples pieces moving across the globe in different directions and being generated like A&A?I guess a horsed piece could represent an army with a cavalry brigade while the infantry piece would represent minimal cavalry assets… a screening force only? The grouping just seems to drag down into details that scream tactical to me.
Do I see multiple pieces moving across the globe in different directions? Well, maybe not the globe, but at least the game board ;) I basically want plastic pieces moving around on a pretty map of Europe. But the idea is to incorporate things that are good from different Napoleonic games, like for example the map from Napoleon in Europe, and the generals and strategic battle system from Age of Napoleon.
Do I see pieces being generated like A&A? Well, sort of, I guess. But I’m thinking along the lines of 4 turns to a year, where the fourth turn is the winter turn, when forces go into winter quarters (no battles), and the units purchased/recruited during the year being mobilized on the board. Something like that.
Well,the tactical versus strategic scale. Always a problem. The way I’m picturing it is that infantry pieces represent divisions, and to these divisions you can attach artillery or cavalry brigades (artillery or cavalry pieces). I want to use the battle system from Age of Napoleon, though slightly tweaked. You calculate the sum of the troops you have in your army, you add the Battle Rating of your general, if your army has one, and you roll a D6. You check a table for losses. So no rolling 1D6 per unit and hit on a low number, like in A&A.
So basically you can resolve battles on a strategic level with armies consisting of a number of infantry divisions and attached arty and cav brigades and a general, using AoN battle system variant, or you can jump right into the tactical level, where the army is divided into brigades and regiments and things are far more detailed. To this end I will probably use Napoleon’s War, or some such. Kind of like the Total War series. You fiddle with armies on the campaign map, then the armies clash and you jump straight into the action.
What do you think?
-
You fiddle with armies on the campaign map, then the armies clash and you jump straight into the action.
What do you think?
Sounds very promising. Please post whatever you come up with!
#697
-
Dylan, the problem with using ad hominem attacks on people is they often backfire, moreover, they are a redherring at best that often mask an inability to address the actual premises of a discussion. I lothe to do so but I feel I must school you a bit in grammar and spelling.
_I got B in english, what did you get. _Where is the question mark?
And I said that as a punnishment because I know your in school (unless your one of those gangster kids.)
punnishment punishment?
your Your denotes a possesive, you meant to use the contraction of “you are” which is you’re not your. You did this twice in one sentence.and now I’m no a phyco
You are not supposed to start a sentence with and but I see this more and more, moreover, where is the Capital letter to start off a sentence? And now….? So you’re not a pyyco now, but perhaps before or after you might be a phyco? By the way, a phyco is preface word meaning algea used in combination to form a compound word like phycochrome. You really should use dictionary.com to know the meaning of the words you use. I also noted that you did not end the sentence with a period.Also stop using internet exploer, Chrome you can right click and it’s like a spell check.
Lamenting about others not using a spell checker then spelling internet explorer as “internet exploer” is rather amusing. The second sentence should have been started out with the word “With…”
So, what school did you get a B in english from again?
I have a great idea, lets not attack each other in ad hominem fashions. Let us refrain from attack the spelling and grammar of each other because we all make speeling mistakes. Rather, let us come together to share ideas and strategies, this should be about friendly learning and competition not about slagging matches.__
-
Dylan, the problem with using ad hominem attacks on people is they often backfire, moreover, they are a redherring at best that often mask an inability to address the actual premises of a discussion. I lothe to do so but I feel I must school you a bit in grammar and spelling.
_I got B in english, what did you get. _Where is the question mark?
And I said that as a punnishment because I know your in school (unless your one of those gangster kids.)
punnishment punishment?
your Your denotes a possesive, you meant to use the contraction of “you are” which is you’re not your. You did this twice in one sentence.and now I’m no a phyco
You are not supposed to start a sentence with and but I see this more and more, moreover, where is the Capital letter to start off a sentence? And now….? So you’re not a pyyco now, but perhaps before or after you might be a phyco? By the way, a phyco is preface word meaning algea used in combination to form a compound word like phycochrome. You really should use dictionary.com to know the meaning of the words you use. I also noted that you did not end the sentence with a period.Also stop using internet exploer, Chrome you can right click and it’s like a spell check.
Lamenting about others not using a spell checker then spelling internet explorer as “internet exploer” is rather amusing. The second sentence should have been started out with the word “With…”
So, what school did you get a B in english from again?
I have a great idea, lets not attack each other in ad hominem fashions. Let us refrain from attack the spelling and grammar of each other because we all make speeling mistakes. Rather, let us come together to share ideas and strategies, this should be about friendly learning and competition not about slagging matches.__
Sorry.
-
You fiddle with armies on the campaign map, then the armies clash and you jump straight into the action.
What do you think?
Sounds very promising. Please post whatever you come up with!
#697
Will do!
-
So, I think I’ve figured it out. Now, this may or may not be in the style of A&A, depending on how you look at it, some things are very much A&A and some things are not…
The games I will be combining for my personal variant of the Napoleonic age are: Napoleon in Europe (map and battle board), Age of Napoleon (almost the whole game, minus map and some parts), Viktory II (units and battle rules).
Now, it basically works like this: the map that will be used is the one from NiE, simply because I like it (it’s beautiful) and it’s big with many territories (reminds me of A&A). I wanted the nice map combined with the nice units from Viktory II. From here on out, it’s more or less Age of Napoleon we’re playing, but with lots of plastic pieces.
Age of Napoleon is a far better game than Nie, so this variant will be very similar to AoN. In most ways it works like AoN, and it’s probably more informative to list the things that are different, than those that are the same. So here goes:
-The Battle rules are the ones from Viktory II, more or less, with some elements from AoN and NiE mixed in. Battles are decided using the Viktory II rules (mostly), which I find tense, fast and fun, played out on the battle board from NiE, with the addition of Corps counters from AoN. More on battles later.
-While there are still a number of Corps moving around the board doing battle, they are now comprised of both the Corps counters from AoN and the plastic pieces from Viktory II. Losses will not be counted by the Corps, but by the Division or Brigade, i.e. whenever there is a loss from battle or attrition, you remove a number of plastic pieces from that Corps.
A Corps consists of a counter from AoN, for example Napoleon, and eight plastic pieces; four infantry, two cavalry and two artillery. This combination of counter and pieces show both the quality and leadership value of the Corps, and also it’s current status. A Corps that sustained heavy casualties during a battle may be down to, say, two infantry and one artillery. Those casualties can of course be replenished, and the Corps brought back to full strength.-War at Sea. This feature does not exist in AoN, wich I think is a shame. NiE on the other hand, is made with naval warfare in mind, and the map works very well for this. And since the Frigate units from Viktory II are so beautiful (as are all of the units), and come in the right colours, it was a simple choice to put this in.
-The Ottoman Empire is an active nation in this variant. In AoN they are not. The map from NiE was made to include the Ottomans, and I personally want them in the game. Since there are enough colours in the Viktory II set to include them, I will.
There are probably some other things that are different as well, but it’s mostly small tweaks here and there to make it work. Apart from this, it’s basically AoN. You use cards for diplomacy and other stuff, some cards are used in battle. You raise Corps and move them much like in AoN, and they will suffer attrition in the same way. The diplomatic rules, with Coalition members, Insurgents, Neutrals, French allies and French dominions, are the same.
The nation specific counters and the plastic pieces correspond amazingly well colourwise. French counters in AoN are blue, there are blue pieces in the VII set, and so on. So, red pieces for Britain, black for Prussia, yellow for Spain, white for Austria and green for Russia. The Ottomans have no counters, but will be using the gray pieces. As for the orange pieces, you can put some of them in the Orange Corps ;)
I will explain more on battles soon… but right now I need som coffee. :-)
-
CRAZY! I did almost the same thing and did a play test with the rules last year.
-
CRAZY! I did almost the same thing and did a play test with the rules last year.
:-)
Man, that looks beautiful. I see you used the AoN map, which is probably not a bad idea either. How did it work out, and what rules did you use?
-
The Map was from Age of Napoleon
The Chips were from Axis & Allies
The Generals were from Age of Empires
The units were from Victory II
And I used the GOLDEN CAVALRY unit from RISK Special Edition as the Napoleon unit.PM me with your e-mail address and I can send you a PDF copy of the playtest rules
Here is a preview of a few pages…
Suggested Topics
