Horse and Musket Bolt Action - with Cavalry Rules

I've taken a first pass at writing some cavalry rules for a Horse and Musket era version of Bolt Action. I have also cleaned up some of the other rules to make them more clear, and included it all below so everything is in one place.

Cavalry

Cavalry models act the same as Infantry except as noted below.
Cavalry can mount or dismount using 6" of movement. While mounted, the following rules apply:

• Orders: They cannot go Down voluntarily. They can perform an escape move when assaulted by infantry, like a recce vehicle.
• Movement: They can Advance 12" and Run 24". They cannot enter buildings. They ignore obstacles, unless deemed impassible to Cavalry.
• Shooting: Shooting attacks against them receive a +1 to hit modifier. They suffer a -1 penalty to hit rolls when shooting while mounted. When firing on the move (with an Advance order), the only weapons they can fire are those that have the Cavalry type. The only weapons they can reload while mounted are those with the Cavalry type.
• Assault: Assault damage rolls against them receive a -1 penalty. They cannot benefit from using two assault weapons together.

Horse and Musket version of Bolt Action

I was thinking lately that I don't want to have to learn a lot of different sets of rules for playing different historical periods at the same scale/level of game. That will only discourage me from getting miniatures in new periods that I don't have rules for. So I'm thinking about adapting the Warlord Games "Bolt Action" World War 2 rules to earlier periods, such as the "Horse and Musket" era, approximately 1700-1900 AD. Before getting into my specific modifications, here are some things in Bolt Action that I think need to be addressed.

1. The long reload time of muzzle loading weapons needs to be represented.
2. Rifled weapons should be more accurate than smoothbore.
3. In Bolt Action, the roll to cause damage is based on the training level of the target, which I don't think makes sense for Horse and Musket periods. Aside from being behind cover, which is already represented by cover modifiers, I don't think soldiers were trained to avoid being shot.
4. I want to be able to represent some troop types being slightly better or worse at shooting, or slightly better or worse in assault. In Bolt Action, most individuals are pretty much equal in offensive ability, but I want Grenadiers to be better in an assault than Militia, for example.
5. Assaults should probably be less instantly decisive. With the need to reload most weapons after one shot, there wouldn't be as much shooting at point blank range to end things quickly. Having to beat each other with rifle butts might cause an assault to drag on longer.
6. There needs to be some detailed rules for cavalry. I don't think cavalry is addressed in the Bolt Action rules, though there may be rules for it in one of the army book supplements. Even if there are some cavalry rules, they probably aren't to the level of detail that would be desired in a game where cavalry would be more important and prevalent.

If you can think of other areas where the Bolt Action rules might need to be altered or amended, let me know. I think those six points cover most of what needs to change, at a minimum. With the exception of cavalry rules, which I'm not sure about yet, I think all of those points can be covered with a few simple rules change, a few modifiers, and some new weapon and unit stats. My proposed changes are listed below.

Finding Gamers

I have a group of friends I game with about once a month. With everyone being on different schedules and not living very close anymore, this is about all we can manage. Of course, I wish I could play more. But that would only really be practical if I knew some players that lived much closer, and were on a similar schedule, so we could maybe get a game in on a week night.

In addition to not playing very often, my gaming group almost exclusively plays Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000. Over the years, I've started to become more interested in trying out other kinds of games. If you've been following my blog you'll know that I'm interested in historical gaming, especially in the American Civil War and other "horse and musket" wars. I would also really like to get back into RPGs, and would really like to find a group to play Pendragon or the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying game with.

Unfortunately, I don't really know how to go about finding other players for historical games or RPGs. The group I play with now are all people I was friends with before, and we got into gaming together. Or they were a friend who joined in later when some of us were already heavily into 40k and fantasy. So I haven't had to find other gamers to play some particular thing I was interested in before.

I've tried getting the current gaming group interested in those other things I am interested in, but to no avail. For the most part, they only want to play Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000. And who can blame them? After all the money and time spent creating multiple armies for those games, they only get to game with them at most once a month, usually less. So maybe 10 or 12 games each year between the two systems. And with multiple armies per game, each army might only be played once or twice a year. So already the gaming is stretched pretty thin without using up gaming time trying out new things.

Nevertheless, that doesn't prevent me from wanting to try out other games. So lately I've been trying to find other gamers who are interested in the types of games I want to play. I've had some mixed success. At first I did a lot of looking for gaming message boards (including official company ones like the Fantasy Flight Games message boards) and posting or searching for posts about gaming in my area. That didn't work all that well, because there are so many boards out there, and many people don't use them, and any people using them are spread all over the world.

One thing that has worked out was searching on meetup.com. The site is not gaming related, and is used in general for any kind of meeting groups that are looking for interested people. The group pays a small fee to be listed on the site, and then it can post meetings for the group. Members can search groups by location and keywords, join groups they are interested in, RSVP to their meetings, and post in their individual message boards, etc.

I did manage to find some groups on meetup.com that are in my general vicinity and that do historical gaming, though none of them are using the Black Powder rules, which I like. I haven't found any groups or individuals interested in playing Pendragon or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, though there are a lot of Dungeons and Dragons groups. So if you are looking for some people to game with, I would recommend checking there. It's really quick to do a search for groups that are in your area and see all their upcoming and past meetups to get an idea of what kind of games they play.

I also found out that a gaming store near me does some open gaming nights for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K on week nights, so I might stop in some time and try to get a quick game in after work. Also, that store has a guy who does games of Ambush Alley or Tomorrow's War every other weekend. I'm really hoping to make it up there for one of those games, and I'm really interested to see those rules in action. I'd actually be interested to know if the Tomorrow's War rules can be used with the 40K miniatures I already have. I like the 40K miniatures and background, but sometimes the rules just don't allow the kind of story and mission driven games I would like to be playing in that universe.

So, I've had some success so far in searching out others who share some of my same gaming interests. The internet seems like a double edged sword in this respect. It has allowed me to find out about all kinds of gaming, miniatures, and rules that I would never have known existed without the internet, since I certainly wouldn't have seen them in person. I played Warhammer 40k for a long time before I had any idea that people did a similar kind of gaming in historical periods. On the other hand, since I didn't find out about these things by seeing them at a local gaming store, that means there's no telling if anyone near me will have the same interests. So it may just allow me to find out about all kinds of great games that I'll never get to play.

If anyone out there has any tips or suggestions for finding like-minded gamers, please leave a comment. It might help me or someone else who happens to read the blog.

Pendraken Napoleonic Russian, Wurttemburg, and French miniatures

The folks at Pendraken Miniatures were nice enough to send me a few samples of some of their 10mm Napoleonic figures. I had mentioned somewhere on The Miniatures Page that I might be interested in getting some of the Pendraken Napoleonic Russian and Wurttemburg figures, but didn't want to buy a lot of them without knowing what they look like, and there are no pictures on their website. So the helpful Pendraken people offered to send me a few samples to get an idea of what they're like. They also threw in some samples of their latest 1809 French figures. So I thought I'd be helpful back, and post some pictures so others can see what they look like.

Before taking the pictures, I cleaned any mold lines and flash from the figures and primed them with white primer. I then applied some Games Workshop Black wash to the figures, so that the details would show up better in the photographs. I think the wash is a little thick for such small scale miniatures, because there are quite a few places where it didn't get in all the recesses. Hopefully it worked well enough to make the details easier to see.

First up are the sample figures from the Moscow Campaign Wurttemburg line. Here you can see one of the regular Infantry figures (I'm assuming this is the "March Attack" pose), and three command figures. In general, I'm assuming there is only one sculpt for each thing, so all the infantry in the same pose will be identical, and all the drummers identical, etc. But I'm not sure.




Next are the sample figures from the Moscow Campaign Russian range. First is a standard line infantryman, and again I assume this is the "March Attack" pose. Next is a couple of Cavalry figures.




Both of these ranges are okay. They are very sturdy and have well-defined and probably easy to paint details, which is very nice. On the other hand, they are pretty chunky, with the Russian Cavalry in particular having freakishly large heads. That seems pretty normal for many ranges in 10mm or 6mm. I prefer more realistic proportions, but then of course the miniatures will be much more frail.

The thing that I really don't like is the strange pose on the marching infantry. Their legs look like they're way too far apart. They look bow-legged. The other thing I don't like, which just makes no sense at all, is that the Wurttemburg infantry are on really thick bases. They'll look like they're all walking on rock. Of course, I could work around that, except that the Russians are on really thin bases. So I'd either have to put all the Russian infantry on something thick to make up the difference, or it'll look like the Wurttemburgers just tower over the Russians, especially with the combination of their tall helmets and always making sure to stand on a big rock. And with both ranges being for the Moscow campaign, I would think it likely for these to be used together, so I'm not sure why there is such a big difference in their base thicknesses.

However, I'm not aware of any other company that makes 10mm Wurttemburgers, so I suppose I'll have to overlook my minor complaints. But since the Pendraken Russians don't match well with their own Wurttemburgers anyway, maybe I'll shop around and see if I can find other Russians I like better. I doubt that Wurttemburgers are huge sellers, so I won't hold my breath for any new ones being sculpted.

Now, to move on to a more recent range. I don't know when those Moscow Campaign figures were sculpted, but the Pendraken 1809 French range is pretty new. First is two of the figures from the Engineers pack, then an infantryman, and finally a couple of cavalry figures. Really, the pictures on the Pendraken site for this range are WAY better than mine, so you'd be much better off looking there. I just figured I'd include them anyway.





These are really nice. I think the sculpting has improved greatly. The marching infantry pose is much better, and the cavalry have much more dynamic poses. The figures also seem a little less chunky. I think the proportions are better, while still managing to keep a lot of crisp details. Unfortunately I don't need any 1809 French, but if I did I would certainly consider this range.

For those interested in this kind of thing, with a little filing of bases I think I could just fit four of the marching infantry side by side on a 3/4" wide base. I do like to base dense so it looks like an actual line. Still, if I use these figures I might just do 3 wide per 3/4" of base width, or 4 wide per inch. Then I could do the Russians on 4 bases (one per company) that are 1.5" wide each with 6 figures across, and the Wurttemburgers on 6 bases (one per company) that are one inch wide each with 4 figures across. Then it would work out to 6 inches across for both in line, with the same number of figures across as each other.

For anyone interested in Great War gaming, I've also done a post with pictures of some of the Pendraken World War 1 Miniatures.

The Peninsular War Atlas by Nick Lipscombe

NOTE: There is now a revised edition of this book which can be found here. This review is of the first edition.

I purchased The Peninsular War Atlas mostly because of the positive reviews both on The Miniatures Page message boards and on Amazon.com. I have to agree, the positive reviews are correct. This is a really great book.

The book is very large, with 384 extra wide pages that include 160 maps. It has a hard cover and comes in a nice slip case. It is a really nice looking and high quality book. Here is a picture of the book outside the case.

On top of the production value of the book, the contents are really exceptional. It starts off with a brief Foreword by the current Duke of Wellington, followed by a Preface which contains interesting information about the development of military map making and information about early histories of the Peninsular War. It also lays out the purpose of the tome, which in short is to provide a nearly comprehensive set of maps of the military operations of the Peninsular war, supported by explainatory text. An effort has also been made to portray the entire conflict with coverage of Spanish contributions, which are sometimes neglected by English writers, and English/Portuguese contributions, which are sometimes downplayed in Spanish sources. The book also definitely sticks to battles and things that led up to battles, leaving out anything about the war that is not relevant to the military conflict.

There is an Introduction by Charles J. Esdaile, which is somewhat interesting, but is mostly just concerned with explaining why the Peninsular war is important and interesting, and you probably wouldn't have bought the book if you didn't already think so. It also randomly compares the Peninsular War to World War 1 for some reason. Much more useful are the Chronology of Events in the Peninsular War and the Legend to Maps, which I've pictured below. The Chronology is good as an overview to keep the overall timeline of events in perspective. It also lists all of the huge number of battles and engagements that took place, most of which appear to be covered in some detail in the book.

In the back of the book are a bibliography, a glossary, and several appendices listing out strengths and dispositions of various forces at different times. An example of these pages is shown below.

The rest of the book follows a consistent format: a map on the right side with descriptive text on the left, starting at the very beginning of the conflict and continuing to the very end. The maps cover different scales, from showing the whole peninsula with strategic movements of armies, down to tactical maps showing locations and movements of individual battalions and batteries. There are even some 3D contour maps of some battles. Here are sample pictures of two of the maps at different scales.

The maps are very clear, though the blue color they use for the French and the black for the Spanish are sometimes hard to distinguish at a glance. The accompanying text is very clear and concise, and between the text and the maps it is very easy to understand how the battles unfolded or how the strategic movements were playing out. It is full of great information and is really fascinating for anyone interested in the Peninsular War.

The book is also very useful from a wargaming perspective. If you wish to play one of these particular battles on the tabletop, it is a perfect reference for doing so, and there must be something like a hundred of them to choose from. It's got maps for you to follow and orders of battle for the forces taking part, and even text explaining how the battle played out and what contributed to the outcome. Even if you aren't playing a specific battle, it gives a great impression of the kinds of situations that came up in battle, typical formations and organizations of units that might face each other, and the ways terrain played a part in deployments. It will give you plenty of ideas for battles to fight with all different sizes of forces.

In short, it's a great book that I would highly recommend for anyone interested in the subject or who does any gaming in this period. The retail price is $75, but as usual it can be had for a lot less from amazon.com. If you are even remotely interested, I'd encourage you to check out the page on Amazon, because they have a video that shows more of the book, including the slip case and a lot more pages than I've shown. There are also several customer reviews on there that are very positive. It's definitely worth a look.

There revised edition can be found on Amazon here.

Borodino: The Moscova by F. G. Hourtoulle

BORODINO: THE MOSCOVA: The Battle for the Redoubts is a useful reference for painting figures for Napoleon's 1812 campaign in Russia, but the other information in it is less useful, and it spends very little time describing the battle of Borodino itself. It definitely would not be good as a general introduction to the battle or the uniforms of the participants.

The book includes many uniform plates which cover every division that took part in the Battle of Borodino from both sides. These are excellent and very detailed, though not exhaustive. I can't speak to the accuracy of them, since if I knew everything about the uniforms already I wouldn't need the book, would I? They would definitely be most useful to someone who already knew the basics about the uniforms involved, however. As I mentioned, the book wouldn't be a good introduction to the uniforms, as it doesn't really cover the basics. There are many examples of Russian infantry uniforms from various divisions, but they don't all have captions, and there isn't an explanation of why one might differ from another. Does the uniform differ because he is an NCO? Because he is in a different company or a different regiment? Most of the captions mention the rank of someone, and if they are a grenadier or a drummer or what have you, but without any explanation of how this is reflected in the uniform. So if you already know the basics like that, this is a great reference.

Speaking of which, I have found this website to be an incredible reference for everything about Napoleonic armies. You can easily find the general information about Russian uniforms on that site, and a lot of details as well.

Also included are pictures and explanations about the flags carried by Russian regiments. The number and types of flags carried is explained by the author, and there are pictures of his best guess of the flags carried by each regiment at the battle (as he admits he is not certain about many of them). This also adds to the value of the book as a reference when putting together miniature armies.

The book also contains a huge number of portraits of many of the main players and other high ranking officers. This may or may not be valuable when putting together an army, but it is interesting to put a face to the names. There are also various paintings of the battle reproduced in the book, so it contains plenty of things to look at in terms of reference information and just general inspiration.

The main drawback to the book is the text. As I said, the pictures are great, but the text leaves something to be desired. First of all, the translation from French was just terrible. Some parts are almost unreadable because they are confusing or contradictory, and much of it is just badly worded. But even if the text was well translated, there isn't much of interest in much of it aside from the lists of units.

The description of the Battle of Borodino takes up 15 pages, and is very mechanical. It's mostly just a chronological description of when various formations of men moved and to where, without much real context to it. It's not very evocative, and it doesn't provide much inspiration. The 15 pages does include 6 maps showing the position of forces, many nice paintings, plus a few drawings of how the redoubts were laid out. These are all nice, but four of the 15 pages are just paintings and have no text on them at all, and most of the pages have something besides text, so that probably gives you some idea how basic the description of the battle is.

In addition, the author seems to be very biased in his views and what information he presents. It seems to me like the only purpose of the text is to convince the reader that the French army was hugely outnumbered and at a great disadvantage, yet managed to win a great an unmitigated victory at Borodino, killing 5 times the number of enemy as they lost themselves. Napoleon only waited around in Moscow afterward because he had the decency to give Alexander the chance to capitulate, which of course any upstanding gentleman would have been obliged to do after such a devastating defeat.

At any rate, the bulk of the text of the book is just a listing of the forces involved, which is more useful from a gaming perspective. Here, too, there is a bit of bias as the French forces are described with much more detail, though this may have been due to availability of sources of information. Naturally the author takes every opportunity to conclude that Russian formations included more men than usually attributed, and the French of course had far fewer.

For the Russians, it does break the army down to list each corp, it's divisions, and the regiments in each division. The number of men is only listed at the corp level, which may or may not be enough for gaming purposes. For the French forces the number of men goes down to the divisional level at least, and most of them down to the number of men present in each regiment. On the French side, it also lists what seems like every officer in the entire French army, down to those on each general's staff and leading every division, in excruciating detail. If you've always wanted to know where, when, and how some random aide-de-camp of some random general met his end, or what decorations he received during his military career, now you'll know. Really, I'm not exaggerating. It really does list what must be hundreds of French officers along with about a sentence to summarize their career before and after the battle, and their fate.

If you click the link to the book on Amazon, you can view a sample of the first few pages of the book. This will give you an idea of how the Russian forces are described, (with portraits of many officers in the margins) in addition to a page explaining the Russian flags. Amazon doesn't show a sample page showing the uniform plates int he book, or the level of detail shown for the French forces, but they are quite good. Here are some sample pictures from the book.

In summary, the book is a great reference with plenty of uniform plates, portraits, and organizational details, especially for the French forces, though it does assume some knowledge of the basics of the uniforms. So as a uniform reference, it is quite good, though it doesn't clearly lay out everything you'd ever need to know. If you want an introduction to or narrative description of the Battle of Borodino, or the larger campaign in Russia, you aren't going to get it from the few pages of coverage in this book.

The book can be ordered at a significant discount from Amazon.

Painted InkBiz 1:200 scale Napoleonic French Infantry

I finished painting up my sample batch of the InkBiz 1:200 scale Napoleonic French infantry figures. You can read my previous review of the figures here. There isn't much to add to the review except that the details, like straps and turnbacks, stand out enough to be easy to paint.

Before I show the pictures, I should make it clear that I am by no means any sort of expert on Napoleonic French uniforms. In fact, I don't know much about them at all. So I'm not sure if I got these right. So if you do know something about Napoleonic French uniforms, please leave a comment and let me know what I got wrong on these. I did read somewhere that the color of the pom pom on the shako was different for each company, and I think the first company is supposed to be green. So I painted one base of the figures with green pom poms, and left the rest of the figures unbased with unpainted pom poms.

So here are the based figures. Twelve of them on a 3/4" square base, representing a single company. So a battalion would include six bases this size, each containing a single company of twelve figures in three ranks of four.

And here are a few more of the painted figures still on the painting stick. Since I haven't settled on basing, I have left most of the pom poms unpainted and haven't based most of them. I wanted to do at least one base, though, to show the great figure density that can be achieved.

And here is the base of Napoleonic French next to a base of GHQ American Civil War Confederate infantry figures. They aren't actually that different in size, but the InkBiz figures have a bit of a base built into them that makes them sit higher.

Comments on the painting style or accuracy are always welcome. I think they turned out pretty well, and painted up quickly since I was just going for a decent effect when viewing them on the gaming table. An entire army of them would certainly look great.

InkBiz 1:200 scale Napoleonic French

I was lucky enough to receive some sample models from a brand new range of miniatures. They are 1:200 scale French Napoleonic infantry. This range is being created by a man who on The Miniatures Page goes by the name InkBiz. The figures aren't for sale yet, but he was nice enough to send out some samples to some of the people on TMP who have shown interest in them, including myself.

His goal with this new range seems to be creating correctly proportioned and scaled figures, which I'm sure is very difficult as such a small size. Most 10mm figures I've seen, and all 6mm figures, are really chunky and thick. GHQ are the only 10mm figures I've seen that look to have roughly human proportions, until I got these samples from InkBiz. So I thought seeing the two ranges side-by-side might make for a good comparison.

Here are some pictures of the InkBiz 1:200 French Napoleonic infantryman next to one of my spare 10mm GHQ American Civil War infantry figures. They are actually not all that different in size, though the InkBiz figure is taller because it is on a thicker base. The GHQ figure does have slightly crisper detail, especially in the face. Being a different scale, the GHQ figure is slightly larger in general. I'm not sure the difference in size or detail would be very noticeable when seeing them at a distance on the gaming table.

The InkBiz figure has a little weirdness going on with the elbow of the left arm, which looks a little strange. This was probably necessary to make it go around the musket without making the arm way too long, and again probably not noticeable on the table. The musket on the InkBiz figure appears to be the only exception to proper proportions, but I think that was a good decision. The thin rifles on my GHQ Civil War figures get bent all the time. Whenever the rifle is touched at all, it bends. The thicker musket on the InkBiz figure is extremely sturdy and likely won't get bent through any normal handling of the figures. It also allows additional details on the InkBiz figure's musket. So a good compromise between realism and practicality.

InkBiz also sent along a few figures that he'd primed and started to paint. Here's a couple pictures of that GHQ Civil War infantry figure between two of the partially painted InkBiz figures. They are obviously not finished, but at least this gives some idea what the figures look like with some paint on them. I'll post pictures of some finished painted figures as soon as I can finish painting them.

I think these pictures show the real strength of these Inkbiz 1:200 figures, which is the mass effect of seeing them all together on a base. I've put 12 of the figures, in 3 ranks of 4 figures, onto a 3/4" square base. Once they're painted and there are several more such bases, that is going to be a splendid looking unit. The fact they they are reasonably proportioned and that you can fit them so close together is going to make the finished units look great.

Getting the figures ready for painting was really easy. Whether by brilliant design or happy accident, the mold lines on these ended up in places where they aren't very noticeable. Even if you are really obsessive about cleaning off mold lines, it won't take much effort. There were two pieces of "flash" on each figure, one on the end of the bayonet that could just be twisted off, and one on the top of the blanket roll that I preferred to trim off with the hobby knife. There are some mold lines along the insides of the legs, which you would hardly even see when looking at them from above (though I removed them anyway). There are mold lines on the outside of the legs that you'd want to remove. The rest of the lines are mostly in places where they don't look out of place, like along the barrel of the musket. It's hard to explain, and even harder to try to photograph, but I was pleased with how quickly and easily I cleaned the mold lines and had these ready to paint.

All in all, this is a pretty nice figure. InkBiz plans to expand on the french range. To quote a post of his on the TMP message boards: "The remainder of the French Line are coming out in a few weeks (volts and grens), followed by command, then French Lights, and mounted command. After that artillery and cavalry will follow." No specific date on this so far, or when the figures might be for sale anywhere. He's also working on another range of even smaller 1:500 Napoleonic figures, which equates to about 4mm. Quite ambitious, but hopefully he continues with it.

As for these 1:200 figures, if the range does expand I will be getting some. If GHQ made any Napoleonic figures that weren't in that "Advancing" pose that I don't really like, it might be a decision about which range to use. As it is, as soon as I can buy InkBiz 1:200 figures for an army I want to collect, I will be getting some. I'll be sure to post again once I have some painted figures to show, or if I have any more information about how to purchase the figures.

Gaming Inspiration - Richard Sharpe Books

I've read several books now in the Richard Sharpe Series by Bernard Cornwell. The series follows the heroic exploits of a man in the British army during the Napoleonic wars. Richard Sharpe starts out the series, in Sharpe's Tiger, as a lowly private in an infantry regiment under Sir Arthur Wellesley in India. He soon becomes a Sergeant, then is commissioned as an officer, and moves up the ranks due in no small part to his heroic deeds in the climax of each book.

Those I have read so far have all been quite entertaining. Formulaic, certainly, like James Bond stories or the like. There are usually jealous colleagues, incompetent officers, and nefarious villains do deal with, and naturally he bests them all, while getting the girl. Often while playing a pivitol role in some important historical event of the era. They are clearly action/adventure stories, not serious realistic dramas, so as expected they take some liberties. But they are fun to read and seem pretty well researched historically. For a wargamer interested in the period, the battle sequences are particularly noteworthy. They give a very good idea of the tactical considerations of Napoleonic battles, and are quite exciting to read. The books also are inspirational in that they give a good impression of the life of soldiers in an army of that period.

I have found that reading them has been a great way to inspire me in the historical gaming. Also, the entire Sharpe series appears to be out as Audio books. I like to listen to them on my drive to work, but listening while painting miniatures would also be a good way to set the mood, and do some serious multi-tasking. If you want to read them in the order in which the take place, there is a list of the books in chronological order near the bottom of the wikipedia page here.

Here is a link to the amazon.com list of Richard Sharpe books. The author, Bernard Cornwell, has also written many other historical fiction books, including a series taking place in the American Civil War. I haven't read any of these others, but I've heard good things about them. Here is a link to the amazon.com list of Bernard Cornwell books.

If you've read any fictional books that inspire or motivate you in your historical miniature gaming hobby, I'd love to hear about them.

Black Powder Command Rolls

I thought I should elaborate a bit on something I mentioned in my review of Black Powder. I wrote that when you roll to carry out your orders, you roll 2D6 and compare the result to your Command Value, which is normally 8, but which can be modified. If you score greater than the modified value, you normally do not carry out your orders. If you score equal or one less, you can move one move segment. If you score two less, you can move two move segments. If you score three or more less, you can move three move segments.

I brought it up because the expected results of this mechanic seem strange, in that you are often less likely to get two move segments than either getting one or three. It seems like the intention should be that when your command value is modified to be lower than normal, you should be more likely to get no moves than to get one, more likely to get one than two, and more likely to get two than three. By the same token, when you have positive modifiers so that your command value is high, you should be very likely to get three moves, less likely to get two, even less likely to get one, and unlikely to get zero.

Warlord Games's Black Powder Rules

The announcement by Warlord Games about a year ago, that they were going to release a set of rules called Black Powder written by Rick Priestley and Jervis Johnson, is what got me started in historical gaming. You can read about that in this post concerning My Introduction To Historical Wargaming. As you can imagine, I was pretty excited when I heard Black Powder was finally being released, so I made sure to pre-order myself a copy and it arrived about a week after the release date. I've since had a chance to read through the entire book and reflect on its contents, and will now write my review of Black Powder in order to help out others who are considering picking it up.

Wargames Foundry's Napoleon Rules

My main historical gaming interest is the American Civil War, but I have a friend who is much more into the Napoleonic wars. He doesn't have an army or set of rules for the period yet, and I've been considering learning more about the Napoleonic period and maybe starting to put together an army. So when I heard about the "Napoleon" book from Wargames Foundry, and how it was supposed to be a good introduction to the period with a historical summary and uniform guides, I figured it might be a good way to start. I ordered the book from The Book Depository through amazon.com. It arrived very quickly and in perfect condition, so I was very pleased with their service and would definitely recommend ordering from them.

Having had some time to read through the book and digest the information a little, I thought it would be useful for me to post some first impressions, for those who are considering whether or not to get the book. So, having not yet actually played a game with the rules, here is my initial review.

The Book
First of all, the book seems targeted at beginning miniature gamers, or at least those new to the Napoleonic period. In addition to the rules of the game, there is extensive hobby information on how to collect, paint, and base your army, make terrain, and set up a gaming table. There is also a summary of the historical period and the major armies and campaigns, along with information about the various uniforms. I'm not sure how likely the book is to entice people who have never done any miniature gaming to try it out. It doesn't seem like it would be nearly as effective as the boxed sets Games Workshop sells to get people started on their main games. For people who have done some miniature gaming, but are new to the Napoleonic period (like myself), it seems better suited, though it contains some unnecessary information, such as how to paint miniatures and lay out terrain on a gaming surface. Then again, the Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 rulebooks always contain this kind of general hobby information, and it doesn't hurt anything even though I have no interest in it.

The book itself is very nicely presented. Hard cover, 232 full color pages, sturdy binding. It has many drawings of uniforms and pictures of painted Foundry miniatures and games being played on tables packed with painted foundry miniatures. Quite inspiring to see, and helpful to get an idea of what the different uniforms looked like. Oddly enough, all of the pictures of battles look really boring. They always show a packed line of one army one one side, and a packed line of the other army on the other side, with no room to maneuver, and nothing but completely flat empty ground between them. You'd think they would try to set up more interesting looking battles to photograph. Aside from that, it is certainly well put together.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, the quality doesn't extend to the words contained in the book. Like a Hollywood summer blockbuster that spared no expense getting great actors and special effects but didn't bother making sure they had a good script, it seems like nobody bothered to proof-read the book. A single casual read through the book could probably have fixed at least a couple dozen errors, mostly typos or misplaced words. For example, there are quotes from Napoleon scattered throughout the pages to add flavor, but I started to notice that many of the quotations are repeated. How did nobody notice the same ones being used multiple times? I assume nobody actually read the book before it went off to the printers. And if it the had been proof-read by someone who actually played miniature games, they also could have spotted many places where the rules are confusing, poorly worded, or downright contradictory.

Luckily there are many diagrams showing examples of how the rules work. Unfortunately, there are one or two places where a rule is explained one way in the regular text, and then completely contradicted in an example of how the rule works. So how is one to know which is the correct way to do it? Is it how the rule is written, or how the example is done?

Before I veer off topic too much, I'll just say that the book, in terms of how easy it is to read, is somewhat poorly written. Of course, this is nothing new for miniature game rules, and historical gaming rules are particularly awful in this regard. So they are probably no worse than your average historical rules, but considering this game seems to be aimed at new historical gamers, if not new miniature gamers, this might turn many potential players off right away. No matter how hard the cover is or how glossy the pages or how great the graphic design, a rule set is still going seem amateurish and unpolished if it isn't written clearly and it's full of errors. And it's going to be hard to get new people to learn to play if the rules are written in a confusing manner.

It certainly isn't unreadable or anything, so don't let that put you off too much. I just think a little more effort put into the actual text of the book would have really paid off in making it rise above games with clearly lower production values.

The Rules
Here's a quick summary of how the game flows. Most units are suggested to be 6 bases, except artillery (usually 4 bases), and some heavy cavalry units having 8 bases. Units seem to represent a regiment. The Penninsular War army list says that those units represent battalions instead, but the rules are no different. Units are organized into divisions (which I suppose for Penninsular represents brigades), each with an officer who gets a command rating.

Armies are deployed alternating between players a division at a time, with some deployment advantages given to the player that scouts better, determined by a roll off with some modifiers. Each turn there is a roll off for initiative, and the winner can choose to go first or second when revealing orders or moving.

Players then place orders on any units within engagement range of the enemy. The orders are things like retreat, stand and fire, advance and fire, and charge. Once orders are placed, artillery fire is resolved. Basically each unit rolls a number of dice, and each one that beats a target number (based on target and formation) causes a casualty. Resolving howitzer fire is more involved.

The players alternate revealing orders. When each order is revealed, the player must roll based on the division officer's leadership to see if the unit sucessfully carries out the order. If the roll is failed, they stand still. (I think it would be more interesting if they had the chance of doing something completely different than ordered, but they don't). There are then some specifics about targets of a charge being able to react by immediately revealing their own order card and taking the leadership roll, and other things like that.

After the units in engagement range finish carrying out their orders, then other untis move, again alternating between players. All unit types have a standard move rate, and they can also march if in column, or in some circumstances peform a forced march. These obviously result in moving father, but with some downsides. If forced marching or going through difficult terrain, it is possible to suffer casualties from fatigue, which I like.

Then units which have not moved more than their standard move rate (by marching, charging, etc.) may volley fire. This includes, presumably, those that failed their command roll. Volley fire is pretty simple. Units roll a number of D6 based mostly on their formation, and have a target number mostly based on the target's range. Each success causes a casualty on the target unit. Then close combat is resolved, which involves each side rolling a number of D6 based on formation, with a target number based on the two unit types or formations (cavalry need 6s to hit infantry in square, for example). Sucesses cause casualties, and whichever unit causes more drives the enemy back, or wipes them out if the winner is cavalry.

At the end of the turn, any unit suffering casualties takes a morale test. This is done by rolling a number of D6 based on type of unit (militia roll less, guard roll more). If you roll over the number of total casualties the unit has taken, they pass. If they fail, they go on "Lost Command Orders", and must roll on a chart immediately to determine how they react. I'm not sure how this works out in a game, because some of the reactions allow the unit to charge or fire, which could seemingly allow them to fire twice in a turn, or move really far. It seems strange that failing the test could actually be a big advantage. Failing a second test when on Lost Command Orders means the unit routs.

That's the turn. There is a way to determine when the game ends and who wins based on percent of units that are routed or destroyed on each side. There is also a section on advanced rules, including things such as effects of weather and different kinds of terrain, deploying skirmishers, officer casualties, etc.

My impression of the rules went back and forth a bit as I read them. There are some really interesting ideas that I really like. One is the engagement zone concept. If your unit is within charge range of an enemy unit or able to charge an enemy unit, it is engaged and has to be given a command. This means that units far from the enemy can operate much more freely, and those close to the enemy will start to slow down and be less reliable. It also means that fast cavalry, with long movement and charge ranges, can be used to slow down and harass an enemy by getting close enough to require the enemy to issue orders and take the chance they will fail the command test.

On peculiar issue with this is that if you are engaging an enemy, then you are also treated as being engaged, even if they can't reach you. So a fast cavalry unit that is far enough away that they can't be charged by an enemy infantry unit, but close enough that they could charge the infantry unit, must also be issued a command. I suppose you could justify this by saying the cavalry unit is less free to move because they have to make sure they are deployed properly for a charge, if that is their intention, or whatever. Or it could be just a game balance thing, to keep fast cavalry from being invincible and really annoying. It's hard to say without actually playing the game how some of these mechanics would work out in a real situation.

In fact, there were quite a few rules that seemed strange to me when I read them. Many of them later made sense after reading the rest of the rules, or just realizing a situation that the rule is addressing. Others I never did understand the point of. I'm sure there are many things that you'd have to actually play some games and see how they work out in a real situation to understand the purpose behind them. However, I think it would have been extremely helpful if the author had just explained the purpose behind some of the rules. Especially since the game seems targeted at new players. Like I said, many of the rules I could deduce what they were getting at or what they represented from experience with other game mechanics. I think a player new to miniatures gaming, or even just new to horse and musket era wargaming, would find them much more difficult to understand, and might see some of them as arbitrary or pointless.

Some things are explained, like the differences between round shot, canister, and shell, why rifles have a longer range than muskets, etc. But other things aren't, such as what the roles of different kinds of cavalry were, what the actual ranges of the weapons were, how many men were actually in a regiment, what a "casualty" in the game represents, and other things. And some things are explained, but don't seem represented in the rules. For example, they say the attack column formation was good for less disciplined men because it made it harder for them to waver, but as far as I can tell, being in attack column formation doesn't seem to give you any bonus to morale tests. It's possible I missed it, though, as some of the rules (like with every set of rules I've ever read) are in a place you might not expect them to be, which might make them easy to miss when you are looking something up.

To me, the worst thing about the rules is the vague treatment of distances and scale. Unlike most rules, they never really say anywhere that one inch equal so many yards of actual distance, or that a unit represents a certain number of men. So a lot of the ranges and distances seem arbitrary and abstracted for the purposes of the game. For example, an infantry unit in the game normally represents a regiment. With their suggested basing of 6 40mm wide bases, that results in a regiment in line being about 9.5 inches wide. At extreme range, muskets can fire up to 15 inches. I'd think a regiment (of two battalions) in line is going to take up at least 200 yards, so there's no way muskets should be able to fire so much farther than the width of a regiment in line as they can in the game. In general, they just seem to gloss over the distance scale of the game, and presumably just set all the ranges based on what makes the game playable, rather than what is to scale with the size of the units. To me this is kind of annoying, because the limited range of a musket and the long lines of infantry are pretty defining characteristics of that age of warfare.

Hobby Information
The book covers what miniatures you'll need, how to paint and base miniatures and assemble units of them, a bit about terrain and setting up a gaming table, and other general information about the miniature wargaming hobby. They, of course, recommend using Foundry miniatures and paints.

It is difficult for me to judge this aspect of the book, as it didn't really interest me. I've been gaming with miniatures for a long time, so I don't need basic information on how to paint them or make terrain for them. And it is hard for me to judge how good the hobby information in the book would be for a beginner. It seems like it has what a beginner would need to know to get started, so I suppose it serves the purpose of making the rules friendly for beginners. There's definitely nothing really advanced.

Historical Information
This is probably the part I was more interested in than anything else. The way this is presented is sort of a chronological summary of events separated by theater or campaign, interspersed with details about the armies involved, and the relevant army lists for that campaign. The information about the armies includes a lot of details about their uniforms. The summary of events isn't exhaustive, obviously, or even very extensive, but it seems to cover the major campaigns, events, and armies in a succinct manner. It seems like a good summary to help beginners get into the period and decide on an army they like. There is also an appendix with a brief description and army lists for many smaller or less central forces.

The army lists I see as guidelines to help new players have roughly even forces and choose armies that make sense. Every unit has a points value, and the points seem to be in 5 point increments. It doubt it is very scientific and I'm sure they didn't put much effort into making sure everything was perfectly balanced. So I doubt these rules would be useful for playing competetively, if you're interested in that sort of thing. I'm sure once people know more about the period and are capable of making reasonable armies on their own, they won't really need the point values. The army lists also contain special rules for the army, which in some cases can vary for an army in different campaigns. These seem like they would be effective in giving each army a different feel, so combined with the look of the uniforms and the historical information, it is another way to help a player decide on an army.

To someone who already know a lot about the Napoleonic period, or has been gaming in that period for a long time, this section probably won't be very useful, aside from the army special rules. For someone new to the period, I definitely think it serve the purpose of introducing the armies and their unique characteristics, and the major campaigns and battles of the period. And for those new to the period or gaming in general, the point values and army lists will be helpful. The only issue with this section is that some of the text seems to assume the reader knows some basic information that he may not, especially considering that the book caters to those new to the period.

The Verdict
Overall, it's a nice book that could have benefitted greatly from more proof-reading and more clearly explained rules. The rules themselves seem pretty good, and probably make for a fun game. As I have not played the game yet, it's hard to know for sure. I would certainly be willing to play a game. However, since I already have been playing American Civil War games with Piquet's Field of Battle (which also works for Napoleonics), I think I'll probably end up sticking with those.

For someone who is completely new to miniature gaming, I'm not sure this would be the best place to start due to some of the rules possibly being difficult to understand. Then again, compared to any other historical rules I've seen, it is probably more beginner-friendly than any. For those who are already gaming in the Napoleonic period, much of the book will not interest you, and the rules are unlikely to lure you away from the rules you are already using. For those who have done some miniature wargaming, and are interested in getting into the Napoleonic period, the book is definitely a good introduction with plenty of inspiration to motivate you, and some decent rules to start out with.