Let me preface this by stating that Napoleonics are my main period of interest - it was a fascination with this period that introduced me to miniature wargaming, and I continue to believe that it has the potential to be one of the most colorful and diverse periods available for gaming. My convention games, for instance, are usually aimed at drawing people into the period with big battles on beautiful terrain. Also, like almost everyone, I am of course working on my own home rules!

That being said... should we be thinking about why such a large segment of the hobby views the period with an aversion akin to abject horror? It was the results of the most recent The Miniatures Page "Least Favorite Period" Poll that prompted this message, but I've thought for years now that Napoleonics has somehow cast itself as the paradoxical problem-child of wargaming: a period just too bothersome to deal with, no matter how attractive it may appear at first glance.

Now, I know every period has its detractors; ancients have the WRG/DBA debate, WWII has the tech-head issue, and so on, but I have never seen so many people "just say no" to a period as to Napoleonics. The most common complaints seem to be ones that are common to *all* periods: the rules are too complicated, the gamers focused on the period are too close-minded and pedantic. True enough, but as we know true of other periods as well.

Is the real problem that the period simply has not inspired a "way of gaming" that is popular and enjoyable? It is true that there is an aversion to "popular" rules amongst the core of the period gamers that seems oddly similar to an academic disdain of populist historical analysis. What is your view of this? Have you stayed away from the period because of the impression the typical rules sets have made on you, or have you stayed away because there seems to be such a bewildering array of detail to the period? The bottom line is - why don't you think gaming in this period is any fun?

For instance, I have long thought that the most popular scale for Napoleonic gaming, a "corps" sized game at 1:60 scale, is actually an eminently ill-suited compromise for the period. It has just enough abstraction to encourage endless debates over what representative formations and maneuvers should be, and yet just enough detail to inspire an often dismaying amount of lists and charts and trivia in many rules. To top it off, most of the "big name" battles simply can't be handled by such systems, so players are faced with compromise right from the start, regardless of the fact that an enormous investment in figures is required to game even at this level. Perhaps rules should be aimed either at a lower level - say at the division or brigade level - for those who want to delve into detailed maneuvers and technical specifics, or at a higher "army" level, so that the player is freed from most maneuver details and concentrates on command and battle-fighting. These are just suggestions to hopefully start the ball rolling on a civilized debate, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't have an answer!

Christopher adds:

"I'm in the midst of playtesting my grand tac Napoleonic set of rules ("Covered with Glory" - has anyone used that title yet?), aimed at solving many of the problems with the period as we saw posted, and the Courier has asked me to write an article or two on the same subject, etc. I wasn't trying to be self-serving with the posting - it just happened that I'm writing the rules specifically to address a wider range of play for Napoleonics, and the "least favorite" poll really hit home with the experiences I have had which prompted me down the rules design road. The results were more than I had anticipated!"

More on Napoleonics

Personally I am a committed Napoleonics gamer, however I gave up on the likes of WRG 1645-1850 (or whatever it was called) many years ago. My interests run to the megalomaniac, so if I can't do an entire battle in an evening I'm not interested. 'Battle' being a proper battle like Salamanca or ideally Leipzig, rather than some corps sized skirmish.

There are a few sets of rules which cater to the megalomaniac gamer but they frequently require far too much space and far too many figures to make them playable in a couple of hours. The only sets I'm really happy with these days are Phil Barkers Horse, Foot & Guns', but if you hate DBA you'll hate HF&G & Tim Gows 'A Wee Dram of Napoleon' which is essentially Megalitz played with Napoleonics on division sized bases. Shako is OK but too detailed for proper sized battles in a short period of time.

At these sorts of scales you are essentially playing a boardgame with toys & you might as well just blag your favourite boardgame mechanisms to use instead (e.g. from one of the SPI Napoleonic quads, Dresden, or possibly the expansion to AHGCs Waterloo or whatever) and it really doesn't matter how figures you've got if what you are maneuvering are division/corps sized bases - it could be a few 25mm figs or a great mass of 6mm or 2mm figs (the latter can look outstanding). 10-20 bases a side, a few grandiose gestures 'attack there',' defend there' whilst slurping a brandy/pint & that is Napoleonic heaven. Not everyone's cup of tea of course especially as it means not worrying about all that boring detail about different tactical formations etc - just factor it into the unit ratings, but it could be argued that simply pushing great blocks of troops about without worrying too much about tactics is exactly what Napoleonic gaming should be. Napoleon never worried about tactics too much after all!

In response to Christopher TenWolde's questions:
by Martin Rapier

A quick look at WW2 rules shows a huge range of systems available covering the smallest skirmish up to gigantic battles, but the problem with many Napoleonic rules is that they can't make their mind up what it is they are trying to represent. In fairness this applies to lots of other rules e.g. a grand tactical set like Spearhead, designed to fight divisional sized battles but worrying about minute differences in armour/gun ratings etc.

This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com