A recent post on TMP suggesting that it would be good idea
to write a set of Napoleonic wargame rules by allowing everyone to suggest a
rule, then vote on whether it be accepted or not. It seemed to me a most unusual approach to
rule writing, and one almost certain to fail.
However it made me consider my own experience of wargame
rules over a period of almost 50 years, and how I eventually solved the problem
When I read the posts on TMP about the latest commercial
wargame rules I am reminded of teenagers and sex. It’s as if they have discovered something
new which no one else had experienced before.
But of course sex, like Napoleonic wargame rules, has been around for a
long time.
I can well understand this view, because I can well remember
my own first experience of wargame rules.
My first experience was “Charge or how to play wargames”. Then WRG horse and musket (I forget the full
title). This was followed by In “The
Grand Manner” and finally “LFS”. All
excellent rules. All very different in
design. All eventually discarded.
My own experience, though I am sure I am not alone, is that
the more I play a commercial set of rules the more I become disillusioned with
them. This is not the fault of the rule
writer, it is that I want something different from the rules than they are
designed to provide. I believe that
this is the reason there has never been a “universal” set of Napoleonic wargame
rules, accepted across the hobby.
Over the years I tried to adapt each of my current favourite
commercial rules. It never worked for
long. When I changed a rule because I
disliked the outcome it often led to further unexpected problems.
My solution was to go back to basics and write my own rules
to provide the sort of game I like to play.
The result has stood the test of time, and been used in countless
wargames, for the past six years. It
will not suit everyone; indeed it may not suit anyone else. The more personalised the rules are the less
then are likely to be appeal to anyone else.
I am fortunate to have a permanent wargames table, and a
wife who also likes to wargame. We are
both retired and wargaming is an important part of our life. We game most days, at least five days a
week. We prefer to game for an hour or
two, rather than game a whole battle in one go. All of my wargames are driven by a PBEM
campaign, and last for 12 moves (each move being one hour in the campaign”.
As part of an overall reorganisation of my wargaming prior
to retirement I sat down with a blank sheet of paper and listed what I wanted
to achieve. Obviously anyone else
attempting this exercise will have a different list. So there is not much point in my telling you
my particular list.
The important aspects to me were they must reflect
Napoleonic warfare as I understand it.
They must be short and simple to remember. They must have an element of chance. They must be fun to play.
This has worked for me.
We have played hundreds of wargames since I wrote the rules. We still enjoy the games. We still feel that the rules work well. We have tried countless, complicated battles
provided by the campaign and all of them have worked.
We do make minor adjustments to the rules from time to time. We will often simply roll the dice again
rather than change the rules. But I now fully understand the consequences
of making a change, and what the knock on effect is likely to be.
This is not an advert for my rules, but if you would like to
read them you will find them here
To write your own rules you need to have a good
understanding of the period, and what you want to get out of the wargame
experience. So it is not likely to be
attractive to new players. But it does
not take long to discover what you want from a wargame. Once you have done so I strongly recommend
you to write your own.
It would be interesting to hear from other wargamers who
have tried, and perhaps failed.
