I re-installed L'Empereur recently and am in the mood to give role-playing in the time of Napoleonic warfare a chance, maybe at the next convention. Wild Blue with it's Honor/Practicality and Notice sub-systems seemed well enough for me for play of gentlemanly officers, so another Flying Mice game might be a good choice.
However, what bothers me is the apparent focus on naval warfare. I couldn't tell many admirals of this time with the apparent exception of Nelson - but names of great land-locked officers such as Kutusov, Blücher, Murat, Wellington or Wurmser on the other hand ring some bells and entice me, and I guess most players (at least here in Germany, where never much sea battle went on during the Napoleonic era) would rather want to find out if they could fare better than Sebottendorf and actually hold the ground at the bridge of Lodi, or if they could be noticed and promoted under the command of Joachim Murat.

So, does it give support for land battles apart from the basic rules, or should I in this case better fall back on another system with more support for this kind of stuff and stitch Notice and maybe Honor/Practicality to it?
Apart from the three mentioned nationalities (France, England, America), are there background skills, avocations and other necessary support for other nationalities such as Prussia, Russia, Naples, the Ottoman empire, k.u.k. Austria or la Confédération du Rhin? (It doesn't matter if they were originally thought for NPCs, as long as they could be used for PCs.)
How much historical information does it provide? I'm less talking about stuff that can be easily found in encyclopedias and on Wikisource such as general maps of frontlines or Napoleon speeches, I'm more talking about tough to find information like the exact array of generals and troops in this or that battle and similar stuff.

It does not support land battles but if I'm not mistaken clash is working on something which uses the IHW system based on Napaleonic era land battles.

Regards,
David R

Kyle and I are working on In Harm's Way:Scum of the  Earth, which covers Napoleonic land warfare. Actually, it covers a lot wider swath than that, according to Kyle. Ummm - and so far Kyle's been the only one working on it before handing it over to me so I can do my thing with it. I've just put In Harm's Way: Dragons! into playtest, which is Napoleonic war with dragons, a la the Temeraire series. It can be combined with iHW or Scum of the Earth, of course...

-clash

I wasn't aware that Kyle was working with you on Scum of the Earth....and Dragons you say. Sounds interesting.....knowing my players they would probably want to use Ride of the Valkyries as background music for the dragon game.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;229718I wasn't aware that Kyle was working with you on Scum of the Earth....and Dragons you say. Sounds interesting.....knowing my players they would probably want to use Ride of the Valkyries as background music for the dragon game.

Regards,
David R

Hehe! Very apropos! I like it!

-clash

Quote from: Skyrock;229685I re-installed L'Empereur recently and am in the mood to give role-playing in the time of Napoleonic warfare a chance, maybe at the next convention. Wild Blue with it's Honor/Practicality and Notice sub-systems seemed well enough for me for play of gentlemanly officers, so another Flying Mice game might be a good choice.
However, what bothers me is the apparent focus on naval warfare. I couldn't tell many admirals of this time with the apparent exception of Nelson - but names of great land-locked officers such as Kutusov, Blücher, Murat, Wellington or Wurmser on the other hand ring some bells and entice me, and I guess most players (at least here in Germany, where never much sea battle went on during the Napoleonic era) would rather want to find out if they could fare better than Sebottendorf and actually hold the ground at the bridge of Lodi, or if they could be noticed and promoted under the command of Joachim Murat.

So, does it give support for land battles apart from the basic rules, or should I in this case better fall back on another system with more support for this kind of stuff and stitch Notice and maybe Honor/Practicality to it?
Apart from the three mentioned nationalities (France, England, America), are there background skills, avocations and other necessary support for other nationalities such as Prussia, Russia, Naples, the Ottoman empire, k.u.k. Austria or la Confédération du Rhin? (It doesn't matter if they were originally thought for NPCs, as long as they could be used for PCs.)
How much historical information does it provide? I'm less talking about stuff that can be easily found in encyclopedias and on Wikisource such as general maps of frontlines or Napoleon speeches, I'm more talking about tough to find information like the exact array of generals and troops in this or that battle and similar stuff.

Hi Skyrock!

IHW does support the type of small skirmish actions that a ship's crew and marines would be involved with - landings, boardings, cutting out expeditions, taking fortifications or batteries, and the like. The game doesn't address siege tactics, infantry squares, cavalry, and other important facets of Napoleonic land combat. IHW:Scum of the Earth will certainly address these points. The basic game is certainly flexible enough, and if you knew your Napoleonic tactics, you could probably extend the engagement rules given to support land battles, which is what we will be doing with SotE, but the sea is very definitely the focus of the original IHW game.

-clash

Yes, yes, I just want to playtest it so that I can see it played in its pure and noble form before Clash hacks through it making it conform to the Flyingmice ISO6000 standard. Or fixes the spelling, or something.

I am working on the mass combat system. The aim is to have it depend mostly on the gallant actions of young officers, that is to say the PCs This is the reality of the stories on which the In Harm's Way series of games are based.

It covers from Blenheim (1704) to the Crimea (1853), but with passing reference from the New Model Army (1643->) up to Rorke's Drift (1879) and Ginnis (1885) - the last time the British soldier wore a redcoat into battle, not counting the Connaught Rangers with their Maxims at Ferka (1896). Redcoats went all over the place; the Australian detachments to the Sudan arrived in red coats (but were issued khaki on their first day!) and a young man, one of the first Europeans born in Australia, fought (on the King's side, naturally) at New Orleans (1815). Anyway, it's centered around Napoleon's time.

The land forces had one significant advantage over the seaborne forces: officers got to take their wives along if they wanted to, and soldiers - though most were never married - had some come along, a minority drawn by lot. They were added to the rolls of the regiment and given a small pay, acting as cooks, nurses, and... if a soldier died, the woman was quickly remarried.

Quote from: flyingmice;229707Kyle and I are working on In Harm's Way:Scum of the  Earth, which covers Napoleonic land warfare. Actually, it covers a lot wider swath than that, according to Kyle. Ummm - and so far Kyle's been the only one working on it before handing it over to me so I can do my thing with it.

Show me the money! ;P

Quote from: JohnnyWannabe;229849Show me the money! ;P

(Holds up fistfulls of monopoly dough)

See Mr. Smarty-pants?

-clash

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;229764Yes, yes, I just want to playtest it so that I can see it played in its pure and noble form before Clash hacks through it making it conform to the Flyingmice ISO6000 standard. Or fixes the spelling, or something.

Got to strip out all them extra "u"s in armo(u)r, hono(u)r, labo(u)r and the like! I consider it my most important job!

QuoteI am working on the mass combat system. The aim is to have it depend mostly on the gallant actions of young officers, that is to say the PCs This is the reality of the stories on which the In Harm's Way series of games are based.

Exactly! In the original IHW, mass combat is all about maintaining control of your men and keeping momentum. He who breaks first loses, and loses big time! Killing people is a side effect of that goal, and playing those minor combats out is an entirely optional bit of colo(u)r.

QuoteIt covers from Blenheim (1704) to the Crimea (1853), but with passing reference from the New Model Army (1643->) up to Rorke's Drift (1879) and Ginnis (1885) - the last time the British soldier wore a redcoat into battle, not counting the Connaught Rangers with their Maxims at Ferka (1896). Redcoats went all over the place; the Australian detachments to the Sudan arrived in red coats (but were issued khaki on their first day!) and a young man, one of the first Europeans born in Australia, fought (on the King's side, naturally) at New Orleans (1815). Anyway, it's centered around Napoleon's time.

Which is utterly awesome!

-clash

There was a soldier once who was promoted because the regimental Colonel-in-chief's wife noticed the soldier's magnificent moustaches and was impressed, and commented on it to the Colonel.

I have to remember to put in optional rules for gaining Notice from haircuts. "Damnit... I need 1 more Notice! How can I...?"
"Well..."

Thanks to you all three for your quick answers.
In that case I'll just wait impatiently for IHW:Scum of the Earth and maybe hack meanwhile hastily another system if I absolutely can't keep the urge under control until next con.

Quote from: flyingmice;229908Exactly! In the original IHW, mass combat is all about maintaining control of your men and keeping momentum. He who breaks first loses, and loses big time!

That sounds awesome, und completely fitting to the way I would imagine enjoyable Napoleonic warfare - as a matter of brilliant and charismatic officers as Wellington or Naüpoleon himself who can incite even the most ill-trained peasants to victory against all odds:

Soldiers, you are naked and ill fed! The Government owes you much; it can give you nothing. Your patience, the courage you display in the midst of these rocks, are admirable; but they procure you no glory, no fame is reflected upon you. I seek to lead you into the most fertile plains in the world. Rich provinces, great cities will be in your power. There you will find honor, glory, and riches.
Soldiers of Italy, would you be lacking in courage or constancy?

On the other hand, I probably wouldn't touch "realistic" Napoleonic warfare which comes down to perform the reload-position-fire routine over and over again, to be cold in Russian mud and to pray that the imprecise bullet storm from the muskets and cannons misses you, without much chance to do anything about it individually.

Quote from: Skyrock;229933Thanks to you all three for your quick answers.
In that case I'll just wait impatiently for IHW:Scum of the Earth and maybe hack meanwhile hastily another system if I absolutely can't keep the urge under control until next con.

You hear that, Kyle? You and your fussy testing nonsense! THE PUBLIC DEMANDS PRODUCT!!!

QuoteThat sounds awesome, und completely fitting to the way I would imagine enjoyable Napoleonic warfare - as a matter of brilliant and charismatic officers as Wellington or Naüpoleon himself who can incite even the most ill-trained peasants to victory against all odds:

Exactly! My inspiration was a quote from family history - both of the principals involved were family:

When Colonel William Prescott led the American retreat from Bunker Hill to Cambridge, he was furious with HQ, who had told him they were sending reinforcements and gunpowder, but the former never showed and the latter ran out - and the British had bayonets while the Americans had nothing. He got to HQ in Cambridge, went in to see General Putnam and asked "Where were you?"

General Putnam replied: "I tried to drive the dogs, but they wouldn't go!"

To which Prescott replied "If you had led them, they'd have followed!"

And that, in a nutshell, was where I came up with Honor/Practicality and Leadership/Discipline. You either inspire your men to go above and beyond, or you make them fear you more than they fear the enemy. Prescott made his Leadership check, and brought them men back intact after the more senior officers fell, but Putnam failed his Discipline check, and the dogs didn't go.

QuoteOn the other hand, I probably wouldn't touch "realistic" Napoleonic warfare which comes down to perform the reload-position-fire routine over and over again, to be cold in Russian mud and to pray that the imprecise bullet storm from the muskets and cannons misses you, without much chance to do anything about it individually.

My feelings exactly!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;229958You hear that, Kyle? You and your fussy testing nonsense! THE PUBLIC DEMANDS PRODUCT!!!

Not so fast, Fuzzy Lumpkins - remember that I'm among the reviewers what Nightmare!-difficulty is among the difficulties in Doom, so you rather want to be late than to disappoint me


Consider the anecdote of Prescott and Putnam as added to my list of historical anecdotes.

This would also fit nicely with the source material... Napoleon as honorable leader who leads his troops as inspiring spearhead to the "most fertile plains plains in the world", bans loot&pillage in Italy with death penalty and even promises to join the frontlines of Austerlitz if things should turn ugly.

And there we would also have Napoleons final fall in Russia, when he can't get his guys motivated to fight on through the deadly winter and the burnt earth... And then he has to resort to cruel measures to counter the desertation on the march towards east, lowering his ability to be loved rather than feared and so gradually losing more and more ground until final defeat.
(At the same time, Kutusov did fine by just being the pragmatic that he was - after all, he warped the Austrian orders at Austerlitz to get things done, he warped the orders of the Czar to protect Moscow at all costs to get things done, and he wasn't below dirty tricks to weaken and ambush La Grande Armée. That would count rather as Pragmatic than Honorable, as I understood the way that this system works.
I unfortunately don't have much account of Kutusovs style of leadership, but as I know the generally authorian order of Russia, I wouldn't be surprised if it actually relied on fear and draconic penalties for even petty lack of discipline.)