It is a wonderful operational system with a clear precise rules book. The maps are beautifully designed. The only issue I have is the flawed night movement that doesn’t allow historical night marches.
I like the game system, I like that there are several sets of rules that one can try in order to find one that fits better with your gaming preference, I also like the flexibility to play with or not play with cards. I do not like the cards but some gamers like them. The maps are expansive, and rules are the right level of detail. I am still learning to play and running dual games with the Stumptner and Zucker rules. I agree to start with the Zucker rules and then try Stumptner. The significant difference for me wasn't the CRT, it was the orders process in the Stumptner rules, they are more in depth. Think an easy TCS order system if you are familiar with that gaming system. Over all, if you are researching this system to determine if it is worthy of shelf space in the man cave, the answer is yes.
Before getting into the system about a year ago I had similar concerns as you, thinking, "wow, the system must be so bad or complex various people have had to rewrite the rules" which kept me away. Eventually though I bought one and am hooked. They're beautiful and the rules are not complex or confusing and I think they are bloody enough for the scale they represent. They are in fact short for a wargame but, as you have said, they can be succinct. That is--they mean what they say. So you do need to read and re-read them to make sure you grasp their meaning because they probably will not be repeated in other areas of the rulebook. Zucker has updated the rules several times mostly to refine their clarity and he makes the info available to everyone via his company's website allowing you to always have access. I really like the order/command system. I love the history you learn by playing them. I appreciate that the games come with small scenarios on 11x17 maps, medium sized ones, and small monsters. So, you don't have to be scared of never being able to get them to the table because of their size.
@@jimastro67 yes, I almost sold these off, and stopped myself. It’s the one system that may have forever now-the maps are incredible and the historical situations are varied and there’s a lot of “hmm, I didn’t know much about this battle/campaign” and then reaching for some books for background. They’re fun to play, no matter what iteration of the rules you use. And they look great on the shelf!
I like the counters and maps. It also seems like a relatively easier game to learn compared to many. I also like the level of detail for this non-Napoleonic focused gamer.
Yes, much easier--and many scenarios do not have a ton of counters--not very dense. Once you start playing, a twenty-turn scenario can go rather quickly. I like that it's more maneuver based.
I love the maps and counters as well Todd. I played Napoleon's Last Gamble for over a month in the summer and just fell in love with the system as is. I will go so far as to say playing OSG has gotten me to dive fully into the Napoleonic era after years of being on the fence.
Well if you're talking about the Stumptner rules I mentioned, yes. Although Kevin Zucker would take issue with them. It's another layer of complexity for command and then the combat tables (fire based factors rather than odds based).
Well done, and thanks for sharing. Have you looked at New England Simulations two Napoleon older games, Dresden, and Napoleon on the Danube? The games are similar to NLB series, but a different combat system. I play solo all the time, and have all in the series, the only thin I don't like is setup, thank go someone has printed setup sheets, to make it easy. The one I really was is the nest one, Dresden is one of my favorite battles. One question, where do you get the Stumptner rules?
i have looked at those two but haven't pulled the trigger on purchasing. here is the best site to look at and downoad rules sets. Basic or full rules. www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/user/mst/games/lbn/lbn.html Scroll down to see "Refits For Existing Games"
Only problem I"ve had with soloing is you can't really use vedettes. Of course, I'm still trying to figure how to best use them in an opposed game. :) The rules as written can be plenty bloody if you let your opponent get on your flanks. I experienced that in my last play. I'm excited to get to the point where my opponent and I use the cards. I think they kind of need you to interpret some situations yourself as they come up though.
Yes, the comment about the cards is absolutely correct--it leaves room for some interpretation in how they're used. I tend to disregard events that are obviously not appropriate and use them fro the movement values only, and then it doesn't affect VP. if you read some of Zucker's philosophy of gaming and this system in particular, it seems to be in keeping with this.
@@UncleFloydWing Well, I think there's some leeway, I would tend to house-rule that depending on situation. Sometimes it's obvious that an event is irrelevant or unable to be implemented--then you just use the movement rates from the card for your turn and disregard the VP effect. For instance, one card is "Sound of the Guns" where you are able to move (without initiative check) a unit or stack toward another unit that was bombarded the previous phase. If there was none, i just use it for movement rate. Sometimes you hold onto cards so you don't have to get hit with VP losses.
I really thought the same about the use of vedettes in solo games until I heard someone mention something that struck me. Although you can now build roadblocks to stop opposing troops you need infantry to create them. Vedettes can act as a slowing force sort of like a malleable road block that slows down opposing forces on the march that may allow you time to get your own troops in place.
@@jimastro67 I can see that but then you'd have to decide if the opposing force would attempt a repulse on the march (I may be mis-remembering the name). If I remember correctly that would destroy the vedette? Opposed you couldn't be sure if that was a vedette or not. Tough choice since if it's not, you get a penalty on the attack. I really need to get one of these back to the table.
I know how...winters victory kinda turned on you. Same thing that happened to me. Its just a good series that is easier to grok for me at least. Now my problem is Squad Leader modules....
Thanks for the video In my case in the end I have made a mix of rules. I like and have much more fun with Stumptner's combat system, the issue of force points, ZOCs, bombings... but I don't like his order system and it is too complicated to use while playing alone. I have tried some other set of rules because it is worth developing for a system with so many modules (I have 8-9). I don't like its small scenarios and I have played them very little or not at all, it tries to give a tactical aspect to the game that it does not have due to the scale of the units, although it does have the scale of the map, very nice, really.
I agree, the order system in Stumptner is a pretty big layer to add. I did like the chit pull idea with a chance to have two combined corps get a chance to go together, but there are only a couple of games where you can get the chits for--otherwise you have to make your own. (Or possibly use the casualty force markers) I'm actually having fun with the small 1st battle of Montenotte in the Piedmont volume. Lots of back and forth and maneuvering.
@@thegeneralsretreat1645 Yes, I also used the OSG morale markers (more than duplicated with both games) as game sequence chits. But it doesn't convince me much. There are very small units, especially British-Dutch, Spanish... which are basically divisions. There is very little capacity if you want to do something together with several divisions and in the end there are more activations but less powerful. I no longer used chit activation. I started to think about mixed activations, units at a certain distance from an active formation can activate and act together with the formation that has been activated... but it is complicated to then put markers of activated units when their own formation activation chit comes out . In the end, I use OSG activations. In general I don't like the issue of orders in these Napoleonic games. In the "Wise Bayonets" and "Moravian Sun" series (I don't have the third one (by Acies Edizioni)) they also have an elegant system of orders and markers, less restrictive. But they seem unplayable to me in solo and a little unrealistic too. By the way. I made my own strength markers for the Stumptner system... but the BCS (MMP) ones work very well :)
It is a wonderful operational system with a clear precise rules book. The maps are beautifully designed. The only issue I have is the flawed night movement that doesn’t allow historical night marches.
I like the game system, I like that there are several sets of rules that one can try in order to find one that fits better with your gaming preference, I also like the flexibility to play with or not play with cards. I do not like the cards but some gamers like them. The maps are expansive, and rules are the right level of detail. I am still learning to play and running dual games with the Stumptner and Zucker rules. I agree to start with the Zucker rules and then try Stumptner. The significant difference for me wasn't the CRT, it was the orders process in the Stumptner rules, they are more in depth. Think an easy TCS order system if you are familiar with that gaming system. Over all, if you are researching this system to determine if it is worthy of shelf space in the man cave, the answer is yes.
Before getting into the system about a year ago I had similar concerns as you, thinking, "wow, the system must be so bad or complex various people have had to rewrite the rules" which kept me away. Eventually though I bought one and am hooked. They're beautiful and the rules are not complex or confusing and I think they are bloody enough for the scale they represent. They are in fact short for a wargame but, as you have said, they can be succinct. That is--they mean what they say. So you do need to read and re-read them to make sure you grasp their meaning because they probably will not be repeated in other areas of the rulebook. Zucker has updated the rules several times mostly to refine their clarity and he makes the info available to everyone via his company's website allowing you to always have access. I really like the order/command system. I love the history you learn by playing them. I appreciate that the games come with small scenarios on 11x17 maps, medium sized ones, and small monsters. So, you don't have to be scared of never being able to get them to the table because of their size.
@@jimastro67 yes, I almost sold these off, and stopped myself. It’s the one system that may have forever now-the maps are incredible and the historical situations are varied and there’s a lot of “hmm, I didn’t know much about this battle/campaign” and then reaching for some books for background. They’re fun to play, no matter what iteration of the rules you use. And they look great on the shelf!
I like the counters and maps. It also seems like a relatively easier game to learn compared to many. I also like the level of detail for this non-Napoleonic focused gamer.
Yes, much easier--and many scenarios do not have a ton of counters--not very dense. Once you start playing, a twenty-turn scenario can go rather quickly. I like that it's more maneuver based.
I love the maps and counters as well Todd. I played Napoleon's Last Gamble for over a month in the summer and just fell in love with the system as is. I will go so far as to say playing OSG has gotten me to dive fully into the Napoleonic era after years of being on the fence.
I didn’t realize there were two different rules for this.
Well if you're talking about the Stumptner rules I mentioned, yes. Although Kevin Zucker would take issue with them. It's another layer of complexity for command and then the combat tables (fire based factors rather than odds based).
Neither did I and I have been playing this system on and off for a decade. 😮
Well done, and thanks for sharing. Have you looked at New England Simulations two Napoleon older games, Dresden, and Napoleon on the Danube? The games are similar to NLB series, but a different combat system. I play solo all the time, and have all in the series, the only thin I don't like is setup, thank go someone has printed setup sheets, to make it easy. The one I really was is the nest one, Dresden is one of my favorite battles. One question, where do you get the Stumptner rules?
i have looked at those two but haven't pulled the trigger on purchasing.
here is the best site to look at and downoad rules sets. Basic or full rules.
www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/user/mst/games/lbn/lbn.html
Scroll down to see "Refits For Existing Games"
I’m leaning towards this system as compared to the others. Other systems looks too complicated.
N o matter which rule set you do--it's very accessible.
Only problem I"ve had with soloing is you can't really use vedettes. Of course, I'm still trying to figure how to best use them in an opposed game. :) The rules as written can be plenty bloody if you let your opponent get on your flanks. I experienced that in my last play. I'm excited to get to the point where my opponent and I use the cards. I think they kind of need you to interpret some situations yourself as they come up though.
Yes, the comment about the cards is absolutely correct--it leaves room for some interpretation in how they're used. I tend to disregard events that are obviously not appropriate and use them fro the movement values only, and then it doesn't affect VP. if you read some of Zucker's philosophy of gaming and this system in particular, it seems to be in keeping with this.
@@thegeneralsretreat1645 so would that mean you don't have to take the reinforcements VP hit if they'd be too late to help?
@@UncleFloydWing Well, I think there's some leeway, I would tend to house-rule that depending on situation. Sometimes it's obvious that an event is irrelevant or unable to be implemented--then you just use the movement rates from the card for your turn and disregard the VP effect. For instance, one card is "Sound of the Guns" where you are able to move (without initiative check) a unit or stack toward another unit that was bombarded the previous phase. If there was none, i just use it for movement rate. Sometimes you hold onto cards so you don't have to get hit with VP losses.
I really thought the same about the use of vedettes in solo games until I heard someone mention something that struck me. Although you can now build roadblocks to stop opposing troops you need infantry to create them. Vedettes can act as a slowing force sort of like a malleable road block that slows down opposing forces on the march that may allow you time to get your own troops in place.
@@jimastro67 I can see that but then you'd have to decide if the opposing force would attempt a repulse on the march (I may be mis-remembering the name). If I remember correctly that would destroy the vedette? Opposed you couldn't be sure if that was a vedette or not. Tough choice since if it's not, you get a penalty on the attack. I really need to get one of these back to the table.
I know how...winters victory kinda turned on you. Same thing that happened to me. Its just a good series that is easier to grok for me at least. Now my problem is Squad Leader modules....
😂
Thanks for the video
In my case in the end I have made a mix of rules. I like and have much more fun with Stumptner's combat system, the issue of force points, ZOCs, bombings... but I don't like his order system and it is too complicated to use while playing alone. I have tried some other set of rules because it is worth developing for a system with so many modules (I have 8-9).
I don't like its small scenarios and I have played them very little or not at all, it tries to give a tactical aspect to the game that it does not have due to the scale of the units, although it does have the scale of the map, very nice, really.
I agree, the order system in Stumptner is a pretty big layer to add. I did like the chit pull idea with a chance to have two combined corps get a chance to go together, but there are only a couple of games where you can get the chits for--otherwise you have to make your own. (Or possibly use the casualty force markers) I'm actually having fun with the small 1st battle of Montenotte in the Piedmont volume. Lots of back and forth and maneuvering.
@@thegeneralsretreat1645 Yes, I also used the OSG morale markers (more than duplicated with both games) as game sequence chits. But it doesn't convince me much. There are very small units, especially British-Dutch, Spanish... which are basically divisions. There is very little capacity if you want to do something together with several divisions and in the end there are more activations but less powerful. I no longer used chit activation. I started to think about mixed activations, units at a certain distance from an active formation can activate and act together with the formation that has been activated... but it is complicated to then put markers of activated units when their own formation activation chit comes out . In the end, I use OSG activations.
In general I don't like the issue of orders in these Napoleonic games. In the "Wise Bayonets" and "Moravian Sun" series (I don't have the third one (by Acies Edizioni)) they also have an elegant system of orders and markers, less restrictive. But they seem unplayable to me in solo and a little unrealistic too.
By the way. I made my own strength markers for the Stumptner system... but the BCS (MMP) ones work very well :)
Hmm, I’ll have to take a look at the Acies games