Pick an era and tell us what you think is the most important consideration in designing a wargame within that period.
If your talking about Napoleonics, tell us what wargame concern is either unique to that era, or an over-riding concern. How does it change by the time ACW rolls around?
By: Brant
Posts
5 comments:
I think a lot of games underestimate morale as an issue, but especially the Napoleonics. How often did one side break? How often does that side break in the game b/c of morale issues?
hey now, hey now - let's not all chime in at once!
In regards to Napoleonics, one of the appeals of this period for gaming, is the relationship between the three arms, infantry-cavalry-artillery. Each is strong in certain situations and weak in others. None is dominant in all situations. (Although infantry is overall the strongest.)
This makes for an interesting combined arms approach that is rather unique. In the earlier gunpowder era, infantry moved much slower (70 paces a minute compared to the Revolution's 115?) So cavalry was more dominant due to their ability to maneuver.
By the ACW, rifles had replaced muskets, so the firepower of infantry was much greater and practically the most important factor on the battlefield.
Besides the historical color and the personalitites of the Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars, it is this relationship between all arms that I find most enjoyable and intriguing.
I don't know any one era in enough detail to say, but I wonder how this topic would map to all the era-specific rules from SPI's Strategy I from of-so-many years ago.
Are they the first thing that comes to mind?
Does Strategy I generalize too much, even with specific rules?
Varying uses of cavalry from Marlborough through Franco-Prussian War...?
There mounted scouts, shock troops, dragoons, lancers, and more, all riding horses. Does anyone have any good systems out there that can account for the differences in game effects other than combat/movement factors?
Post a Comment