I was recently asked how and where I got the historical information used in the game, NNNG.
The simple answer is I read a lot of books and many articles about the Age of Napoleon. The more complex answer is I did a lot of historical research on the era, mostly between the years 1802 thru 1815. Most especially, I gained much information from the journals and the letters of the soldiers themselves, as they described their emotions concerning battlefield conditions and the battles they fought in.
Before someone asks, I'll list a few of the books that I regard as elemental in designing the game.
"Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon," by Rory Muir
"The Campaigns of Napoleon: The Mind and Method of History's Greatest Soldier," by David G. Chandler
"Napoleon and His Marshals," by A G Macdonell
"Weapons and Equipment of the Napoleonic Wars," by Philip J. Haythornthwaite
"The Napoleonic Empire," by Geoffery J. Ellis
"Imperial Bayonets," by George F. Nafziger
"La Grande Armee'," by George Blond
"Creating A Napoleonic Wargames Army 1809-1815," by Peter Morbey
And I would be remiss in not including some of the online references I've used:
Neither the books nor the online references listed is a complete listing of what I've used to gather the information, it is the main source of most of what went into the game design, however.
Some books are no longer available to buy but I found them online in various places, where I could read them. Thanks Archive.org
In case someone from the sources ever sees this, I thank you!
In a discussion we had last year, a few of us cited the games we felt were the most basic in helping some of us design our games.
At that time, I said that 3 games were most responsible for guiding me in my own design of NNNG.
Napoleon's Battles by Avalon Hill
Elan Deluxe by Phillip A. Jones
Bataille Empire by Herve Caille
They still are, but I've added a couple of more since our last discussion.
Age of Eagles by Colonel Wilbur E. Gray
Carnage and Glory by Nigel P. Marsh
Prior to a friend of mine's death, I had very little interest in Napoleonic games. Then after, it was like I was channeling his spirit or something because I couldn't get enough of Napoleonic games, especially the miniature rules. Then I began reading book after book about the Napoleonic Era. I'm not sure why I became so infatuated with the era. In the last few years my focus has not waned. I continue to harbor a keen interest in Napoleonic game systems.
Whether this interest of mine will eventually lessen as I age, remains to be seen. But I don't believe so, at times I'm like a rabid dog with a bone. This is one of those times.
As some of you have known me for over 3 decades, you also known how I get when my mind latches on to something. Maybe I'll end up backing off somewhat when NNNG is finished, once I feel it's an accomplished thing. Maybe.
Just a heads-up for everyone here: when it comes to game design questions, opinions, and suggestions, I keep all discussions public. I won’t be responding via private channels like email or direct messages, as I prefer all ideas and exchanges to remain open and accessible to the community. If you’re looking for my input, please check back here, where everything is shared transparently for all to see and join in on.
This isn’t about following trends or catering to any social agenda. I view platforms like Facebook and others as tools to connect people, and while they’re great for that, they often come with rules that can hinder honest discussion in our hobby. That’s why I’ve set up this website—to provide us with a space where we can freely discuss, critique, and share ideas without limitations, as long as it’s done responsibly.
Let’s keep this community one where ideas flow freely, respectfully, and with full ownership over our discussions.
Now to reply to a question regarding cavalry in NNNG: How certain are you, cavalry was used exactly how you describe and apply the doctrine?
That's a great question, JBoone441.
I've attempted to summarize entire encyclopedic resources into something readable and understandable based on my notes and other references.
The role and tactics of cavalry on the battlefield during the Napoleonic era are well-documented, but at times events can differ based on interpretation and the specifics of historical records.
Historical Sources and Doctrine
Military manuals, officers' accounts, and battle reports from the Napoleonic era offer insights into how cavalry was intended to be used. Tactical roles like shock impact (heavy cavalry), harassment and skirmishing (light cavalry), and flexibility in both (dragoons) were defined by doctrine, but how well these roles were executed depended on training, discipline, and conditions.
Tactical Roles in Practice
Heavy Cavalry (e.g., cuirassiers) was primarily intended for shock charges, breaking infantry lines (not columns or squares) or chasing down retreating troops. Historical accounts often describe them being reserved until the right moment to exploit weaknesses in enemy positions and formations.
Dragoons (medium cavalry) offered a balance, often able to dismount for infantry roles, making them versatile in both offensive and defensive roles. And in most cases, worked out well enough to continue employing them as such.
Light Cavalry (e.g., hussars and lancers) had more flexible roles, often used for scouting, skirmishing, and harassment. They’d operate in looser formations, harassing enemy flanks or pursuing stragglers.
Battlefield Adaptations
While cavalry doctrine set out clear roles, battlefield conditions often dictated real-time adaptations. Cavalry sometimes took on roles outside their usual functions, particularly in dire situations. However, these adaptations were exceptions rather than norms and were often noted in after-action reports due to their highly unusual nature. This is true even in today's modern battlefield where specialization is the norm rather than the exception, and yet these specialized units often cross over to another specialty due to battlefield expediency or need. But will they do the job as required? In most cases, yes, but maybe not as efficiently or as cleanly.
Application to Gameplay
In the game, applying these particular fact-based roles help capture the historical balance of power and limitations, making each cavalry type tactically unique. For example, giving heavy cavalry bonuses in charges but reduced flexibility in prolonged engagements mirrors their historical usage. Similarly, assigning light cavalry lower combat effectiveness CE (or negative modifiers) but better skirmish abilities (positive modifiers), captures their harassing role.
While we can be quite certain about the battlefield roles of each cavalry type based on historical doctrine and practice, real-world battlefield adjustments and specific commanders’ tactics sometimes led to deviations. However, the distinct roles of shock, skirmishing, and flexibility are reliable doctrinal frameworks for both historical accuracy and factual game mechanics. So, I'm quite certain how cavalry was intended to be used and how it was actually used. And this is exactly what I've tried to incorporate into NNNG.
I hope this reply satisfactorily answers the question and any other lingering questions concerning the roles of cavalry and their historical usage. If anyone would like specifics I can list a few good resources, from historical books on cavalry to national historical registers, where further information is available.
Bill Wright asks, "Why is light infantry penalized for acting as infantry in your game? They ARE infantry, not irregulars or militia." (I had to edit the question as it was difficult to understand, at first.)
Bill Wright, thank you for your question. For those unfamiliar with the Napoleonic Era this is a fair question. This is not to imply your uneducated about the era, only that some modern-day individuals aren't fully informed of the military doctrines and practices of the time.
This does bring up an important point about how Light Infantry differed from Line Infantry while still being highly trained infantry.
Light Infantry’s Specialized Training
Light Infantry was indeed fully trained, professional infantry, but their specialty was skirmishing and fighting in dispersed formations. They were trained to be agile, operating in looser, open-order formations to harass enemy lines, pick off key targets, and disrupt formations rather than engage in direct line combat.
In line or tight formations, they couldn’t use their agility or skirmishing skills effectively, which can justify a slight penalty in direct confrontations where "heavy, cohesive volleys" are more advantageous.
Different Purpose on the Battlefield
The primary role of Light Infantry was to act as a screen for main forces, disrupt enemy formations, and weaken enemy morale before the Line Infantry closed in. While capable of fighting in line, if necessary, they were less optimized for sustained line combat compared to Line Infantry, which was drilled almost exclusively in firing volleys and holding formation under fire.
Historically, Light Infantry rarely fought in dense, close-order line formations unless in a defensive role. If they did, their firing cohesion was not as concentrated as Line Infantry, who were trained specifically for massed volleys. They exceled in the woods where they could use the terrain to enhance their tactics which gave them some advantage over line infantry operating in the same environment.
Gameplay Balance and Realism
In a game setting, this translates into Light Infantry performing best in their intended role of skirmishing but receiving penalties if they operate outside of it. This penalty doesn’t reflect them as inferior troops but rather acknowledges that they are most effective when employed in their specialty.
The penalty when acting in regular formations reflects the historical limitations Light Infantry faced when performing in line. It incentivizes players to use Light Infantry in ways that maximize their unique strengths, such as scouting, harassment, and engaging irregular troops.
In short, Light Infantry isn’t penalized due to inferior training; instead, it’s to reflect the tactical differences and battlefield roles they were trained for. They excel in skirmishing, and while they can fight in regular formations, doing so reduces their effectiveness because it takes away their natural advantages. This design choice makes the game more strategic, encouraging players to use each infantry type as it was historically intended.
I think this answers the question of why I made the decision to place restrictions on Light Infantry in NNNG.
Again, I advise anyone interested, in researching this doctrine of that era more thoroughly through historical books and national archives.
I finally received a question about the artillery and why it seems so powerful at one range and less so at other ranges.
From EdwardBarnes4001, "I noticed that you have 4 ranges for artillery, and unless it's one specific range, the other ranges affect damage drastically. Why is that?"
A fair question EdwardBarnes4001, only allow me to correct a couple of assumed things first.
1. There are technically five range categories: Close, Effective, Medium, Long, and Canister. Effective range is where most artillery is optimized to inflict the greatest casualties. Artillery could still fire at close, medium, and long ranges, and indeed often did. However, due to accuracy limitations, most artillery was not very effective at long range and would frequently miss its target.
The target's formation also played a crucial role in the artillery’s effectiveness. For example, infantry in line formation—often deployed in three ranks depending on the nation and era—might have other units positioned behind the front line. Artillery was less effective against line formations, inflicting substantially fewer casualties compared to formations like infantry in column. Light infantry in open or skirmish formation was even harder to hit, as soldiers were well dispersed.
Artillery generally fired with a flat trajectory (3-5 degrees above level), meaning solid shot traveled in a straight line toward its target. Firing too close could result in undershooting, while firing too far risked overshooting. Artillerymen could adjust the firing angle as needed, especially when repositioning. Repositioning, or 'prolonging,' involved moving the gun slightly forward without limbering, but if they needed to move longer distances, they would limber the gun, which required additional setup time. Once repositioned, the gun had to be resighted before firing again.
In NNNG, these details are simplified into modifiers for Combat Effectiveness (CE), Morale Rating (MR), and Fatigue Level (FL), along with leadership influences. Canister shot, reserved for close range, is extremely deadly and causes significant damage due to its spread. However, like all artillery fire, its impact is ultimately based on probability and the modifiers that can adjust that probability positively or negatively
2. The Combat Effectiveness (CE) rating doesn’t inherently "weaken" a unit. Instead, it represents the probability of a successful hit in combat, based on the unit's training, equipment, and role. For example, a unit with CE:50 has a 50% chance of hitting its target, while a unit with CE:35 has a 35% chance. This rating doesn’t reflect strength or weakness directly—it simply means that certain units, like artillery or newly conscripted troops, are less likely to hit due to their equipment limitations, specialized roles, or inexperience.
CE, along with Morale Rating (MR) and Fatigue Level (FL), provides a universal framework across all units, regardless of type. The mechanics for shooting, hitting, and charging are consistent and straightforward, requiring only a percentile roll on 2D10 to determine success.
Modifiers are what truly affect the chance to hit and the impact of damage. Tables or lists of modifiers adjust CE based on conditions like range, formation, cover, and other factors specific to the situation. This keeps the game simple and intuitive, as the only additional elements are the modifiers, which can increase or decrease the probability of a hit.
In short, CE is a probability indicator, not a measure of strength or weakness. The actual effectiveness of a unit in any given situation comes from how the base CE interacts with modifiers, allowing for a dynamic and realistic portrayal of different units on the battlefield. Each unit’s role is preserved without the need for separate damage tables, making the game faster and more accessible without sacrificing depth.
I won't argue that the national characteristics of units need to be adjusted, but I hope to do that as we play NNNG more often.
Now since this aspect of the game is less soaked in historical data and more in guesswork, I invite anyone interested in joining me to adjust the national characteristics as to what they might be to allow for balanced play while maintaining a historical flavor.
Anyway, I hope this answers your question, and explains a few other things, EdwardBarnes4001.
