I have to confess that when I find a set of rules that I like, I do tend to stick with them. And for the job that they do, I think Volley and Bayonet works. But having said that, except recently (see here), I haven't played these for... a decade and more! Hopefully the Rivoli project will radically alter that state of affairs. However, it perhaps says something about the mechanics that there is something that always draws me back.
This choice is quite unusual for me, as I tend to choose rules that are specific to the tight period or conflict, for example They Died for Glory for FPW. Whereas, Volley and Bayonet is a broad set to cover the horse and musket era from c.1700 to c.1870. In this respect, I believe it might be the thing that scratches that itch to play the big battle rather than a part of it.
Another thing of note are the design notes. You may not agree with them all, but Frank Chadwick certainly makes clear the rationale for the systems in Volley and Bayonet. Have a look here.
Scale
A jump that needs to be made in player imagination is that one infantry and cavalry base (typically 3 inches by 3 inches for Napoleonics and after) represents a regiment or brigade. So what you are playing with are formations. Not individual units. The player does not even worry about line or column etc.. The assumption is that the brigade and regiment commanders will deal with that stuff. You are the general commanding the army, and that is your only concern. So "like" number one is the player is the commander in chief... not the colonel or sergeant!
| 3 French divisions defend against 3 Austrian. |
There is none!
Not strictly true... there is a command radius between division commanders and their brigades. To be out of this really inhibits forward movement and can leave a brigade disordered if it does. When a unit is disordered it is one bad decision away from routing and/or being permanently disordered. It actually makes a player conscious of command and control issues without elaborate mechanics having to be employed.
Movement
Movement is ENORMOUS. If you play the full scale an infantry brigade can move 16 inches; heavy cavalry up to 20 inches. But it works! Remember this is truly grand tactical and it has to be appreciated that one turn equals one hour. However, terrain, manoeuvring, and the presence of the enemy can soon limit those massive moves. Plus, fast unsupported advances can invariably lead to unwelcome outcomes.
You can scale down to half move rates and missile range - especially good if you choose to halve the size of the bases.
Morale and Division Exhaustion
One of the things that I like best is the division exhaustion rules. Each unit has a strength value which can degrade with losses. Typically a Napoleonic brigade (one unit) will have a strength of 4-6 (1 strength point equates to c.500 men). The units in a division contribute their strength to the Division Exhaustion. So, when a division typically suffers 50% loss of strength points across its units, the division must take a test to see if its morale collapses. As you can imagine, this is not good news if it happens.
The point score of the Division Exhaustion test can be adjusted to reflect the quality or resilience of the division - say down to 40% losses for a fragile division; up to 60%, for a high morale, very resilient division. So, not only does which unit have its morale rating, but the division exhaustion level can be applied to this as well.
In short, these rules are simple but on greater reflection are actually quite nuanced. The mechanics do allow for the forms of fighting in the 18th century, and also later with the advent of rifled small arms and artillery.
I just need to play them more!














