The Ultimate Historical Gaming Thread

Talking of vive la France, I went to see Napoleon on Monday and, this being a history thread, I thought I'd share my tuppence on it.

Spoiler: For those who have not yet seen it

I honestly thought it was a fine film, and that Critical Drinker and others are being unnecessarily harsh about it (especially with non-woke films like it being as thin on the ground as they are, we should savour every one we can get). Joaquin Phoenix was fine as l'Empreur - some have criticised his changing of moods throughout the film, but Napoleon, having Italic ancestry, was known for being as volatile as he was composed, as Phoenix portrays. Yes there are some inaccuracies - artillery being fired at the Pyramids rather than the Sphinx, trenches at the Waterloo scene (which should have arguably been in the Borodino scene instead) and Napoleon leading charges in both those battles. For all that, though, the battle scenes are nevertheless fantastic, they up the adrenaline and keep the pace fast (something that cannot really be said about the 1979 Waterloo film, which itself failed to capture everything about the battle, suffered from lack of CGI to build up army sizes and flopped at the box office). The soundtrack is magnificent, particularly the staccato French Revolutionary song at Marie Antoinette's execution (perhaps la Marseillaise itself?), the haunting Austerlitz Kyrie played at the Austerlitz and Waterloo scenes, and the sinister Russian singing during the fateful march into Russia and the Cossack ambush. Not to mention the actors portraying the other figures of the great European powers (and those in Napoleon's court) were excellent, particularly Rupert Everett's smug and cool-headed Duke of Wellington. As for it not capturing absolutely every little detail about the great man's life, such a feat would be extremely difficult to capture in one film convincingly without it being excruciatingly long. As some commenters have said, if you want that, go and make a TV series that runs over several series.

All in all, I expected it to be on the level of Oliver Stone's Alexander which set out to do the same thing - an overarching biopic of a historical figure's triumphs and downfall - and similarly glazed over a fair few things to achieve it, and that is pretty much what we've got - a solid film which perhaps set its scope too broadly, but captures the most important aspects and makes a valiant effort to bring them to life, one I'd happily watch again and one that is very inspiring for a game of Napoleonics afterwards. I'll be interested to see Mr. Scott's 4-hour extended cut if it ever comes to DVD (which looks unlikely given that the bastards at AppleTV+ will most likely hoard it).

Also, I wonder just how many of those who've been bashing Napoleon at the same time fawn over Braveheart and 300, both of which are so trashily inaccurate that they make Napoleon look like a true-to-life documentary in comparison?

 

Yeah, I kind of wonder how many of the critics have actually read anything about Napoleon from history. He was notorious for being hot-tempered, but cunning and disturbingly shrewd. He was also insanely charismatic and inspired his followers to do things they maybe wouldn't have done without his influence.

 

Why do you think Braveheart is good and Napoleon is bad then, historical inaccuracies aside? I honestly thought Braveheart was terrible.

Gladiator I like though.

 

So... Saga... any thoughts on it? I'm looking for a decent historical skirmish ruleset, and right now I'm torn between that and the Osprey Miniatures Oathmark rules.

 

I personally don't like it at all. The way faction abilities are named really feels like they're just not putting enough effort into getting the thematic feel for the game, and the generic structure of leader, Hearthguard, Warriors and levies gives a samey feel to most armies. I honestly think it's overrated.

Oathmark looks interesting, but is a set of fantasy rules at its core and not the best thing to simulate historical battles with.

I presume you're aiming for the Dark Ages period with your choice of setting? In which case allow me to point you the way of Never Mind the Billhooks.

"But that's a Late Medieval game," I hear you say. Well, that's what it was originally designed for, yes, but it's focus on armies divided into leaders' retinues consisting of 2 or 3 units is a worthy simulator of periods right from Dark Ages right up to the 17th Century. Thus, I embarked on a project to write a suite of army lists for Dark Ages factions, with a unique feel and a tailor-written strategy guide for each one. The ruleset is both reasonably complex and keeps fun at its core, and doesn't have the gamey aspect that Saga's battleboards and ability-combining mechanics do. Both my army lists and the Early Medieval-oriented supplement that they use, Never Mind the Bannerets, can be found in the game's official Facebook group:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/billhooks/

 

Hmm, I like this idea. I will take a look at it. So far this looks right up my alley, since I'm more into Late Medieval/Early Renaissance anyway.