Enlighten me. Why is the SYW superior to Napoleonics?

[Westmarcher]

@Westmarcher

The idea of 1 figure equalling an exact number of men seems rather old school also, especially for 10mm Call me old fashioned..

You're old fashioned.   

Well, it depends how you define "Napoleonic", as one of our illustrious predecessors noted. I define it as "The Wars of Napoleon", so am quite happy to include the Revolutionary Wars if it makes a point - even though I don't really look at anything seriously before the Belgic Shako. Besides, it was a period of almost continuous warfare. 

I have nothing against the SYW. It's very pretty.

The original point of this thread was, from my point of view, to challenge the assertion that the Napoleonic Wars are inferior to the SYW. What I have learned is that they are, in many ways, similar. I maintain my original contention that neither is superior.

Quite so.  It seems that we are both old fashioned. 

Sorry, not clear. Why are you also old fashioned?*

*Nobby asked me to call him old fashioned, so I did. 

[Leman]

My use of the word manageable had nothing to do with the size of Napoleonic battles. It was meant to encompass all the wargaming aspects of the two periods. Even if you consider the Napoleonic Wars lasting only 10 years, then all the major combatants have at least one major uniform change, and the French have four (three changes of headgear, three changes of uniform colour - blue.white.blue - changes in the style of the veste etc.). It becomes manageable for the average wargamer once it is broken down into specific campaigns - I favour the 1809 campaign, so the Austrian infantry get the uniforms of 1809 - some shakos, some helmets - and that's it. The French get what they wore in 1809 and there are some German allies. So, no need to worry about French bicornes, Russians, British, Prussians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Danes etc.The 1809 campaign is nice and manageable - figure purchase is straightforward, painting guides are plentiful, it has a start and a finish. Even with the SYW I only game the eastern theatre - Austrians, Russians, Prussians and a few German troops, plentiful uniform guides, lots of bibliography to choose from and everything is stable from 1756 to 1763, apart from some Prussian troops adopting a plume towards the end of the war. Continuing with the 1809 theme - most armies looked different before  and after that year, thus making the 'Napoleonic Wars' considerably less manageable than the SYW. That is why, as a young wargamer, I avoided the Napoleonic period, and when I decided, much later, to give classic horse and musket a go I plumped for the SYW.

[John Cook]

Sorry, not clear. Why are you also old fashioned?*

*Nobby asked me to call him old fashioned, so I did. 

You seem to have inferred something that doesn't exist.

[fsn]

@Leman.

Ahh! Yeah, but no, but.

Granted that with the Naps as opposed to the SYW one has to make choices. An 1806 Prussian Army looks nothing like an 1815 one. That is true for so many periods though. In WWII each year has it's own character; WWI has at least three distinct phases; the ACW even takes on different aspects dependent upon year and theatre and don't get me started on "Romans".

My counterpoint would be that once you have made your choice - 1944 Normandy, 1914 Marne, 1862 West, SYW Eastern Theatre, 1813 Leipzig Campaign - then you focus on that distinct slice of the war? In this regard the SYW is no more manageable that the Naps. With the Naps there is just a bit more choice.

[John Cook]

My use of the word manageable had nothing to do with the size of Napoleonic battles. It was meant to encompass all the wargaming aspects of the two periods. Even if you consider the Napoleonic Wars lasting only 10 years, then all the major combatants have at least one major uniform change, and the French have four (three changes of headgear, three changes of uniform colour - blue.white.blue - changes in the style of the veste etc.). It becomes manageable for the average wargamer once it is broken down into specific campaigns - I favour the 1809 campaign, so the Austrian infantry get the uniforms of 1809 - some shakos, some helmets - and that's it. The French get what they wore in 1809 and there are some German allies. So, no need to worry about French bicornes, Russians, British, Prussians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Danes etc.The 1809 campaign is nice and manageable - figure purchase is straightforward, painting guides are plentiful, it has a start and a finish. Even with the SYW I only game the eastern theatre - Austrians, Russians, Prussians and a few German troops, plentiful uniform guides, lots of bibliography to choose from and everything is stable from 1756 to 1763, apart from some Prussian troops adopting a plume towards the end of the war. Continuing with the 1809 theme - most armies looked different before  and after that year, thus making the 'Napoleonic Wars' considerably less manageable than the SYW. That is why, as a young wargamer, I avoided the Napoleonic period, and when I decided, much later, to give classic horse and musket a go I plumped for the SYW.

Not really.  I alluded to this earlier.  The Napoleonic Wars were a series of coalitions which, in a wargaming context, and in my opinion, are impossible to approach except as separate wars. 

[John Cook]

@Leman.

Ahh! Yeah, but no, but.

Granted that with the Naps as opposed to the SYW one has to make choices. An 1806 Prussian Army looks nothing like an 1815 one. That is true for so many periods though. In WWII each year has it's own character; WWI has at least three distinct phases; the ACW even takes on different aspects dependent upon year and theatre and don't get me started on "Romans".

My counterpoint would be that once you have made your choice - 1944 Normandy, 1914 Marne, 1862 West, SYW Eastern Theatre, 1813 Leipzig Campaign - then you focus on that distinct slice of the war? In this regard the SYW is no more manageable that the Naps. With the Naps there is just a bit more choice.

Spot on, in my view.  We might as well argue the 'superiority' of the Austro-Prussian War over the Franco-Prussian War, neither of which appeal to me in wargaming terms at all.  In the end these things are a personal and very subjective choice.

[FierceKitty]

What is an element?

Term oftentimes employed to designate a base, normally of many one, in Wordsworth's words.

[Techno]

What is an element?

Hydrogen ?

Cheers - Anne Idiot.

[steve_holmes_11]

Napoleonic costume changes, at the risk of making it sound like a Katy Perry concert..

I've witnessed significant changes in approach to the changing of the hats and waistcoats.

Back in the day when only one dress code was available.
Then a strict adherance to "It it's 1809 then the Austrians are all in shakos and no tin hats".
Now we accept that the roll out of coats, headgear and flags was a phased business (Some armies more organised than others), and it's likely that Borodino or Waterloo were fought by armies with a mixture of hats.

This latter approach is quite useful when a club bands together to provide figures for a big refight.

[Ithoriel]

Blue jacket, white trousers - French

Green jacket, white trousers - Russian

White Jacket, white trousers - Austrian

Red Jacket, white trousers - British

etc.

Hats are black.

That's pretty much my take on Napoleonic uniform.

Perhaps I need to move from 6mm to 3mm. Hard to tell a bicorne from a busby

[John Cook]

Term oftentimes employed to designate a base, normally of many one, in Wordsworth's words.

How does a wargame work with a single base on each side?  Really curious.

[Leman]

Bollocks to this pointless thread now!

[Chad]

Agreed.

[fsn]

Well there's nothing like considered argument ... and that's nothing like considered argument.

Let me recap. Fierce Kitty opined to a new member that Napoleonics were inferior to the SYW. I queried why.

What we've had are:

• 1 The SYW is more manageable - i.e. smaller is scale and scope
• 2 SYW armies are simpler in composition than Nap armies
• 3 SYW armies didn't change their uniforms as the Nap armies did
• 4 Especially great generalship
• 5 Music and poetry
• 6 Difficulty in wargaming the Naps
• 7 Tricorns

Responses seem to be

• 1 Agreed - but that doesn't make it superior, otherwise nobody would play WWII
• 2 Agreed - though this may be seen as a drawback, 'cos there's not enough variety
• 3 Agreed - but irrelevant. You rarely build armies for a complete war. My WWII forces are all from August 1944. My Naps are from June 1815. My WWII airforces are from June 1940. When doing the 100YW, I go Agincourt rather than Poitiers. If you're doing historical, you pick a bit of the war and go for that.
• 4 Not agreed.
• 5 Irrelevant
• 6 Not agreed - There are lots of rule sets out there. If you're going to wargame Naps, find one you like or write your own
• 7 Irrelevant - It's a taste issue. With 400 Normans on my table, I'm beginning to hate nose guards.

I would submit, Gentlemen, that the case of SYW superiority has, as superior Scottish law would have it, "not proven". You may prefer it, and that's fine. I prefer Napoleonics. That too, is fine.

I am quite happy to call the examination closed, and for the thread to be locked.

[FierceKitty]

How does a wargame work with a single base on each side?  Really curious.

1-3 I win. 4-6 you win.

Quick and easy, and I am sure everyone will agree there's more depth and subtlety to it than may be immediately apparent.

[barbarian]

That's how my almost seven years old play : he makes a two big line of battles. Then pick one minis form each line, put them up in the middle, like a duel or a WWE match and says :
" You need a 6 to win ! "
When the six doesn't come, he proceeds to say :
" Oh well, it doesn't count, roll again. Yes ! You won anyway ! "

And makes all the duel till only one minis is left.

[steve_holmes_11]

That's how my almost seven years old play : he makes a two big line of battles. Then pick one minis form each line, put them up in the middle, like a duel or a WWE match and says :
" You need a 6 to win ! "
When the six doesn't come, he proceeds to say :
" Oh well, it doesn't count, roll again. Yes ! You won anyway ! "

And makes all the duel till only one minis is left.

That's pretty much how the F.A. Cup is decided.

[John Cook]

That's how my almost seven years old play : he makes a two big line of battles. Then pick one minis form each line, put them up in the middle, like a duel or a WWE match and says :
" You need a 6 to win ! "
When the six doesn't come, he proceeds to say :
" Oh well, it doesn't count, roll again. Yes ! You won anyway ! "

And makes all the duel till only one minis is left.

Similar to how I used to play western gunfights with my son and his playmobile, when I was introducing him to wargaming.  That was 25 years ago.  He's come a long way since then. 

[Last Hussar]

Tricornes at e never irrelevant.

[grahambeyrout]

I have been following this thread with some interest (I should since I helped provoke it). I think what a lot of people overlook is the simple charm of playing with toy soldiers. For me, personally, the SYW recreates this feeling more than the Napoleonic period. If I wanted realism, SYW as played by Brigadier Peter Young and Charles Grant is the last set of rules I would turn to, but if I want to march regiments of 48 identical figures of the Lieb regiment of the mythical duchy of Keinrat- Eisenberg to the top of the hill and then down again again, they might be.