Enlighten me. Why is the SYW superior to Napoleonics?

[Dr Dave]

FSN - you've hit it on the head.

[Leman]

Agreed about FSN's summary. Not so sure about the AWI - find that even less appealing than Napoleonics, and the colonists were rebels however much you try to dress it up. It's not as if they were fighting an invasion. If the English government (as it was in the late C16th/early C17th) hadn't established those colonies in the first place the USA as it is today wouldn't exist. Yet, now the Cold War is over (or is it?), we're the bad guys in Hollywood. Perhaps we should have a just said sod it in the 1750s and left the so-and-sos to learn French or Spanish.

[Chad]

👍👏

[FierceKitty]

It's hard to imagine that England was so careless as to throw away such a valuable colony. They could have given the Yankees everything they wanted without losing anything significant (I refer those interested in the issue to Barbara Tuchmann's The March of Folly, second section). 

[Leman]

Yeah, yeah, yeah ....... what if! What if that dick Cameron had had the guts to make decisions on his own.

[Leman]

Actually, no one has mentioned rules. I have not really come across any rules that have encouraged me to get into the Napoleonic period (games at the club are massive, long drawn out, turgid affairs). Et sans resultant seem ok as they have a feel of BBB about them (although they are simultaneous movement which is something I really am not used to, which is a pity as they are beautifully produced). The writers have also had the foresight to produce campaign supplements. I bought the one for 1809 in Central Europe. So, should I follow this up, I will be fighting one very small aspect of the Napoleonic Wars, and probably using a solo engine as I don't like simultaneous movement.

On the other hand I have used a number of sets to play SYW games (all IGUG) style, and have had some great games. Black Powder worked well, but Honours of War is very much better and has been thoughtfully produced to allow for games in different scales, with an excellent support website providing various downloads including QRSs and scenarios.

[steve_holmes_11]

Actually, no one has mentioned rules. I have not really come across any rules that have encouraged me to get into the Napoleonic period (games at the club are massive, long drawn out, turgid affairs). Et sans resultant seem ok as they have a feel of BBB about them (although they are simultaneous movement which is something I really am not used to, which is a pity as they are beautifully produced). The writers have also had the foresight to produce campaign supplements. I bought the one for 1809 in Central Europe. So, should I follow this up, I will be fighting one very small aspect of the Napoleonic Wars, and probably using a solo engine as I don't like simultaneous movement.

On the other hand I have used a number of sets to play SYW games (all IGUG) style, and have had some great games. Black Powder worked well, but Honours of War is very much better and has been thoughtfully produced to allow for games in different scales, with an excellent support website providing various downloads including QRSs and scenarios.

I think you've nailed the major drawback of Napoleonics.
I've tried more Nappies rules than all others combined and few really satisfied.
There has been a constant evolution that provides a good overview of general trends in the hobby.
From bang you're dead with range sticks and burst circles, through the ultra-complex and on to big-battle grinding matches or the SAGA scale skirmishes that are popular today.
I can think of no historical period that has see so many rules or so little standardisation.

The other drawback seems to be the thinly disguised dislike that some Napoleonic gamers show for the fellow who has the temerity to use a different rule set.
Over on TMP the Napoleonic boards were THE place for flame wars (until the modern boards were created - releasing the Djinni of social media politics among the hobbyists).
It was a place where newcomers trod with care, and often didn't come back.

For my part, I had abandoned hope until a pal showed me Black Powder (Warlord).
I read the rules with a skeptical eye - It's all a bit Warhammer and loosely based on history, so I thought.
A couple of games (We had some nappy stuff based for DBN) convinced me that the games could be fun and have a bit of period feel.

I enjoyed the "State your intention and roll for commands" Warmaster approach to friction.
The rules claim to cover the 18th and 19th centuries, but most of their mechanisms are unmistakably Napoleonic in origin.
The 'free and easy' approach to movement and interpenetration let us get on with the game and not obsess over geometry and millimeters.
So many other rules quickly dissolved into managing the traffic jam that formed in the centre table - something that units of real people would sort out pretty quickly unless in the presence of nearby enemy.

I've a longer term project to put big Napoleonic battles onto a gridded table.
The aim was to capture the larger battles of the 6th Coalition / Wars of Liberation - as opposed to manoeuvring 8 battalions, 2 regiments and a battery.
It's slow going, this rule authoring is a difficult business.
The result is likely to end up as a boardgame which can be played with counters or miniatures.
I also know that they are unlikely to gain widespread acceptance

I'm about to stick my nose into Honours of War with some generous assistance form Westmarcher of this parish.
From reviews I understand that it has common elements to Black Powder, but a tighter focus on the 7 Years War.
Interleaved activation seems like an improvement.
Average dice are a small concern, but i understand that they are rolled individually, and Quick Reference sheets for D6 are also available.
I hope to learn the rules while picking up the history.
On with the new!!

[Westmarcher]

I find the AWI a fascinating subject - partly because of the way my own country was split during its soul-searching independence referendum, partly because I've visited some of the battlefields and notable locations, partly in admiration for the colonists long and ultimately successful struggle (albeit with foreign help) and partly because the British Army performed a lot better than my school studies suggested and in a manner that was so different from what Hollywood and old-fashioned American historians would have us believe. And of course, arguably, AWI is more manageable again than SYW - smaller armies and almost no battlefield cavalry. Obviously, Britain did not give the colonies away (England did - just said that to keep FK happy  ). I think the independence movement was an unstoppable force and therefore the split was inevitable. Not having gamed AWI, I am not as yet in a position to recommend any rules. Like Leman, I find Honours of War an entertaining set for the SYW but have not tried it in the American theatre. The AWI appears to lend itself to small skirmish style actions however there are British Grenadier(?), Loose Files and American Scramble, Times That Try Men's Souls (Fat Wally's variant on They Couldn't Hit An Elephant) and Black Powder which appear to be good for larger scale actions.  For SYW, I obviously like HoW but when I last played Naps, I found Shako a good set that reflected my own views on Napoleonic warfare very well.  In spite of its critics, I find Black Powder fun - but maybe I'm not too fussy.

[Last Hussar]

Tricorns.

[John Cook]

Actually, no one has mentioned rules. I have not really come across any rules that have encouraged me to get into the Napoleonic period (games at the club are massive, long drawn out, turgid affairs). Et sans resultant seem ok as they have a feel of BBB about them (although they are simultaneous movement which is something I really am not used to, which is a pity as they are beautifully produced). The writers have also had the foresight to produce campaign supplements. I bought the one for 1809 in Central Europe. So, should I follow this up, I will be fighting one very small aspect of the Napoleonic Wars, and probably using a solo engine as I don't like simultaneous movement.

On the other hand I have used a number of sets to play SYW games (all IGUG) style, and have had some great games. Black Powder worked well, but Honours of War is very much better and has been thoughtfully produced to allow for games in different scales, with an excellent support website providing various downloads including QRSs and scenarios.

That would appear to be the fault of the rules.  Many Napoleonic battles were indeed decisive. 

[Chad]

I recently tried 'Over the Hills'. They are suitable for Divional size games I believe. The first version had printing and layout problems largely due to a well known book seller apparently ignoring the adjustments required  from proof reading. Version 2 is due in April. They are well worth a look.  Plan to use these to extend the rules for the French Revolution.

I considered ESR but they are multi scale so that to fight different size actions during a campaign you have to use sabots it seems.

[steve_holmes_11]

Tricorns.

If a tricorne is a hat, why is a unicorn a horse?

[fsn]

[Chad]

 

[Last Hussar]

I recently tried 'Over the Hills'. They are suitable for Divional size games I believe. The first version had printing and layout problems largely due to a well known book seller apparently ignoring the adjustments required  from proof reading. Version 2 is due in April. They are well worth a look.  Plan to use these to extend the rules for the French Revolution.

I considered ESR but they are multi scale so that to fight different size actions during a campaign you have to use sabots it seems.

Why would you need sabots? Just use the measurements that use your base size.