Enlighten me. Why is the SYW superior to Napoleonics?

[jimduncanuk]

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). 

Am not sure of the exact numbers but I think the American colonies were costing something like £500,000 a year to run whereas the Caribbean was making a profit of £12 million a year. Easy to see where their attention was.

[Techno]

Don't think I've ever seen a 'bay' with gray tail and mane  :-

Cheers - Phil

[fsn]

That's what you picked up from a drawing of a horse with 3 horns?

[Chad]

In ESR the figure scale and base sizes specified in the rules vary according to scale the scale of the game  and when I raised the point with the author he could only suggest sabots.

[steve_holmes_11]

Does anybody know a model maker?
It seems the ideal mount for all those SYW cavalry.

[Leman]

  - tri, tri and tri again!

[FierceKitty]

- tri, tri and tri again!

Well, goodbye....

[Nick the Lemming]

- tri, tri and tri again!

That was very corny.

[Techno]

That's what you picked up from a drawing of a horse with 3 horns?

I saw that as a horse with face armour plus spikes.

(Didn't notice there weren't any straps to hold the above in place...Ooops !  )

If you'd used something other than your crayons, Nobby.......

Cheers - Phil

[Leman]

Was Nobby still at school in 2009?

[Techno]

Dunno, Andy.

But any written correspondence I get from Nobby, is usually written in crayon.

Cheers - Phil

[fsn]

That's some very careful colouring there!

[steve_holmes_11]

I''ve made a start on Honours of War.

It seems to be all present and correct.
The text is rather dense for an Osprey.

From experience, this can result in important details getting lost in large paragraphs.
I usually solve this by making notes of the key details.
I shall continue in bite sized portions.

I also noticed that the author Keith Flint is the namesake of recently deceased "singer" and terrifying clown impersonator from rave band "The Prodigy".

I'm a little too old to be a fan, but had heard fascinating stories about his on and off stage personas.
Off stage, voluntary work with the elderly and a grower of prize roses.
It was enough to inspire a check whether he was a tabletop gamer.

The author and singer are not the same person, and the good news is that the author is still with us.

[steve_holmes_11]

My main point form this thread is that innovations between 1763 and 1805 let to larger battles and greater concentration of decisive assets.

This means that a named Seven Years War battle can be played on a tabletop.

Try that with a named Napoleonic battle and you need an epic approach: http://www.waterlooreplayed.com/
Or an extremely bathtubbed/Ops level  set of rules like Sam Mustafa's long forgotten La Grande Guerre (LGG).

LGG was a free offering off the back of the author's Grande Armee rules circa 2005.
I can't find an unprotected download of LGG, but have a word document and am willing to share - message me if interested.

[fsn]

To a point, Lord Copper.

If you look at some random battles of the 7YW, the number of combatants (in thousands) are Minden (81), Lobositz (61), Prague (127), Kolin (88), Torgau (103).

Looking at some not quite so random battles of the Napoleonics - Austerlitz (149), Bucaco (115), Vimiero (34), Talavera (110), Wavre (58), Tolentino (38).


There are some large battles of the Naps, and some small ones. The early days of the sideshow in Iberia have very small armies. You pays you money and you takes your choice. I play Napoleonics at the Division level at a scale of 1 figure per 10 men. I think this is the limit for 10mm. If I wanted to go to a larger scale, I'd probably go to a board game.