Enlighten me. Why is the SYW superior to Napoleonics?

[Leman]

You're never too old to be a fan of the Prodigy - I'm 66 and I love 'em. I am also a big fan of Kieth Flint, SYW gamer and rules writer. Incidentally, the Osprey Honours of War rule book has massive margins that can easily accommodate notes.

[cameronian]

You're never too old to be a fan of the Prodigy - I'm 66 and I love 'em. I am also a big fan of Kieth Flint, SYW gamer and rules writer. Incidentally, the Osprey Honours of War rule book has massive margins that can easily accommodate notes.

How odd, I've just started listening to them too, Firestarter in the shower to start the day 

[Westmarcher]

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.  

Without a doubt(?) .... sorry, couldn't resist the "?" mark ..., Napoleonic armies tended to be larger and if you take the largest ten battles in each conflict, you would see this to be the case. So, naturally, this gives the impression that the SYW is more 'manageable.' Of course, there were smaller actions in both conflicts that can be replicated on the table. And there is the option of 'bath tubbing' a battle or re-fighting just one flank only or area of a historical battlefield. Then, of course, there is our love of simply trying to simulate the tactics and warfare of the era with fictitious campaigns and battles so we can field as many miniatures as we wish.

When I look at my own collection, I suppose my own SYW units are at a level of 1 figure to 10 or 25 men depending on the scale of battle I choose to fight so, naturally, I find a limit of 1 to 10 rather restrictive. The idea of 1 figure equalling an exact number of men seems rather old school also, especially for 10mm. My standard units represent a varying number of men and so the units on either flank will also have a different strength in real men. My units are made up of bases and the rules I use work well without the need for a prescribed number of figures per unit or base. I do feel that is the only way to play miniature war-games in the smaller scales. So, taking this a stage further, I suppose I could leave out the minis and play with blocks. Which leads me on to another derailment of the thread. At what point does a miniatures game become a board game?

I would contend that as long as we play on an 'open' table with 'open' movement it is not a board game (so your self-imposed limit of 1 figure to 10 would not be relevant) and it is only when we add a grid or track that we enter 'the neutral zone' between board games and traditional miniatures 'open table' wargaming.   

[John Cook]

I suppose one could say that the largest Napoleonic battles were larger than the largest 7 Years War battles but I am confident that I couldn't accommodate any of them on my table.   

The largest 18th/19th Century battles I have fought as a whole on my 6ft x 5ft table are Maida and Culloden and they comprised approximately 11,000 and 15,000 men respectively.     

[FierceKitty]

Just a matter of scale. Since we're not bound to any set ratio of figures to combatants any longer, I now regularly do WWII with a single element on each side.

[fsn]

@Westmarcher

Without a doubt(?) .... sorry, couldn't resist the "?" mark ..., Napoleonic armies tended to be larger and if you take the largest ten battles in each conflict, you would see this to be the case. Certainly, but over a period of 23 year I bet you could find as many "manageable" battles in Nappy's time as you could the SYW. You may as well give up fighting the Russian front in 1941 because of the numbers involved. So, naturally, this gives the impression that the SYW is more 'manageable.' Of course, there were smaller actions in both conflicts that can be replicated on the table. And there is the option of 'bath tubbing' a battle or re-fighting just one flank only or area of a historical battlefield. Then, of course, there is our love of simply trying to simulate the tactics and warfare of the era with fictitious campaigns and battles so we can field as many miniatures as we wish. I don't tend to refight actual battles. I fight fictitious battles with historical OOBs.

When I look at my own collection, I suppose my own SYW units are at a level of 1 figure to 10 or 25 men depending on the scale of battle I choose to fight so, naturally, I find a limit of 1 to 10 rather restrictive. The idea of 1 figure equalling an exact number of men seems rather old school also, especially for 10mm Call me old fashioned.. My standard units represent a varying number of men and so the units on either flank will also have a different strength in real men.This may be progress, but I'd rather see 100 figures = 1000 men than those 100 figures =1000 men, those 100 are 850 dragoons and those 100 are the camp cook and his dog - but it's a really big dog.   My units are made up of bases and the rules I use work well without the need for a prescribed number of figures per unit or base. I do feel that is the only way to play miniature war-games in the smaller scales. So, taking this a stage further, I suppose I could leave out the minis and play with blocks.

Replace "cleaning woman" with "bases" and you have my reaction.

[Westmarcher]

You're old fashioned.   

23 years? With the topic title in mind, didn't The Napoleonic Wars only last 10 years, not officially starting until 1805 with The Third Coalition? ......
Plus, never underestimate a big dog ....
I like Napoleonics also. Mentioned that earlier in the topic ...

[fsn]

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.

[John Cook]

Just a matter of scale. Since we're not bound to any set ratio of figures to combatants any longer, I now regularly do WWII with a single element on each side.

What is an element?

[John Cook]

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. 

[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.