Please, I am after sensible discussion, not nah-nah nor name calling.
Gentlemen.
A few members of repute, and Fierce Kitty, have suggested that the Seven Years War is superior to the Napoleonic Era.
Why is the SYW superior?
I don't think it superior (although I do prefer it) to Napoleonics. One could argue that the Revolutionary Wars were similar (and I use this word advisedly) to the SYW, but fairly quickly changed, both in scope and scale, with the arrival of Napoleon, but I stand to be corrected. Somehow Napoleonics have never really grabbed me, whereas the SYW has. Hard to put my finger on it really.
Less plumes to worry about.
Quite simply the SYW is manageable. The colour, flags, viirtually stable uniforms and the almost parity between the three arms makes it very doable as a wargames period. Napoleonics is vast, ever-changing uniforms, greater variety of troop types leading to wider variety of tactics and thus more rules and sub-rules. As someone who tries to avoid complexity I find SYW preferable to Napoleonics.
Not much experience with either. Have done re-enactment in the first and some wargaming in the second. The first has an enlightenment feel with, as Leman says, a more rational and manageable approach in wargaming. Also the first model "Brown Bess" is a better proportioned weapon than either the second or third model carried in the Napoleonic Era.
(Someone may need to read this out to fsn)
Agree with Leman's point about balance; I find the balance of the big three arms unmatched. You really do need to get your money's worth from all three to win.
Historical significance. The world we're currently inhabiting was shaped by that war, more I'd say than any other since the Neanderthals backed down. Its results probably included i) a Prussian-dominated Germany, not an Austrian one; ii) the British Empire, and the fact that we're having this discussion not in French, but in English (giving a few UK members the benefit of the doubt); iii) the French Revolution (Britain had colonies to export the hungry and idle to); iv) the alarming realisation that Russia was now firmly seated at the grown-ups' table; and v) the creation of a really attractive Pendraken figure range.
Cultural elements. I can't insist that everyone agree with this, but I've got a thing for 18th century civilisation. Greatest age of music, last great era of architecture, some super-readable poetry, the rise of atheism, and a characteristic chuckle of derision rather than howl of anger at one's opponents. This shows itself in the uniforms; by contrast the Napoleonic stuff looks vulgar and overdressed to my eye.
National balance (not the same as point one). Of the Big Five, four are serious armies with marked strengths; only the French are in a fallow period between Louis XIV and Napoleon I.
Brilliant generalship. Yes, I freely grant Napoleon's breath-taking skill when he got it right. But he himself admitted he couldn't have beaten Fritz. And when we add Browne, Daun, Haddik, Clive, Wolfe, Henry, Seydlitz, Ziethen, and numerous victories against amazing odds....
The Hohenfriedburg march and tricorne hats.
Quote from: Leman on 05 March 2019, 10:34:03 PM
Quite simply the SYW is manageable. The colour, flags, viirtually stable uniforms and the almost parity between the three arms makes it very doable as a wargames period. Napoleonics is vast, ever-changing uniforms, greater variety of troop types leading to wider variety of tactics and thus more rules and sub-rules. As someone who tries to avoid complexity I find SYW preferable to Napoleonics.
I think Leman, as covered it very nicely. Napoleonics can get very messy, with whole battalions in skirmish mode. The linear tactics of the SYW with professional armies lends itself much more readily to table top recreation to my mind than Napoleonics. Personally, I also think playing SYW retains some of the Old School charm of playing toy soldiers as extolled in books like "Charge!: Or, How to Play War Game" by Peter Young, and the whimsey of Imagi-Nations.
I like both periods but Leman nails it for me and I feel that, somehow, SYW is more manageable also. For example, I used to have British, Portuguese, late Prussian, Austrian, Bavarian, French, Polish and Italian Napoleonic armies. When I started my wargaming collection again, I simply couldn't face the shear scale of building up a Napoleonic collection again. The SYW with its smaller armies but equally colourful uniforms seemed to be (and was) the answer. Simplicity also with no skirmish screens either to try and replicate (but you still have light troops in their own units that are somehow easier), no significant organisational reforms to be mindful of, few squares, almost no infantry attack columns or horse artillery but still plenty of tactical options.
Plus there's also something attractive about lines and lines of bicornes .... 8->
My experience of SYW gaming is limited to being co-opted in to a handful of multiplayer games, some time ago now.
From this thread I'm gathering that the undoubted attraction of the period is that uniforms are dull, troops types severely limited, tactics primitive and historical standards of generalship so low that even mediocre generals could shine .... amirite?
:d :d :d :d :d :d
Quote from: Ithoriel on 06 March 2019, 03:12:29 PM
From this thread I'm gathering that the undoubted attraction of the period is that uniforms are dull, troops types severely limited, tactics primitive and historical standards of generalship so low that even mediocre generals could shine .... amirite?
Probably not!
It was also a time when buildings did not take up too much space.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1743/42497803571_0c6160851a_z.jpg)
Oh my goodness! just look at that dull army:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/886/41594640885_a07d55558d_z.jpg)
Just look at that - every troop type is the same:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1785/29613076428_b05e79f932_z.jpg)
It isn't, it's just different...
You fellows have put up a good case for this 7 years war.
You've convinced me to take an interest.
"only the French are in a fallow period between Louis XIV and Napoleon I. "
Could someone elaborate on the word 'fallow' in the above context?
As a complete beginner I found these two Youtube videos instructive.
Warning: Rubbish attempts at French and English accents.
I also learned that in the USA Mughal rhymes with Bugle.
But mainly, who was involved on each side.
Crash Course: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0qbzNHmfW0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0qbzNHmfW0) Usually one of my favourite sources for history - a bit over enthusiastic on this one.
Feature History: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upcQ8IAxpV4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upcQ8IAxpV4)
Steve, check out
www.kronoskaf.com
It has everything you need.
Quote from: Matt J on 06 March 2019, 09:23:47 PM
Steve, check out
www.kronoskaf.com
It has everything you need.
What is this site? My antivirus software prevents access on the grounds that "The site is listed as a malicious site that may be stealing identity information, plant viruses on your machine or do other harmful things."
Perhaps this link:
http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Main_Page
Quote from: Matt J on 06 March 2019, 09:23:47 PM
Steve, check out
www.kronoskaf.com
It has everything you need.
Bookmarked, plenty of reading there.
That should elaborate from "who was on which team" to the sort of stuff that we wargamers need to know:
* Structure of the battles and main tactics.
* Army organisation.
* Varieties of cuffs and numbers of buttons on them.
* Flags.
* Development of the bricole throughout the war ;)
Many thanks.
Some good stuff here also:-
http://royalfig.free.fr/index.php?/categories (http://royalfig.free.fr/index.php?/categories)
[see under 'Drapeaux' (flags) and 'Uniformes']
I found this site before kronoskaf. I used the flags section to paint my Pendraken Prussian and Austrian cavalry flags (which I won't do again in a hurry).
p.s. Steve (Holmes), I've p.m.'d you on Honours of War.
The two sites obscure battles and not by appointment also have some very useful SYW material. NBA also has some very nice flags to resize and print.
Thanks. Interesting resources. :-bd
[found these links]
http://nba-sywtemplates.blogspot.com (http://nba-sywtemplates.blogspot.com)
http://obscurebattles.blogspot.com/p/battles-by-year.html (http://obscurebattles.blogspot.com/p/battles-by-year.html)
Quote from: FierceKitty on 07 March 2019, 02:34:20 AM
Perhaps this link:
http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Main_Page
That is a very useful site. Many thanks
Why does one have to be better than the other?
I've been into Napoleonics for more than fifty years and the first thing I'd ask, is which 'Napoleonic war' are we talking about. The Treaty of Amiens is usually considered to be the point marking the end of the French Revolutionary Wars and the start of the Napoleonic. This means we can forget about the First and Second Coalitions.
So, if we accept that we mean wars against Napoleon's Imperial France then we have Third to Seventh Coalition, all of which are separate and different one way or another. Then there is 'background activity' in the form of the Peninsular War from 1807 until 1814, British expeditions to South America in 1806 and 1807, Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 and the War of 1812-1814 in North America.
The only sensible approach is to consider these individually and any attempt to conflate them into a single wargaming period, even if confined to Europe, is a recipe for madness I'd say.
Uniforms didn't change nearly as much as people perceive. There were no substantive changes until around 1807 and they were far from immediate. Similarly the variety of uniforms, as far as I can see, is not significantly greater than those of the Seven Years War.
The Seven Year's War is not my forte but it too was equally global in nature, was it not? The war in Europe seems to have almost as many separate wars going on as the Napoleonic Wars. Furthermore, how can the SYW in Europe be considered in the same breath as the French and Indian War and the war in India? All completely different in nature and scope to my layman's eyes.
I would probably not commit to gaming the Seven Year's War in Europe, but I have always fancied the Indian theatre as a smaller scale alternative in entirely different terrain, with a completely different opponent.
They Napoleonic and Seven Years War are not better than each other. They are just different. Both are global in nature and have plenty of 'sub-plots' going on that are different again from the mainstream European theatres. You have options of massive battles to small engagements, including the occasional amphibious operation.
One thing they do have in common though are iconic leaders – Frederick the Average and Little Boney.
Quote from: John Cook on 07 March 2019, 12:18:54 PM
The war in Europe seems to have almost as many separate wars going on as the Napoleonic Wars. Furthermore, how can the SYW in Europe be considered in the same breath as the French and Indian War and the war in India? All completely different in nature and scope to my layman's eyes.
The most farsighted politician England has ever bred thought otherwise.
John
Could not have put it better. I am doing the 'fallow' period of the French Revolutionary Wars which incorporates elements of both those referred to in the basic discussion.
Chad
Quote from: FierceKitty on 07 March 2019, 12:35:04 PM
The most farsighted politician England has ever bred thought otherwise.
Was he a wargamer?
No, he did it for real.
<flippant mode>on</flippant mode>
Maybe because SYW takes less time to type/say than Napoleonics? :P
<flippant mode>off</flippant mode>
Hang on: " Then there is 'background activity' in the form of the Peninsular War "
Why is the Peninsula "background"? >:(
Quote from: Dr Dave on 07 March 2019, 08:44:56 PM
Hang on: " Then there is 'background activity' in the form of the Peninsular War "
Why is the Peninsula "background"? >:(
Because all the cool kids were at Leipzig.
Leman, grahambeyrout and Westie make some interesting points. I agree the SYW is more compact both in scale and deployment. However, that doesn't make it Superior. Looking at the obverse, one could say it lacks scope and is tactically constrained.
There is a lot of colour in the SYW, but I do find the preponderance of tricorns rather dull.
@jimduncanuk - oilskin covers
@steve_holmes_11 - yes those accents are horrible
@John Cook - Sort of agree with a lot you wrote. I may even reluctantly accept the Peninsula War comment.
@FK - Sorry for the late reply, I had a had time finding someone fluent in Prig, though I shall respond fully:
Agree with Leman's point about balance; I find the balance of the big three arms unmatched. You really do need to get your money's worth from all three to win.
OK.
Historical significance. The world we're currently inhabiting was shaped by that war, more I'd say than any other since the Neanderthals backed down. Hyperbole.Its results probably included i) a Prussian-dominated Germany, not an Austrian one; Yet the Prussians were forced to rebuilt after the major disasters of 1806, and the wars of the mid C19 had more to do with Prussian domination. ii) the British Empire, and the fact that we're having this discussion not in French, but in English (giving a few UK members the benefit of the doubt);Simplistic, but OK iii) the French Revolution (Britain had colonies to export the hungry and idle to);Reaching. iv) the alarming realisation that Russia was now firmly seated at the grown-ups' table; Peter I and the Great Northern Warand v) the creation of a really attractive Pendraken figure range.OK
Cultural elements. I can't insist that everyone agree with this, but I've got a thing for 18th century civilisation. Greatest age of music, last great era of architecture, some super-readable poetry, the rise of atheism, and a characteristic chuckle of derision rather than howl of anger at one's opponents. Irrelevant, and you're trying to pick out 7 years from the whole century. I shall claim 8 from Valmy to Marengo and declare myself the winner. You may as well say WWII is a really interesting war because of Punk music and The Tale of Pigling Bland. This shows itself in the uniforms; by contrast the Napoleonic stuff looks vulgar and overdressed to my eye.Really? Napoleonic uniforms (especially those towards the end of the 23 years of conflict) were a lot simpler and more practical than the SYW. Hussars excepted, of course.
National balance (not the same as point one). Of the Big Five, four are serious armies with marked strengths; only the French are in a fallow period between Louis XIV and Napoleon I. Meh. One could say the same of the Napoleonic Wars - except the "fallow French"
Brilliant generalship. Yes, I freely grant Napoleon's breath-taking skill when he got it right. But he himself admitted he couldn't have beaten Fritz. And when we add Browne, Daun, Haddik, Clive, Wolfe, Henry, Seydlitz, Ziethen, and numerous victories against amazing odds....Couple of one hit wonders in there, but one could (and I won't) give a list of equally brilliant generals from Wellington downwards. Also Frederick 20 battles, Napoleon 60. Much more scope to have the odd day off.
The Hohenfriedburg march and tricorne hats.The 1812 Overture, Beethoven's Symphonies 1-8, Nelson Mass ... Belgic Shakos, Crested helmets, bicorns
In short then, Gentlemen, I concur that the SYW has much to offer. I do not mean this in any way disrespectfully, but it is less complex that the Naps and generally fought on a smaller scale. It is, despite the extra corner on the majority of hats, as colourful as Naps, and both conflicts have almost global scope.
Quote from: Leman on 07 March 2019, 04:43:30 PM
No, he did it for real.
Pah! Not a reliable witness then.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 07 March 2019, 10:21:11 PM
Because all the cool kids were at Leipzig.
Well there was the rocket troop. Plus about 100,000 muskets manufactured in GB 🤔.
GB bankrolled the entire thing
No GB = no Leipzig
Not to mention money which bankrolled all the coalitions. As for the Peninsular War and the others being 'background activity', note the quotation marks.
I dunno ............ everywhere you look, bloody tricorns:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/835/28605391507_28eb314bf4_z.jpg)
:D ;)
Quote from: Leman on 08 March 2019, 01:55:28 PM
I dunno ............ everywhere you look, bloody tricorns:
Yes, that's what happens when you brigade your grenadiers. :P
Looking at the "Uniforms of the Seven Years War" (Mollo McGregor, 1977), there are 171 figures. 105 (61%) in tricorns, 34 (20%) in grenadier or fur caps, 6 bareheaded and 26 in other headgear - including a couple in deerstalkers. A British Bttn had one grenadier cap for every 8 hatmen. I think we can say there's a lot of three-cornered hats on a SYW battlefield.
I have no problem with that and can see the appeal. The great Charles Grant with his figures (were they Spencer-Smith?) impressed me mightily. It is because of him I dislike firing/kneeling poses.
So perhaps we should rename the SYW as the War of the Great Tricorne Plague. 🤔😜
Quote from: fsn on 08 March 2019, 05:23:04 PM
Yes, that's what happens when you brigade your grenadiers. :P
Looking at the "Uniforms of the Seven Years War" (Mollo McGregor, 1977), there are 171 figures. 105 (61%) in tricorns, 34 (20%) in grenadier or fur caps, 6 bareheaded and 26 in other headgear - including a couple in deerstalkers. A British Bttn had one grenadier cap for every 8 hatmen. I think we can say there's a lot of three-cornered hats on a SYW battlefield.
I have no problem with that and can see the appeal. The great Charles Grant with his figures (were they Spencer-Smith?) impressed me mightily. It is because of him I dislike firing/kneeling poses.
I think they were mainly Norman-Newton (later Tradition) and Edward Suren 'Willie' 30mm figures. There may have been some Spencer-Smith in there too, possibly some of the cavalry.
Look at that. That firing line of standing and kneeling figures in their violet uniform facings looks dreadful. How much nicer they would look if they were just one lump of dull green. And as for those fellows having the temerity not to wear the tricorn............
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1765/42669355004_0170d02d1e_z.jpg)
It's quite simple....gentlemen and tricorns! :D
Wargaming in a tricorn is not a problem, but wargaming in a silly hat (shako) is (the stupid thing keeps overbalancing when you bend across the table to move the toys)!
@Leman I think you've made your point. I think we've acknowledged the colourfulness of the SYW. You will have to admit though, that a lot of tricorns will be needed. I will also state that the number of three sided hats does not make the SJW inferior to the Napoleonics. Gentlemen, can have no more comments about the excessively bent hats of the SYW?
You've also shows the kneeling figures in a firing line. What do they look like advancing in column? Those Grenadiers in their nice marching postures are, IMHO,
far superior. Kneeling figures pre 1900 are a hobby horse of mine:
I would dislike them put with Fritz,
I wouldn't like them not one bitz,
I would dislike them put with Nappy,
kneeling figs won't make me happy,
I do not like the kneeling fig,
Nor standing fire, nor doing a jig,
I do not like them, wise Leman,
Blue, or red, or white or tan,
I do not want them on my table,
for march in column they're not able.
Quote from: Leman on 09 March 2019, 07:25:46 AM
How much nicer they would look if they were just one lump of dull green.
Sirrah! You are dissembling! Not all skirmishers are the 95th (or 5/60th)! My favourite skirmishers are the Austrian Grenzer.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4d/b0/fe/4db0fea20343e2065d55c4f6ca1ff190.jpg)
Quote from: sunjester on 09 March 2019, 07:47:59 AM
It's quite simple....gentlemen and tricorns! :D
Wargaming in a tricorn is not a problem, but wargaming in a silly hat (shako) is (the stupid thing keeps overbalancing when you bend across the table to move the toys)!
May I suggest as a general officer, you upgrade to a bicorn? Unless you want to be a hussar, in which case I have no sympathy.
My sources describe the illustration as a Freikorps not Grenz
Quote from: sunjester on 09 March 2019, 07:47:59 AM
It's quite simple....gentlemen and tricorns! :D
Wargaming in a tricorn is not a problem, but wargaming in a silly hat (shako) is (the stupid thing keeps overbalancing when you bend across the table to move the toys)!
When it comes to hats in Battle, the helmet is the sensible choice (various types of Turban a close second where beliefs and morale dictate, or a fur hat in Brass monkey conditions)..
Silly hats are best restricted to the parade ground.
Between the Italian Wars and 1916 we see a golden age for the military Milliner.
What are the respective challenges of sculpting a tricorne, or a shako?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8a/af/43/8aaf4313d1f8afcd12e1a5be227bbf5a.jpg)
Agreed they are Grenz but the first picture was not.
Apologies. I just saw the colours and added the pic.
I've gamed both aplenty - and surely that's the key - which offers the best games. So who had the best poetry, art and music is a bit of a red herring. A nice bit of Mozart written around the time of the game setting will not make the game more interesting. Similarly using the 1812 Overture to say Napoleonics is better doesn't hold water. The 1812 was first performed in 1882 (I knew O level music would come in handy) - so that's more of a colonial era piece written about an event 80 years prior!
For me though it's Napoleonics I'm afraid. More interesting tactically and cavalry is able to have a far greater impact (for some reason) that it did 50 years earlier. SYW has always developed into a very linear bash and it becomes simply who has the nerve to break the impasse. And don't forget the maritime aspect. Much more going on in the Napoleonic age.
From the tricone era I'd ague that the AWI has the most to offer - more manageable and much more colourful than normal tricorne.
Just my 2p.
Err....the French and Russians were allies in the SYW.
you're right - but it's a game I've seen played - my bad :'(
AWI doesn't appeal to me for three main reasons: no cuirassiers; no hussars; and the Americans are the good guys.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 09 March 2019, 11:37:18 PM
AWI doesn't appeal to me for three main reasons: no cuirassiers; no hussars; and the Americans are the good guys.
Being in rebellion against a divinely appointed monarch hardly makes them the good guys! Plus some of the British units are simply lovely. But I take your point about the cavalry.
I have Stuart blood. If one of them had still been on the English throne, I'd have thought differently, no doubt. But a collection of bargain-basement German royalty divinely appointed? Thank God I'm an atheist.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 09 March 2019, 11:37:18 PM
AWI doesn't appeal to me for three main reasons: no cuirassiers; no hussars; and the Americans are the good guys.
I agree with points 1 and 3 but as to point 2 there were the Hussars of Lauzun's Legion
(https://jdglasco.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/lauzun-hussar-and-grenadier.jpg?w=450&h=632)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4623/40505323692_bff8d43b7c_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24HjnxS)
And I find AWI appealing enough to have painted almost 2,500 figures for it ;)
Thanks. I've learned something this day. :)
Lauzun's Legion is an interesting unit, one of the early examples of a French Foreign Legion being mainly German
Discipline was not what it could have been with deserters swapping between the Legion and Hessian units in British service
One quote that stands out is a report of looting by the Legion with even the Grenadiers joining in, looting was expected of the Hussars
Clearly tricornes were necessary to maintain that fine 18th century moderation and gentlemanliness.
Well that's some fine thread derailling, Gentlemen - talking about that grubby rebellion.
If I might sum up the conversation, the SYW is smaller, less complex and just as colourful as Napoleonics. The period of Napoleonic has many facets, from (if one stretches it) the Revolutionary masses to the SYW-like Prussians of 1806 to the rise of German nationalism and the Landwehr of 1813. These facets have their own identity, making it possibly three periods in one (Revolution (1792-1803), Napoleon Triumphant (1804-1812) and Napoleon at Bay (1812-1815)). There is a greater variety of tactics, and some new weapons (e.g. rockets, Shrapnel, rifles in great number) that appeared during the period.
Does that make Napoleonics superior? No. Does it make SYW superior? No. Does the fact that the SYW hats either have too many corners or look like a row of popes make it inferior? No.
It all comes to preference.
I prefer Napoleonics. If I want solid masses of troops in bent hats moving slowly with too much cavalry to paint, I will go to the WSS.
FSN - you've hit it on the head.
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.
👍👏
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).
Yeah, yeah, yeah ....... what if! What if that dick Cameron had had the guts to make decisions on his own.
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.
Quote from: Leman on 10 March 2019, 09:08:18 AM
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!!
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 :P). 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.
Tricorns.
Quote from: Leman on 10 March 2019, 09:08:18 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Last Hussar on 10 March 2019, 10:29:18 AM
Tricorns.
If a tricorne is a hat, why is a unicorn a horse?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/95/6b/c3/956bc35b918e3c74eb704e5881ba1f97.jpg)
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Chad on 10 March 2019, 12:47:49 PM
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.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 10 March 2019, 08:41:15 AM
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.
Quote from: fsn on 10 March 2019, 09:46:31 PM
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/95/6b/c3/956bc35b918e3c74eb704e5881ba1f97.jpg)
Don't think I've ever seen a 'bay' with gray tail
and mane :-
Cheers - Phil
That's what you picked up from a drawing of a horse with 3 horns?
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.
Quote from: fsn on 10 March 2019, 09:46:31 PM
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/95/6b/c3/956bc35b918e3c74eb704e5881ba1f97.jpg)
Does anybody know a model maker?
It seems the ideal mount for all those SYW cavalry.
;D ;D ;D - tri, tri and tri again!
Quote from: Leman on 11 March 2019, 11:04:32 AM
;D ;D ;D - tri, tri and tri again!
Well, goodbye....
Quote from: Leman on 11 March 2019, 11:04:32 AM
;D ;D ;D - tri, tri and tri again!
That was very corny.
Quote from: fsn on 11 March 2019, 08:06:04 AM
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 ! :D)
If you'd used something other than your crayons, Nobby....... ;)
Cheers - Phil :)
Was Nobby still at school in 2009?
Dunno, Andy.
But any written correspondence I get from Nobby, is usually written in crayon. ;)
Cheers - Phil
That's some very careful colouring there!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Leman on 12 March 2019, 10:43:45 AM
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 :D
Quote from: fsn on 12 March 2019, 10:20:57 AM
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.
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.
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. ;)
@WestmarcherWithout 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.
You're old fashioned. :P
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 ...
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.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 12 March 2019, 12:43:55 PM
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?
Quote from: fsn on 12 March 2019, 05:15:50 PM
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.
Quote from: fsn on 12 March 2019, 01:50:46 PM
@Westmarcher
The idea of 1 figure equalling an exact number of men seems rather old school also, especially for 10mm Call me old fashioned..
Quote from: Westmarcher on 12 March 2019, 03:41:48 PM
You're old fashioned. :P
Quote from: fsn on 12 March 2019, 05:15:50 PM
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.
Quote from: John Cook on 12 March 2019, 05:54:35 PM
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. ;)
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.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 12 March 2019, 07:40:31 PM
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.
@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.
Quote from: Leman on 12 March 2019, 08:35:32 PM
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.
Quote from: fsn on 12 March 2019, 09:58:45 PM
@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.
Quote from: John Cook on 12 March 2019, 05:49:21 PM
What is an element?
Term oftentimes employed to designate a base, normally
of many one, in Wordsworth's words.
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.
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 :)
Quote from: FierceKitty on 13 March 2019, 03:31:59 AM
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.
Bollocks to this pointless thread now!
Agreed.
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.
Quote from: John Cook on 13 March 2019, 12:56:02 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: barbarian on 14 March 2019, 11:27:04 AM
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.
Quote from: barbarian on 14 March 2019, 11:27:04 AM
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.
Tricornes at e never irrelevant.
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.
Agreed. Grant and Young were great influences on my concept of what a wargames table should look like. There was a "toy soldier" simplicity to their set ups, which I have always attached to the SYW.