http://www.ospreypublishing.com/blog/Field_of_Glory_Napoleonic_coming_in_March_2012/
I know its highly unlikely to be everyones cup of tea but I am genuinely excited about this. The vast majority of stuff that has been released Naps wise over the past few years has been v.poor.
Yep, I know there are several round these parts looking forward to the release of FoG Nappys.
But for my gaming group we really like DBN, http://www.dbnwargaming.co.uk
It plays smooth especially with multiple players per side. One on One play is great, game over inside an hour using the basic points per army.
We just need Prussians to show up in the Pendraken world :D :D
FoG all periods absolute s***e
Quote from: Jim Ando on 14 December 2011, 03:13:16 PM
FoG all periods absolute s***e
Do say what you think why dont you. I'd disagree.
I alos like WMA, BCK series, hail Cearser, BP, and battle Group MR.
IanS
Have to agree with Jim Ando - thank the gods Osprey are going to turn their hand to other types of rules!
Does anyone know what scale there aimed at I mean regimental or brigade sized bases?
Cheers
From what I've been able to glean so far a base represents 450 inf or 175 cav and a unit of 4 bases is a brigade/regiment.
Any ideas what base sizes will be?
Cheers,
Andy
Blind guess - but 40mm frontage, depths as per ren or ancients.
IanS
Quote from: tzen67 on 15 December 2011, 09:48:51 AM
Any ideas what base sizes will be?
Cheers,
Andy
See this post on the FoG Forum
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16955
Look for the response from the playetest team - however this was June this year
Cheers Nosher :-*
It seemed to get the usual TMP treatment: http://theminiaturespage.com/news/talk/msg.mv?id=1163926818 (http://theminiaturespage.com/news/talk/msg.mv?id=1163926818)
I too am looking forward to the arrival of FOG. Napoleonics has always been my period of choice but FOG Ancients has really had me enjoying my games since I overdosed on DBM. I expect the new FOG to do the same for my 1809 fetish!
I stand by the point I made on TMP.
I have better things to spend £75 on than another set of Napoleonic rules + 2 (essential?) supplements.
Chad
#:-S
I am going with Le Feu Sacre III by Too Fat Lardies. Affordable, quick play and fun for corps level battles. And I really like the emphasis on command control and FOW within LFSIII.
Here is a site with napoleonic replays using LFSIII:
http://www.fat-wally.com/LeFeuSacre.html
I recently picked up a copy of General de Brigade which seems quite interesting once you get your head around a few of the concepts.
I took a look at some of the FoG stuff and found it.. erm... a bit like Warhammer simplified, but with all the twiddly complex bits left in. I might not be giving it a fair run though in honesty.
GdB might be ok, but I used to play it with a 28mm megalomaniac, who insisted in stuffing the table wall to wall with unit and to be honest it was as dull as ditchwater. But I suspect that was more a case of the man rather than the rules, which in all fairness read well enough.
Gordon
I've done G de Brigade for 15mm and they worked well, gave a fun nights gaming. Would work well in 10mm. I've also tried a variant set of Gdb (cant remember the name) for 7YW. Its usually a good sign when a rules mechanics move between periods.
Interested to see what Napoleonic FOG is like. I've tried FoG for a War of the Roses battle and they seemed okay.
I've heard there is a new version of the core FOG rules coming out, anyone know if this is true or if there is a date?
Dave T.
There is a V.2 on the way but no idea of timescale involved.
Lasalle has had some good reviews & is a worth a look only about a tenner for the pdf.
http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/modules-games/lasalle/ (http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/modules-games/lasalle/)
I have Lasalle and whilst I enjoy it for me there is something missing that I just cant put my finger on. Also tried Napoleon at War and whilst similar to Lasalle it has more holes than ementahl...
Interesingly i'm off to Burton this weekend for a 900pt FOG doubles tournament!
I'm still not overly convinced by FOG, having intiatially tried it on release and rejected it for 2 years. I've recently come back to it and its not a bad set of tournement rules. I certainly haven't embraced it the way i did with DBM.
FOGN...hmm...not sure.
FOG seems to me to be essentially a tournament ruleset with all the gamist quirks therein. Napoleonics for me has always seemed essentially a scenrio play period. I'm not sure how that will transfer to the tournament ethos of FOG.
Frankly though, i find it sort of odd when any company brings out a new Napoleonic ruleset...after all, unless its bringing something truely revelational to the period, isn't it just a case of 'bandwagon?! I'll have some of that!'
What I may do is wait two years until they're flogging off FOGN cheap (like i did with FOG) and pick it up then...unless the chaps at the club are keen on doing it right now of course...unlikely i suspect.
My copy of the FOG:N rules arrived today. No idea how good they are, and I have no experience of the previous FOG rule sets, but it is a beautifully presented book. I hope to get a chance to look through it at the weekend.
There was a copy at the club last night. Certainly the usual eye candy, but since we haven't sorted out FOGR yet, i think FOGN will be a way off for me! ;D
If anyone is interested Amazon still have FoG:N up at the pre-order price of £15.48 instead of £25.00 retail price.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1849089264/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=youchoosenet&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=1849089264 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1849089264/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=youchoosenet&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=1849089264).
I've considered stocking things like FoG, but it's prices like that on Amazon which mean there's no point as the profits are so low. I can't remember the exact details, but I don't think we could buy them in at that price with trade discount!
Quote from: Leon on 10 March 2012, 12:24:11 AM
I've considered stocking things like FoG, but it's prices like that on Amazon which mean there's no point as the profits are so low. I can't remember the exact details, but I don't think we could buy them in at that price with trade discount!
You certainly have a point Leon. I order the vast majority of my books from them even if there is sometimes delays. I cant see the point in paying full whack with (normally) excessive postage costs added too. It just sials against my breeding (tight-fisted Yorkshire git) ;)
However what I think might be worth PD's time is creating battalion/regiment packs of infantry/cavalry and artillery that match the rules. I'd certainly buy in such ways and I am sure this would make 10mm a more attractive proposition to naps gamers.
I think that FoG Napoleonic, Lasalle and Napoleon at War all have pretty much the same basing conventions, so at a stretch you might get away with packs that could cross three rule sets - if you added mdf bases to packs.....
Quote from: Nosher on 10 March 2012, 10:57:40 AM
However what I think might be worth PD's time is creating battalion/regiment packs of infantry/cavalry and artillery that match the rules. I'd certainly buy in such ways and I am sure this would make 10mm a more attractive proposition to naps gamers.
I think that FoG Napoleonic, Lasalle and Napoleon at War all have pretty much the same basing conventions, so at a stretch you might get away with packs that could cross three rule sets - if you added mdf bases to packs.....
This comes up quite often, but the thing that stops us is that the current rules-specific army packs don't sell in huge numbers, so we're unsure how worthwhile it would be to add more types. The WM Ancient and Medieval 1000pt'ers go very slowly, maybe only a dozen over a year, the Fantasy DBF ones even less that that. I think the only ones which have proved decent are the BKC packs, which we sell a couple a month of, and they go quite well at the shows as well.
Quote from: Leon on 10 March 2012, 02:33:11 PM
This comes up quite often, but the thing that stops us is that the current rules-specific army packs don't sell in huge numbers, so we're unsure how worthwhile it would be to add more types. The WM Ancient and Medieval 1000pt'ers go very slowly, maybe only a dozen over a year, the Fantasy DBF ones even less that that. I think the only ones which have proved decent are the BKC packs, which we sell a couple a month of, and they go quite well at the shows as well.
Sorry Leon - my post might not have been that clear. What I was suggesting was battalion packs which would be packs (with relevant command) that would be 30-40 figures per pack, not complete armies. The advantage you would have is that battalions/regiments in FoG/Lasalle and NaW are practically the same figure wise. Similarly this could include Brigade Packs of 3/4 battalions/regiments. I dont think that this would be too different from what you do already, and naturally the pack prices would have to go up in proportion.
I know this is a Magister Militum 'Model' but I do think players of others scales considering 10mm would see your new ranges of Naps being even more competitively priced. When I approached MM to ask if they would do 'different' pack structures for Lasalle they were accomodating BUT at it came at cost when they wanted to charge almost £1 extra per pack for what was about three or four figures different.
I think with things like this, it comes down to which method is going to result in the easiest experience for the customer, and then whether it works for us.
As a complete change in the way we structure our packs, I can see the advantages of doing packs to suit certain rulesets, and including command etc., but would that make it better/worse for the average customer? At the moment, around 5% of our orders are custom '32 of these, 48 of those' style orders, which is fine. If we went to more specific pack compositions, would that % increase with people wanting just line troops, or just the command figures? That's without factoring in the way the moulds are set up and the increased time needed to spin 2/3 moulds for each pack.
Alternatively, offering it as a separate option could be done, but that would require time to put the pack compositions together, and then make all the changes to the website. Unfortunately, we just don't have the time at the moment to sort anything like that, and our priority has to be getting more photo's up and getting orders out quicker.
As always though, folk are more than welcome to place custom orders for whatever odds and ends they need, it's no bother at all. And we won't stick an extra £1 on for the priviledge... :D
FoG arrived yesterday. Lot of reading to do before we can try them.
Chad
Mine has just arrived and will be looked at during my lunch hour ;)
Whoop, whoop!
24 or 36 figure regiments and 12 or 18 figure cavalry units. 1 gun per base.
I think I feel an Austrian *order* coming on! Look out for a request along the lines of:
Dear Mr Nice man Leon, can you sort me out some 24 figure units with relevant command etc. What is the exact composition of pack XYZ12? and pretty please with cherries on top can I have etc etc , pretty pretty please, pendraken reallly are very nice men, witter witter etc.
Hi
Is Napoleonic FoG the same thickness as FoGR.
As FoGR came in handy to stop my dinning table from rocking.
That was about the only use I could find for them.
Jim
Quote from: Jim Ando on 17 March 2012, 05:04:35 PM
Hi
Is Napoleonic FoG the same thickness as FoGR.
As FoGR came in handy to stop my dinning table from rocking.
That was about the only use I could find for them.
Jim
OOOOOhhhhhh :P
Sticks and stones....
Quote from: Leon on 10 March 2012, 03:50:51 PM
I think with things like this, it comes down to which method is going to result in the easiest experience for the customer, and then whether it works for us.
As a complete change in the way we structure our packs, I can see the advantages of doing packs to suit certain rulesets, and including command etc., but would that make it better/worse for the average customer? At the moment, around 5% of our orders are custom '32 of these, 48 of those' style orders, which is fine. If we went to more specific pack compositions, would that % increase with people wanting just line troops, or just the command figures? That's without factoring in the way the moulds are set up and the increased time needed to spin 2/3 moulds for each pack.
Alternatively, offering it as a separate option could be done, but that would require time to put the pack compositions together, and then make all the changes to the website. Unfortunately, we just don't have the time at the moment to sort anything like that, and our priority has to be getting more photo's up and getting orders out quicker.
As always though, folk are more than welcome to place custom orders for whatever odds and ends they need, it's no bother at all. And we won't stick an extra £1 on for the priviledge... :D
Having had a closer look at the Naps range and then thinking back to this conversation I'm now a bit confused? Soem of the new packs in the 1809 ranges are 20 figures for £2 of which 3 figures are command figures?
Whats the thinking behind these packs?
Quote from: Nosher on 17 March 2012, 09:56:07 PM
Having had a closer look at the Naps range and then thinking back to this conversation I'm now a bit confused? Soem of the new packs in the 1809 ranges are 20 figures for £2 of which 3 figures are command figures?
Whats the thinking behind these packs?
The new Naps packs are 16 figures for £2, which allows folk to buy smaller quantities of things like light troops/grenadiers, and we can fit two codes-worth into a single mould.
Alles klaar
Playtested 800 points of 1812 French and Russians tonight and I have to say that after some false starts (Lasalle/NaW) I may have found a half decent Napoleonic ruleset in FoG. Sorry but no photos, wnated to concentrate fully on the rules rather than pissing around with a camera (which I'm not very good at anyway!) Plus the figures were my very dusty 15's from years ago!
I had four divisions per side - the French had two standardish infantry divs, one cavalry division and a 'mixed' allied division of Pole/Badeninfantry and Neopolitan Cavalry. The Russians had two standard infantry divisions, one cavalry division and a grenadier division.
In a nutshell the game was a fair scrap - with both sides evenly matched and the game swang this way and that throughout the four hours it took to play - the French eventually winning through but not without receiving a very bloody nose.
What I can say is that FoG Naps is NOT FoG ancients, neither is it FoG (R), the game play is almost entirely different. I found the rules pleasantly surprising with soem neat new mechanics. Yes the wording could be better and a few more diagrams of play would help, but all in all I think I will be back for more.
Sadly I dont think FoG Naps will have universal appeal to sceptics who see FoG as purely competition gaming, but to those open to trying a new game mechanic with half as many modifier tables as has previously been seen in the FoG stable I think you might be pleasantly surprised. After a few turns I could remember most of the modifiers.
Hi alll,
during the week we tested, in the club, Song of Drums and Shakos large Battle, written by Sergio Laliscia using the game engine of Ganesha Games.
The first impression is very god. The game flow smoothly with few modifiers ad the activation system which add lot of suspence to the game.
The rules can be played at Division/Corp level (we tested the latter), and with any figures scale, but it's perfect for 10mm.
We wil continue the testing, but I think this set worth really a try.
Sandro
Quote from: Nosher on 17 March 2012, 10:15:12 AM
24 or 36 figure regiments and 12 or 18 figure cavalry units. 1 gun per base.
So is that 24 figures to a multi-battalion regiment of say 3000 men, or per battalion. 12-18 figures for a 500-1000 man cavalry regiment sounds pitifully low, as has been the trend of late. A Napoleonic battle should look like a Napoleonic battle, with lots of figures. Not a skirmish.
We use 1/20 ratio in 15mm, so you can field units from 200 man to 1000 man strong quite adequately, thus allowing all historical combinations of TOE/OOB.
Any more details of the how the rules work? I saw on the Osprey site the mention of battlegroups :o which is a bit like Werhmacht Napoleonics, sounds very ominous.
Mark
Not sure what you're driving at MarK?
I was simply stating that the numbers of figures needed to represent a regiment under the rules matched that which I have within my own collections - hence I wouldn't need to be rushing out and buying lots of new stuff nor indeed having to rebase.
I cant comment on the osprey mention of battlegroups as I dont visit their site.
I am trying my best to get a second game in with a narrative of how the rules work, but am finding real life getting in the way a bit too much
Posted up my first impressions of FoG:N (http://ferbsfightingforces.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/first-impressions-field-of-glory.html) on my blog.
Ferb
Thanks for the write up Ferb - as you say there's a lot more to the rules than Lasalle, but thats no bad thing. I actually prefer FoG N to Lasalle and think I will have more joy getting friends to play it than I did Lasalle.
@ Nosher, just trying to find out what figure ratio the rules use. No one seems to want to say.
Having based lots of other peoples' figures for various sets over the years, there appears to have been a frightening tendency to use say 9 figures to a regiment, 24 figures to a brigade, 6 figures to a cavalry regiment, and so on, regardless of whether said regiment is a single 300 man battalion or 4000 man brigade. Was wondering if FOG-N had fallen into the same trap?
Rules that don't use proper figure/man ratios are junk in my opinion, because you could get the absurd situation where, say, a Russian regiment of 2 battalions each of 350 men, is equal in combat power to a full strength British Brigade of 3 Regiments each of 800 men, plus attached riflemen. Okay, they might have different combat factors representing their "national characteristics", but the numbers should count for something. Plus it looks crap on the wargames table - once played a 15mm refight of a Peninsula battle at Blackpool club using Age of Empires I think, the one based on F&F at brigade level, and it was a lot of empty space with a few figures here and there, looked like a skirmish between a couple of companies, or a wargame of a re-enactment group.Not impressed.
Not that's there anything wrong with the F&F system, we use it for Napoleonics but worked downwards to battalion level, we play corps level battles with individual battalions, activating brigades at a time. And it looks like a Napoleonic battle.
This is part of the content list on the Osprey site:
# Introduction
# The Basics
# Battle Groups
# Command & Control
# Playing
# Movement Rules
# Impact Phase
# Manoeuvre Phase
# Shooting Phase
# Melee phase
# The Combat Mechanism
# Joint Action Phase
# Battle Group Deterioration
# Victory & Defeat
# Special Features
And I quote "realistic deployments and battlefield tactics of the early modern era. "
Early modern era is 1950s-60s modern wargaming :o
Using WW2 terminology in a Napoleonic set is just an abuse of language to me, I don't get it. What's wrong with the terminology of the period - brigades, legions, advance guards? Notice also their are 5 phases, presumably a turn. They've done everything to put me off looking at the rules so far, before I've even picked one up. :(
Mark
Quote from: sultanbev on 17 April 2012, 09:10:07 AM
@ Nosher, just trying to find out what figure ratio the rules use. No one seems to want to say.
Within the design philosophy there isn't a definition of x amount of figures equals whatever formation.
However in the section on recreating historical orbats, the designers suggest that up to 2000 men in a unit is classified as a small unit whereas 3000+ is classified as a large unit. A 'Unit' in FoG N represent various nations interpretations of Brigade/Regiment etc, so for example a Large French unit is a regiment of 2-6 battalions. A Small British Unit might represent a brigade of two Battalions.
I think you might struggle with the rules Mark because by your own definition they do exactly what it is that frustrates you about Napoleonic systems. The units do look a bit smallish given what they represent, and initially I was quite surprised just how small thinsg appeared. Rather pleasingly though this proved wrong in game play because of the subtleties of the command and control system. The battles that I have played have looked the part - but if you're used to having 2000+ figures on the tabel this isn't going to be the rule set for you.
A game 'turn' constitutes the following:
1. Command Point Allocation - Corps Commanders issue Command Points to their sub commanders. (Takes about ten seconds)
2. Assault Phase - units wishing to assault decalre assaults, targets chooses their response and firing is conducted against chargers
3. Firing Phase - all firing other than that in assault phase takes place. Active player fires first followed by inactive player - shotting is not simultaneous! Breath of fresh air!!!
4. Movement takes place - active player only. Reserves and Flank marches arrive
5. Combat Phase - all close combat is resolved
6. Recovery Phase - both sides can attempt to recover disorder - which is where everything tends to start to go wrong. Disorder left unchecked rapidly decreases and can lead to rapd army detrioration
I have found that the turn sequence is far more intuitive than previous FoG sets - yes there are tables of modifiers to take into account, but because the to hit factors are far simpler (almost BKC-esque) I found I could grasp what to hit factors I needed very quickly which speeds up game play tremendously.
For me FoG N covers Corps Sized games accuartely and gives realistic outcomes without some of the cheesiness I have seen in games like Lasalle and NaW. I will probably still play Lasalle for Divisional Games.
Horses for courses
Thanks for that Nosher.
Suppose it comes from tank gaming background, where TOE and numbers mean something.
I come from an age where 1:20 or 1:33 or 1:50 was a norm for any pre-20th Century gaming. To me this growing trend to have amorphous units to me is a dumbing down of the period that goes back to DBM days I guess.
I wonder how these rules and others go on with unique one-of battalions, eg 5th Bttn/60th, Neufchatel battalion, US 15th Regiment with 3rd rank pike? The beauty of Napoleonics is the huge variety of uniforms and troop types fielded - when a wargame manouevre unit is 2000-3000 you lose a lot of that, kinda defeats the object.
Luckily our group has a basic set we've used for a decade, and it has evolved, like all rules. As I also come from a generation where writing or re-writing your own rules was also a norm. :) And we have a random command system that is just plain wicked!
I think they used those terms to be consistent within their own range of wargaming rules; by the way: "early modern" really refers to the timeframe stated by Osprey (I'd even say that its almost too late to be early modern), not the Vietnam war or something like that, so don't worry about that one.
I'll definitely give FOG:N a try in the not too far away future; and yes, I'm perfectly fine with units of 24-30 figures (as long as they are 20mm + big) ;)
Greetings
There are problems in representation both with 'generic' units and building units using precise ratios. With precise ratios you have to accommodate the sometimes significant changes in individual unit strengths between actions.
Further it is unlikely there was really a linear relationship between numbers and effectiveness at a unit level. With generic you can lose individuality and the size relationships between units/formations.
Looking at the appendices in Gill's 1809 books demonstrates how quickly many of the Austrian battalions lost signfiicant numbers but remained as fighting units - using the a fixed ratio one might well have a lot of spare figures after the start of that campaign. For example at 1:50 moving from say 20 figures (1008 men) to 13 figures (653) for the same unit [invented as I don't have Gill to hand]. While this problem is not absent using a more generic representation (moving from a 6-stand to a 4-stand battalion for this Austrian battalion) it is less. What would be really difficult to my mind is having all battalions of whatever size represented by 4 stands and then differentiating units of very different sizes.
I found when researching Eugene's operations of 1809 that using something like Grande Armee in order to deploy the whole armies with 'brigade' stands also led to problems of representation because although the ratios could be variable the varying make up of commands from one action to another meant that the mix of uniform/figure types on a stand should really change to be right for a particular action. So you end up with a lot of additional bases to cater for this. This issue is at least absent with a FOG-N level representation (though I suppose you could have a mixed unit of something like Legion du Midi and Hanoverienne).
Thinking about FOG-N and moving to more specifics I thought I'd use the numbers from Oman for the French at Castalla in April 1813. If my notes are correct battalion strengths are between 593 (44e Ligne) and 856 (1/117e Ligne). As most of the regiments had two battalions present 'regimental' strength varied (ignoring the single battalions) from 1186 to 1554. The three divisions' infantry were: 1e: 5104 in 7 bns (plus 2 coys) [av 729], 2e: 4052 in 6 bns [av 675], and 3e: 2772 in 4 bns [av 693]. At 1:50 you could field battalions with 12-17 figures or field average battalions (which some 1:50 rules do, which I imagine equates to using standard battalions for Black Powder.
Personally I'd expect the corps commander to be interested in the number of his battalions but if organising at a higher level as FOG-N seems to do, then I would still want to be able to differentiate the divisions with a roughly 5:4:3 strength ignoring quality for the sake of this discussion. Digging around reviews of FOG-N I found that it seems that: 2000-3000 men = 1 large unit; 3000-4000 men = 2 small units; 4000-5000 men =1 small and 1 large; > 5000 = 2 large units (http://fuentesdeonoro.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/field-of-glory-napoleonic-review-part-1.html ). On this basis 1e Div has 2 large units, 2e Div has 2 small units and 3e Div has 1 large unit? The Allies (the numbers available are averages here anyway) had roughly: Advance Guard 2368 (1 line + 2 foreign bns + 2 light coys), Mackenzie 3356 (3 line + 2 Sicilian bns), Clinton 3700 (3 line + 2 foreign bns), Whittingham 3901 (6 Spanish bns). So in FOG-N these could be 1 large unit for the Advance Guard and 2 small units for each of the others? At this level I think I'd got for individual battalions especially as Castalla is effectively a Corps per side battle.
However as I'm more likely to do 10mm Napoleonics for 1809 rather than Peninsula (where I have a reasonable number of 15s based for 1:50) I suppose the question is whether one could get FOG-N to reasonably represent a number of the medium size actions i.e. all I am likely to fit on a 6' x 4' table? Taking Massena's IV Corps at Abensberg battalions varied between about 495 (67e Ligne) and 772 (3e Leger) with regiments between 1417 (93e Ligne) and 2312 (18e Ligne). Using the formula above all infantry regiments (fudging the Baden contingent to account for the jager battalion) seem to be represented either by a small or large unit in FOG-N (5 small, 10 large - rounding up - a couple are borderline) with brigades of 1-2 and divisions of 3-4 units.
Regards
Edward
Time to bring this back to the fore
What were peoples final thoughts of them now they have been out for a while
They read well, and there is enough in them to play a game. Not tried them yet though.
IanS
So what basing for 10mm are people using?
30x30
A friend is trying to get me into these, any further thoughts (of those who have expressed an interest and/or played) chaps?
They are releasing the early lists soon:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Emperors-Eagles-Field-Glory-Napoleonic/dp/1849089302/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1344379590&sr=8-2 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Emperors-Eagles-Field-Glory-Napoleonic/dp/1849089302/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1344379590&sr=8-2)
Are they better than Lesalle (£30 I regret spending)?
What level are they for? Division or Corps?
Would they work with multicorps games without drowning in paperwork (like Principles Napoleonic, great rule set, too much paperwork)?
Can you get a result in an evening?
Do they still 'feel' historical, after the game, down the pub, with a beer?
All this is so I can then reactivate the greatest army EVER*, 1806 Prussians (in 15mm, hurry up Pendraken, 7Years war/1806 Prussians needed), before I get tempted to buy 1809 Austrians!
*Please note, this statement is in relative terms, as I have played two dozen POW(N) games with them and a major campaign, they are simply the worst historical army in the period, and have never lost! Just got to know they are never doing anythind spectacular, but get them right and they will stop anyone, even Imperial Guard!
Quote from: mad lemmey on 07 August 2012, 10:51:02 PM
Are they better than Lesalle (£30 I regret spending)?
What level are they for? Division or Corps?
Would they work with multicorps games without drowning in paperwork (like Principles Napoleonic, great rule set, too much paperwork)?
Can you get a result in an evening?
Do they still 'feel' historical, after the game, down the pub, with a beer?
All this is so I can then reactivate the greatest army EVER*, 1806 Prussians (in 15mm, hurry up Pendraken, 7Years war/1806 Prussians needed), before I get tempted to buy 1809 Austrians!
Better than Lasalle? Two entirely different games, played both. Haven't picked up Lasalle again whereas played quite a fe wgames of foG N now and enjoy the latter more. I think I might enjoy Lasalle if I played it against an opponent
What level? Corps, however playing more than one coprs in a game would require multiple players IMO and naturally adds much more time to the game
Multicorps without drowning in paperwork? See above, some paperwork (army lists and unit labels but thats it)
Result in an evening? at 800 points (a Corps sized game) 3-4 hours at first 2-3 hours once you're familiar with the rules
Historical feel (even through beer goggles)? I think so, but then again most of my games are as wind down on Friday night with a pint or six... ;)
Can I win with 1806 Prussians? Your havin a giraffe!!!!!!! ;D
But it is the ultimate challange Nosher, take an army the you KNOW lost (and lost massively) and make it work, then make it win! ;)
It's a gteat army, the main problem is that it should (in POW terms) be rolling d4-1 for initiative each go! ;D
Quote from: mad lemmey on 08 August 2012, 07:46:44 AM
(in POW terms) be rolling d4-1 for initiative each go! ;D
Sucker for punishment mate, sucker for punishment ;)
Speaking of which I have volunteered for some punishment over on the totty thread :-[
I saw! You're a brave man sir!
I gladly sacrifice myself for my fellow man... :D
Quote from: Nosher on 08 August 2012, 01:36:25 PM
I gladly sacrifice myself for my fellow man... :D
Nosher: taking one for the team since 2002 ;) :D
Just got 'Empire & Eagles', oh wow! Lots of fun early lists, usable Brits, and, the best 'worst' army ever, why don't Pendraken do 1806 Prussians*?!!!
*Technically I could use 7 Years War Prussians, uniform didn't change greatly!
I particularly like the way the lists force a British Peninsula army to include lots of Poor Portugese and Spanish.
Cannon Fodder for my French ;D
Nowt wrong with the Portuguese, esp after 1809, but an army list that "forces" you to have another army is obviously not an accurate army list. You field the units you have in models and get the game to fit that, rather than the other way round, surely? Are the Sicilians in there?
Am just doing more Peninsula lists for the MicroMark collection, and whilst many British divisions had a Portuguese brigade, and the Brits commanded 2 Portuguese Cavalry Brigades, the rest of the Portuguese fought on their own. And the Spanish hardly ever came under British command.
On the same basis, presumably the French Peninsula list forces you to use dubious Spanish , Neapolitans and KoI troops as well?
Lemmey
1806 Prussian Uniform is distinctly different from SYW, just as it was different to the the uniform of the revolutionary period.
Chad
Chad, Thank you.
Thought the only major change was the length of tails and the facing - again, I stand corrected!