"Peninsula, Waterloo vs Continental wars" Topic

I keep hearing that manufacturers all do 1815 ranges or Peninsula ones because "Austrians/Russians/Prussians" would not sell, and they produce what sells.

So I'm curious to see what my fellow TMP'ers prefer.

Peninsula?
Waterloo campaign?
Continental battles?

Which of those three do you prefer? If continental, might be useful to say your favourite campaign.

This is not a thread to belittle those who like Peninsula/Waterloo btw. They all have their advantages. I'm just genuinely curious to know what people prefer.

Those who know me or have been on TMP long enough know I'm in the Continental wars group, 1809 being my favourite (but also have a soft spot for 1813 and 1799-1802).

For Napoleonics I almost exclusively do Peninsular and the 100 Days. While my Prussians often come out to play, my Russians don't much.

For me the Waterloo campaign is the Market Garden of Napoleonics, small enough to get your head around and do the whole thing, interesting mix of units, and so many what-ifs.

Peninsular. So much variation, and then there is Sharpe….

1809 Austrian campaign, big battles with plenty of colourful armies without having more than two main protagonists. Nice terrain, plenty of playable scenarios and not a walkover for Napoleon.

For Napoleonics I prefer the Peninsula, chiefly because of the mix of nationalities: French, British, Spanish, Portuguese, Germans (various nation states), Poles, Italians. So many uniforms to chose and all so colorful.

I have also been considering the 1806-07 campaign with its mix of French, Prussians (not the boring later uniform) and Russians.

Peninsular, but only because that's the equipment they were wearing in North American during the War of 1812.

Continental all the way. All the big stuff happened there and we have really been enjoying replaying the bicenntennials.

Although I will also do the 1812 bicentennials it looks like…

1809 for me too, but not the main battles – the smaller campaign in Saxony and Westphalia involving Austrians, Brunswickers, Saxons and Westphalians and even a renegade Prussian Hussar regiment. Lots of potential for what ifs, small battles that are very managable on the table top and an interesting mix of forces. Lots of white though!

For me its gotta be 1813-1814 Liberation of Germany/Fall of France everytime-maases from all nations :-))) Peter

I prefer Continental (1809 for balance 1813 for range of participants).

I find that if I want to get non-Napoleonic gamers to display any interest, initially at least I have to make the British somehow available so Peninsular and Waterloo are a necessary evil.

"So much variation, and then there is Sharpe…."

And this is a good thing?

Continental.
At the moment 1809 (the Danuve campaign)but thinking to expand into other continental campaigns.

Peninsula. I have an extreme fondness for the Redcoat and the Union Jack.

Nothing but the Continent, with the 1809 campaign at the forefront.

Tom

Peninsula and Waterloo. It's got be Brits against the French for me.

Continental, specifically 1813/14 campaigns. Lots of variety of nations involved and plethora of actions big and small.

1809 or 1813.

Another 1809, especially Italy.

Continental for me, and the Glory Years of 1800 – 1807 with bicornes instead of shakos, and the Grande Armee when it was at its finest and when many of its best brigade and division commanders are still alive. As I'm rebuilding my Napoleonic forces I am also building Prussian and Russian and eventually Austrian armies to fight the French. There is plenty of variety in that lot.

Although I do like those redcoats, I just don't enjoy painting them.

Speaking as a dealer of 15mm Napoleonics I have noticed this: by far my slowest selling nationality is Prussia, followed by Russia. My most popular is Spanish (in part because the brand I sell is particularly strong in this category being a Spanish manufacturer). After that France, the UK and Austria all sell about equally.

My issue with 100 days is the British troops aren't good for anything else (well, 1812 maybe) where as Peninsular British are good for a whole range of fascinating battles…

"So much variation, and then there is Sharpe…."

And this is a good thing?

Yes. The books are well documented and a source of information, as are all Bernard Cornwell's books. Now the TV series are an entirely different matter, though still fun.

1813 is my favourite, but we play both continential and Peninsular. By combining the two you have the opportunity to use all of the major, and most of the minor, armies of the Napoleonic Wars.

I prefer to fight campaigns, and there is none better than this. There is also the great advantage that the fighting abilities of all of the combatants was similar.

And if you want to fight a fictional campaign set in 1813 there are endless possibilities. For example Napoleon withdraws from Spain and Germany, concentrates his armies in France and has the opportunity to pick off the widely dispersed allied armies as they march against him. He has not lost the huge casualties and moral defeat of Leipzig and Vitoria, so you have the advantages of the 1814 campaign in France without the huge historical French disadvantages.

I like the Continental campaigns, but I don't plan on painting up Austrians, Prussians, nor Russians. I'd be glad to field more French against them though.

For me I am afraid Napoleonic games are the 100 days!
Like said above the 'Market Garden' of horse and musket :-)

But then it fits in with my 'Early war – that would be May '44' WWII philosophy :)

Rich

Continental – I play all of the Campaigns and have troops for them but 1809 is the favourite.

Firstly 1814 – how else can you legitimately use that division of Old Guard cavalry? Secondly, 1806 Prussia. what a contrast – the 18th century vs. the 19th century.

Everybody and their dog does 1809.

Peninsula, for obvious reasons.

Continental? In what sense are Spain and Belgium not continental?

Sorry, but I don't quite get the distinction here.

Well, It used to be just the Peninsula for me, but then I read the Alain Lausard books by Richard Howard and have started to dabble in Austria, Russia, Italy and the like.

-Will

Depends on my mood. Continental or Peninsular are both equally interesting.

Waterloo holds less interest to me than some of the other campaigns.

Until very recently, the global wargaming community (players and figure manufacturers) was overwhelmingly English-speaking (often with no other languages – the polyglot group in New Jeresey that first produced "Empires, Eagles and Lions" was a rarity); even now, they are still in the majority. Again, until recently, few authors focussed on non-British operations, or if they wrote about European armies/campaigns, did not do so at a level that was of use to wargamers in the way that, say, Duffy did about SYW Prussia and Austria. Thus, historically, the emphasis has been on British figures.

John Gill's and David Hollins' recent works, the English translations of "glossy" French books on the 1796-1800 and 1805-07 campaigns, and improved access to/presentation of military archives in non-English speaking nations, have sparked interest and provided useful information for the tabletop.

Whilst books on Waterloo – coinciding with the film and the Airfix ranges – sparked my interest in Napoleonic wargaming back in the 1960s and early 1970s, I quickly migrated to European armies when I got into metal. Oddly, hardly anyone did a decent range of Peninsula British until the 1980s, and it was 2000 before the Perrys gave us proper, accurate ranges of 1815 Dutch, Belgians and Germans.

Today, I cannot understand why new manufacturers insist on releasing yet more ranges of 1815 British (see the Renegade website), when there is still no decent range of British for the 1795-1805 campaigns, nobody does an anatomically good range of 1806 Prussians, and even the "mainstream" late war European armies have gaps and inaccuracies.

Eureka are to be applauded for biting the bullet and putting out a comprehensive range of figures for the pre-1800 campaigns, very similar to what Tony Barton did when he moved on from Battle Honours to AB – forget Waterloo, focus on the previous 25 years!!! According to information from Nic Robson, Eureka will cover all nations, for every campaign up to and including 1806-07. To my mind, this type of "gold standard" approach is the way forward.

I prefer The Peninisula as thats where my nation fought. I'm interested in the continent of course, but less so as the nations there are not ones I find as interesting as my own.

Having said that after the British my favourite army is the Austrian, so I wouldn't write the other off.

I do only the Peninsular War, using Willie and Stadden figures converted to the era. Stadden British were for Waterloo, but some are now converted to the Peninsula. I use the Waterloo uniform if the unit had also been in the Peninsula: 1st Foot: 27th; 40th for example. Elements of the French I and II corps; 4 Battalions of French for the IV corps, but in Bardin uniform; 3 german battalions, and 2 Polish.

The opposition is roughly 1/3 British; converted Portguese, and converted Spanish.

Lacking anyone to game with, no interest in other campaigns.

GdeP

Trajanus 13 Nov 2009 10:20 a.m. PST
'"So much variation, and then there is Sharpe…."
And this is a good thing?'

Absolutely. Having the biggest publishing indistry in the world means that there's tons to read about the Peninsula, and there are big battles all the way down to skirmishes to get inspired by.

And the battlefields are far more dramatic. And much more warm-looking. You ever seen a re-enactment of Austerlitz? I have – cold is not the word.

- According to information from Nic Robson, Eureka will cover all nations, for every campaign up to and including 1806-07. To my mind, this type of "gold standard" approach is the way forward. -

I couldn't agree more.

I'm new to Napoleonics and chose Peninsular. But I agree with Super Max -- too much overlap. We need companies to fill the gaps, especially in the Continental area.

Most of my collection is for Central Europe 1813, although I also have units for Northern Italy 1813-14, and small forces for the Spanish campaign 1811. I also have 6mm for the 1809 Danube campaign.

For me, the Peninsular is mainly of interest if the forces are French v Spanish.

Up at my club Peninsula is the favourite but we also do 1809, 1812 and 1815. Next year we are planning an 1805 campaign.
There are plenty of British armies and French armies but most have a continental army as well.

Continental

1809 thru 1813.

I have French, Bavarians, Italians, Russians, Austrians, Danes.

I like it all. My favorites are the Austerlitz and Waterloo campaigns. I have French, Austrian, Russian and Bavarian Armies (10mm).

Waterloo Campaign is almost a sure thing for anyone of my vintage, ie 50 somethings. Growing up in England, that is what we were raised on. I've finally and thankfully discovered 1809 because of the bi-centennial and have the Bavarian-Austrian struggle as a new must do, someday. But it will depend on the figures available. If Perry's do 1809, sign me up. They are the main reason I got back into Waterloo Campaign a few years ago.

Both ………… enough said …..both !!!

The struggles on the Continent interest me far more. Napoleon's brilliance in the Italian campaigns, Ulm, Austerlitz, and Jena-Auerstadt makes for an incredible story; the campaigns from 1809 on make for good matchups on the gaming table. People who only read/game the Peninsula and 100 Days are doing themselves a disservice.

…Of course I frequently wish I had decided to game Waterloo, as it's much easier to find a full range of figures!

Peninsula!

Peninsula. I also like the mix of uniforms and smaller state participation. And it lasted for 7 years. Finally, the spill of Brits in stovepipes in North America was a period I dabbled in years ago. Wish I kept the Foundry Americans, as they reside in Oz now.

The continenal campaigns for me. I have French and Austrians with Poles Russians and Prussians in waiting. No clear favourite, except to say its always the one I'm currently reading about.

As for Sharp. I've never read any of the books but I've just seen some of the TV shows on DVD. What a load of awful rubbish. Could not complete watching the shows.
Max

"Continental" (as defined here) all the way. I understand the attraction of the Peninsula on either a nationalistic basis for British wargamers or as a smaller and more easily managed project than the larger theatres, but to me it will always smack of a second-string league. When the subject comes up, I always ask if we can game 1808 … or if not then a hypothetical match-up with Davout's 3rd Corps from 1809 on. Strangely, the allure seems to fade when facing proper opposition.

The Waterloo campaign is, to me, a "continental" campaign that happens to include the British, and is very interesting in its own right – an entirely different matter than the Peninsula.

Waterloo (which I do understand is the Napoleonic equivalent of coming from Surrey yet supporting Man Utd).

I started out doing the invasion of Russia (mainly because I had been given the Haythornthwaite book on the retreat from Moscow and I loved the vast variety of uniforms). Now I'm more interested in the Peninsula but to be honest I don't restrict myself to anything very historical. I just paint up whatever units take my fancy at the time and don't worry about whether they actually ever met on the same battlefield. The fact that I hate painting French line infantry doesn't help matters. Frenchmen in blue coats are a rarity in my armies.

<<Waterloo (which I do understand is the Napoleonic equivalent of coming from Surrey yet supporting Man Utd).>>

Or wargaming's version of the prawn cocktail sandwich in the hospitality box.