"Peninsula, Waterloo vs Continental wars" Topic

We play continental first, after that peninsular en never, never, never waterloo.
Continental (from French revolution up to 1809) is so much more exiting and has more possibilities then waterloo.

Duc,

Come on, you must have played Waterloo at least once?

Never, even when I had my old airfix 20mil we never played, incredible but true

What are the new English translations of French glossy book you are referring to for 1800 and prior?

Continental (especially 1813-14) AND Peninsular – though as the group's 'odds and sods' man, most of my Peninsular troops are Portuguese and Spanish (both sides).

I agree that the 100 Days gets way too much attention from the manufacturers, especially in the British lines. The Belgic shako MAY have started to appear in Wellington's army by Vittoria, but only in small numbers. It did show up in America, so War of 1812 gamers are pretty well set. But for most of the period, you need the stovepipe.

Peninsular War not at all. Im not sure why: not enough cavalry used? I do like this arm of service.
The Continent from 1809 to 1814.I have French,Confederation, Prussian, Russian, Austrian armies for this.
But Waterloo is a favourite.So much happened in so little time.
I am currently fighting the post-Waterloo invasion of France with a more determined French opposition. Driving in rear-guards. Capturing strongpoints. Full battles.
The Prussians and Anglo-Dutch are having a hard time of it.

"Never, even when I had my old airfix 20mil we never played"

I did Waterloo with Airfix 20mm using WRG 16xx-18xx. That was a good weekend.

The French won (don't they always;-)

The Peninsula is always popular with the British crowd – Their best troops up against second string French armies with inferior cavalry. The Hundred Days is the only other campaign in which the British participated.

Not that I have anything against my cousins across the pond. But miniatures wargaming as we know it now is still very much British-driven. I would not expect them to see the "continental" campaigns as anything but an afterthought.

Having said that, I look for a competative campaign. But it's hard to find one in which the armies are evenly matched--except maybe 1809. There, the French have some very good veteran units, but also a lot of fluff, due to large numbers tied up in Spain. We also see Bavarians, Saxons, and Wurtemburgers taking part in major battles. On the Austrian side, we see the employment of a corps system for the first time, and a lot of battle-hardened infantry, along with great cavalry.

In the early years, French line infantry are like guards in the later campaigns. In 1812 we have inevitable disaster for the French, as long as the Russians don't let themselves be trapped. In 1813 the French are fighting with improvised formations and not enough cavalry to inflict a decisive defeat upon their opponents.

The Hundred Days is pretty balanced, though. At the outset, Napoleon's strategic genius largely offset his 1-2 disadvantage in numbers. If a few low-ranking non-British officers had not disobeyed orders and held Quatre Bras, the Prussians would have been crushed by D'Erlon in their rear. Then Wellington would have faced Napoleon alone. Like someone else wrote – "lots of what-ifs."

"lots of what-ifs."

This is precisely what draws us to war-gaming I feel. Sure the uniforms are pretty, the personalities are larger than life and the grandeur of the period is enormous but the what-ifs really suck us all in.

Shane