"A Possible Solution to the TMP Napoleonic Problem" Topic

Yes, before we go on I am obviously part of the problem rather than the solution, but it's getting so bad now that people are getting put off asking questions because their threads get hijacked, in one very recent case inside a few posts.

Other wargamers often ask what it is about Napoleonics that makes it so much sparkier than everywhere else. In my estimation the problem is twofold, and cannot possibly go away.

Firstly, the central character is a rarity – a hate figure who can also be openly admired without identifying you as some kind of sick and twisted mostrosity. Let's face it, nobody in their right mind is going to stand up and support Hitler on the WW2 boards, are they? However, nobody else other than Cromwell comes close to causing instant issues. It seems you either love Napoeleon, hate Napoleon, or don't do the period.

The second part of the problem is that the loser actually wrote quite a lot of the history, which is a rarity in warfare and, I think, causes much ire to some. As such those who think of Napoeleon as a monster appear to insinctively assume that Napoleon's PR machine wa infinitely worse than everybody else's. This, of course, is the downisde of ending up the loser.

Anyway, my suggestion is that to replace the de facto Napoleonic Internecine Warfare board that was the old History board, Bill sets up a specific board which all and sundry understand will be inhabited by the rival sides and where they can batter each other without ruining the rest of the place. I would even suggest it to be an instant DH offence to take the fight outside said board, which might help sanitise the rest.

I rest my case.

Old Bear

Interesting suggestion. However, you are aware that Mr. Hollins will probably come and hijack this thread and turn into his centuries old grudge war against Mr. Kiley. You have been warned.

Water balloons at 10 paces would be more entertaining.

Doug

I favor a trap and release program, myself.

Old Bear, IT DID NOT WORK THE LAST TIME YOUR SUGGESTION WAS TRIED. What makes you think it will work again?

Napoleonic History was set up to give the "Learned Scholars" a spot to discuss things, and Napoleonic Discussion was to be left for the Loonies. OR was it the other way around? No matter.

Your suggestion only works if the disputants realize that sometines there is not rational discussion going on. Well, they do, and it's all the Other Guy's Fault.

You are also assuming that Dear Editor has nothing better to do than police the Napoleonic Mud Wrestling Board. and make sure that nothing spills over.

Dear Editor tried something similar with the CA and Religion Boards, before he got fed up with them, and exiled them to the Blue Fez.

The problem has nothing to do with history or scholarship.

It's all about emotions, now.

Go to a divorce court & see how well it works trying to paper over marital conflict.
Same situation applies here.

I like my solution: IGNORE!(+ add a snippy comment on both sides from time to time)

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

URST.

I guess I don't read enough of this board…

You really think so many people have a love/hate relationship with Napoleon? For me the period is about mass, but not too much, cool uniforms, and a lot of battles of all different sizes that allow you to game at a lot of different scales (army size scales, not figure size scales).

Dale

Old Bear,
I am a combo of Napy hater and don't do the period. I got tired of the Period in college with two classes in the French Rev.
Oh, and there are no helicopters or tanks.
Weaselhoffen.

Actually, I suspect the Editor is more than pleased with the current arrangement, judging by the various threads' visitor numbers. His advertisers must be very happy.

I don't think Old Bear's idea would work anyway. Even though the difference from the old Napoleonic History board is that this new one would be very specific to the feud (eg instead of the 'Napoleonic History' board, it might be called the 'Hollins/Kiley Discussion' board), there are far too many spin-offs from the original argument, which often don't even include the original instigators or topics.

I think we've just got to live with the fact that the Napoleonics Boards, for some odd reason or other, are inhabited not only by wargamers, but also by two amateur historians and their associated hangers-on, beating their opposing drums.

I've got to say that I find it odd that these historians have chosen a miniatures gaming site to carry on their feud, instead of some specific website for Napoleonic history discussion, but there we are.

While the feud does provide lots of "train-crash" entertainment to those of us who don't support either sides' discussion methods, the awful rancour does sometimes make you forget that this is just a hobby, an enjoyable pastime in which we love painting figures and moving them round the table, and talking about history with our friends without getting all obsessive about it.

arteis

A very interesting post. However, I'm sure if Mr. Hollins stopped raking up his past grudges with another author, in virtually every thread he has posted, plus even the Amazon comments section, then we could all get back to enjoying reading, researching and wargaming the Napoleonic period.

@ Gazzola: Sadly he won't stop, nor will the other side, nor will the aforementioned hangers-on of each side (which your posting has just proved!).

Actually, here's the answer to the 'problem':

Let's all concentrate on this sort of thing (probably lots of unrealistic elements, but no-one cares because it is FUN):
link

Not this sort of thing (which no-one could ever call FUN in the sense of a pleasing hobby or pastime):
TMP link

I think my point has been proven. "We try very hard to be reasonable, but those other bastards…!!!!!"

Napoleon forum needs 2 moderators.

James

The whole sorry mess has curtailed even the use of these boards &, just like a messy divorce, the "friends" are parceled up by one or the other parties, fought over, squabbled about.

And if you dare post, questioning a sacred proposition, you're deemed a 'member of the other team': a hissing & a by-word.

One of these idiots has even stiffled me because I'm a 'Kiley-lover' (sorry Kevin: I'm sure you're attractive but you're not my type).

It's all too stupid but again nothing will heal the rift in this lute ("that ever widening, makes the music mute")

I have a simple suggestion.

Just restrict participation in the Napoleonic Forums to people who are Napoleonic wargamers.

A radical thought, I know, but….

I think a duel would sort out the whole sorry mess.

It is all very sad, I play `Napoleonic` games and only rarely ask questions about the period here as whilst I will get some answers that help it will often spiral into a swearing and penis measuring contest about some other peoples posts and my actual question forgotten..

I go and buy a book these days, shame when TMP is free and Bill probably intended it to stop people having to buy books when the answer could be free.

Still people will be people..

Just make a "Blue Bricole" website (along the line of the blue fez) for all non-gaming terrestrial Napoleonic topics (I don't recall anything like the same rancor on the naval board). And there will need to be stern policing to ensure cross-contamination is contained.

That way the usual grognards can drain their pens of bitter ink all they want, and people who play games can enjoy gaming.

Okay, so here on the Napoleonic Boards we have a well-deserved reputation for being argumentative and overbearing; we also have a tendency to hold grudges and rewrite history. But in doing this we are just emulating Napoleon himself.

Bonaparte set the tone. We're just keeping his spirit alive.(Of course he also cheated at games and I trust none of us would ever sink that low)

"Just make a "Blue Bricole" website"

HAHA!! Good one…The trouble is that people seem to take the nappys board EXTREAMLY seriously when in actual fact we are grown men playing with toy soldiers and our modern ideas of what happenned in the past can never be proved or disproved IF we want to beleive them--EG Monty was a bad General, Napoleon won Waterloo,Haig was a military genius, Bricoles are actually a type of bread roll???/…Etc etc etc..

Archstanton has said it all for me…..
And Angel Barracks.

Well, I look forward to you all being able to answer the questions, which are posed here.

Firstly, the central character is a rarity – a hate figure who can also be openly admired without identifying you as some kind of sick and twisted mostrosity. Let's face it, nobody in their right mind is going to stand up and support Hitler on the WW2 boards, are they? However, nobody else other than Cromwell comes close to causing instant issues. It seems you either love Napoeleon, hate Napoleon, or don't do the period.

That's a bloody broad brush you're using to paint that particular picture. I neither 'love' nor 'hate' Napoleon, and I've been doing the period for over 40 years. I don't love or hate Blucher, Wellington or Bagration either, they're figures from history. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't hero worship any of the usual suspects and their hangers-on on here either. Their personalities are the major problem with the Napoleonics boards, not the long dead central character.

Its also a problem on other boards, it's just that it is not as bad, and the Napoleonics board does put them in the shade.

This isn't a problem on other sites/Yahoo groups- people don't get as emotional about Early 19th Century as TMPers.

Well, I look forward to you all being able to answer the questions, which are posed here.

There are plenty of wargamers here who can (and do) answer questions to the standard that suits us for our pleasurable hobby of wargaming, Dave.

The year or so you were gone from TMP wasn't a dry desert of no answers. In fact, apart from the Hofschroer blowout, it was a rather cooperative time.

Remember, we're not all obsessed here on whether, for example, Gribeauval was a miner or gunner, or whether Kevin has read some 1762 report or not.

Oh yes, I know, we might as well be playing fantasy games then. But at least they'll be FUN, which this rancourous bickering for the last 10+ years about the same bluudy things is definitely not (apart from 'train crash' entertainment value).

That's a bloody broad brush you're using to paint that particular picture. I neither 'love' nor 'hate' Napoleon, and I've been doing the period for over 40 years. I don't love or hate Blucher, Wellington or Bagration either, they're figures from history. Nothing more, nothing less.

Okay, fair point. probably I should have made it more obvious that there is a large group of neutrals who just love the period, but I still think the "Napoleon Problem" is the main reason there is so much unpleasantness.

Next time, John Chadderton comes up with a question on figure detail, I hope you will step forward and answer it for him – who knows, you might get as far as an Internet Ottenfeld illustration.

1809 is not a popular campaign played out by gamers with rules, which approximate to what happened by accident. If you wish to stay in the land of Quarrie, fine.

Okay, fair point. probably I should have made it more obvious that there is a large group of neutrals who just love the period, but I still think the "Napoleon Problem" is the main reason there is so much unpleasantness.

Hero worship of someone long dead seems very schoolboyish to me.

Personally I'm rather miffed that I keep getting banned for being outspoken while the principals and their mates who cause all the real unpleasantness on here are allowed to roam free. Perhaps I'm suffering from a victim mentality.

"I think my point has been proven. "We try very hard to be reasonable, but those other bastards…!!!!!"

OFM…yep straight in with the second post!

I can almost see them frothing at the mouth with excitement and increduality!

Personally I don't mind the stupidness. I couldn't care less about bricoles, engineers, first or second hand sources, made up reports. I have howevwe made up opinions about certain people on here by the way they post. From what I can see the two main characters in this farce are not the worse culprits. They will argue for ever and can be ignored, it's the anally retentive hangers on that I find the most annoying.

Bad – I think several people, notably Arteis, are not considering what is happening. They may say that they don't care about the historical background, but it must be remebered that it is precisely the claims made about the hiostorical background, which have found their way into the rules and thus popular perceptions about the period.

Perhaps a really obvious example would be the nuclear artillery, which I can see really frustrates some people on here (well, perhaps death ray must be a better description). Somewhere down the line, some rule writer has read about the "near horizontal flight" of a cannonball at zero elevation – Nosworthy certainly pushes that line in his piece on Lodi in his book. In comes the death ray and suddenly Napoleonic games are just overwhelmed by artillery spreading death and destruction in its path. I was watching Sharpe last night in the Badajoz episode – ah, those famous exploding cannonballs, which we all mock because we know the truth that an iron ball does not blow up.

So, what about the death ray? Thing is, that death ray has been brought to you by people like Nosworthy – has he read his source material? No, not if you look at his bibliography. Go to Smola – he will tell you how these balls were fired and simple stats will tell you about effectiveness. Charles Grant was right after all with his bounce sticks. So, it is the historical record and its misuse, which feeds into your games. Bad historical work has caused this. Okay, you are saying, what does this have to do with Gribeauval and his report? It is straightforward – that report is so fundamental that a failure to read it should be casting doubt on other things claimed by (to be fair) the many authors, who have hailed it as some blueprint. It is a simple test of whether the end product is based on research or wishful thinking – because these same authors are those, who have brought about the "+2 for being French" or the death ray.

It is thus necessary to consider what the pewriod materials ACTUALLY say so that we can establish whether authors have done the work and consequently, whether any rules based on them are any good. If you want to resolve the death ray vs bounce stick argument, you must look at inter alia Smola to see what he has to say. Of course, you will then find some authors list Smola's work in their bibliography to produce another false impression about their work. Well, as far as Smola goes, I have done it for you in Warrior 24 ("gee thanks, Dave, for saving me the trouble" would be nice sometimes, but there you go – a slagging off will have to do). Now you can look at other material to see if your rules need adjustment away from the death ray.

We. Don't. Care.

That goes double for your take on what you think wargaming is.

Edited, just in case :)

Death ray, schmeth ray …

Having or not having death ray artillery in my games ain't going to change my enjoyment of wargaming one iota. But rancourous bickering about it is.

And if my figures are based on an Ottenfield illustration, that will suit me just fine. I would much rather play with a figure that is uniformed incorrectly, than have my hobby spoiled by arguments around obsessive detail picking.

As Connard so clearly and concisely says: we. don't. care. I think that should be the motto of the neutrals here.

Just to add to my previous comment, after I took a few deep breaths and re-read it:

Look, Dave, I don't want to devalue your contributions. They have obviously been valuable to those gamers who are perhaps a bit more concerned about detail and realism in their gaming than I am.

But what I (and I think many others here) find really frustrating are the constant smarmy comments against a certain author that you seem to have to insert into so many of your posts. We KNOW you disagree with Kevin. Can't you just leave it at that?

Do you know, I think I would miss them if they stopped.

I used to have no real interest in the sizes of Gribeauval's and Lichtenstein's balls, or the tolerances to which they were measured. Now its a guilty pleasure, a bit like Pot-Noodle, you know you shouldn't but somehow you can't resist.

Though I am a bit worried about Connard's blood-pressure, I guess steam is coming out of his ears already, posting "We. Don't. Care." when you could just avoid reading the thread can't be a good sign.

I love the idea that this is all about whether French Artillery get +2, was thinking of posting this satirically, but now it's official!

In my head it went something like this

~~wavy lines~~

Dave and Kev were the bestest of friends and had built up Napoleonics armies together as regular opponents, happily collaborating to make a set of (insanely detailed) house rules. One fateful day Kev's French battery blows away Dave's favourite battalion, Dave can't believe this, surely a battery can't be that powerful? Ah, says Kev, I reckon the French arty were so much better because of Gribeauval that I've given them +2!

From that day hence the pair were friends no more, each citing sources against the other, learning German and French, degrees in Metallurgy, PhDs in History, NVQs in Carpentry, heroic month-long searches of the Imperial archives, continual barrages back and forth in books, letters, email, historical discussion fora and TMP.

One day maybe their feud will end when they've exhausted the archives, built replica cannon, argued about the authenticity of the replica cannon, conducted firing trials, argued about the results, and finally invented rival time machines to observe Napoleonic battles at first hand.

Perhaps they should just have split the difference and given the French +1?

I think that the obvious solution is to lock the accounts of a couple of people (you know who you are) since they can't seem to control themselves and be respectful of other people here on TMP.

Often, the best solution is the simplest solution.

Oh, well done, Timbo, sir! Your last line in particular is a beaut! Very Gulliver's Travels-ish.

To address one of your other points, I think (well, it is in my case anyway) the "we. don't. care" is about the obsessive ongoing feud.

But there is a very definite "we. do. care" about the damage this feud does to the hobby of Napoleonic wargaming.

****

Anyway, before I get too hooked into yet another useless attempt to solve the unsolvable feud, I'm outta here. And, as usual, I give permission for any wargamer to stand on my model artillery if you ever see me back on this particular thread again. That's the only way I can resist Timbo's Pot-Noodles.

Though I am a bit worried about Connard's blood-pressure, I guess steam is coming out of his ears already, posting "We. Don't. Care." when you could just avoid reading the thread can't be a good sign.

My blood pressure's fine. Unlike many on here I can't get too wound up over playing with toy soldiers. This is a hobby, not a profession. I don't get paid for doing it, and I've never had to sit any exams before being allowed to shove my metal men around a table.

Glad to hear it CS!

I've always thought the problem was the number of Nappy players who seem to think they really ARE Napoleon, Wellington, Davout, whoever.

I have not run into any (well, maybe one or two) fantasy gamers who think they are Elric or Conan.

I love the idea that this is all about whether French Artillery get +2…

Yep. That IS what it's all about. Nothing more.

I have not been going to the board even though it is one of my top three periods I game. Some of what is posted is just silly. History is always under review. That said some on the board has way too much time to post (IMHO). I enjoy discussion of history as much as what colour are the cuffs of the Bosnian Hussars in March 1813. I just do not want to get into a 10 page discussion of if it was cornflower yellow or mello yellow.

VR
James Mattes

Wow, Dave, let me thank you. I had no idea that you were the one saving us from those Internet Ottenfeld illustrations. I don't know what we would have done without you all these years, saving us from bad historical interpretation and making our games just all that much more historically correct – at least as you see it.

What an ego! What a magnificent, huge, incomparable ego!! To think that no one else could possibly answer such complex and vexing questions as those posed here on these pages!! Good luck to us all in trying to find a replacement for such an invaluable resource. We do not realize just how fortunate we have been to have Mr. Hollins here to do our research for us and save us from ourselves.

Get over it, Dave. If you left here tomorrow, very few people would notice and I hate to tell you this, fewer would care. But don't feel singled out – the same would apply to most any poster on these boards. What you contribute pales in comparison to the opinion you hold of its importance and the distraction of the ferment that the vitriol of such engenders.

And lest anyone else take this a condemnation of Mr. Hollins et al, let me just say that the attacks on him launched lately have left me with a very bad taste for those that simply cannot let go of a subject. Four-hundred posts over a review of a book that has since been deleted is beyond ridiculous. Who, that has any sort of life to lead, can afford the time to carry such a grudge? The weight of it must drag on every other action they try and take in their life.

In the end, this is about toy soldiers painted pretty colors and lined up on a table for an afternoon's fun. This is not the forum for discussion of modern war college simulations and the reflection of reality that they have to achieve. Somewhere in all of this, there was supposed to be some fun.

There is a really simple solution. Ignore the threads and people you object to and DON'T POST ANYTHING ON THE THREADS YOURSELF. That'll be the day!

Bill

oooh, would be this be a good point to jump in a talk about my rules and how I worked out a points value for the troops and how very something they are and how points values in Napoleonic games are the best thing since sliced bricoles?

I have just changed my mind, Old Bear.
Call the new Board the Napoleonic Mud Wrestling Board, and I am with you.

And if we have Dear Editor fix things so that is the only place the Usual Suspects can post, that would be Coolio.
I am assuming that Dear Editor already has the code written for something like that, but that ungrateful whelp John the OFM gracefully demurred the first time it was proposed.

Sliced bricoles?!? SLICED BRICOLES!?! You, sir, are a heathen AND a miscreant! How dare you slice bricoles! Everyone that knows the least little thing about bricoles KNOWS you should tear them gently by hand, NEVER slice them with a knife. You're probably the kind of person that serves red wine with fish too, aren't you?

I suppose that this is what the world is coming to, now that just anyone can look things up on the internet…

I use not the knife for the slicing but the cavalry sabre from my dear grandgrandgrandpappy who fought at Marengo.
Thus preserving the integrity of the Bricole.