Help support TMP

"New Rules: Napoleon At War" Topic

114 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Wargaming in Australia Message Board

Back to the Napoleonic Product Reviews Message Board

Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board

20,214 hits since 10 Aug 2011
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 

trailape Inactive Member10 Aug 2011 11:28 p.m. PST

Anyone played these new rules yet?

yorkie o1 Inactive Member11 Aug 2011 3:21 a.m. PST

I too am very interested to see what these rules will be like. Also some comparison shots of the miniatures next to some of the other 15/18mm minis would be good.

I'm still planning to go with Lasalle, and im thinking of using Campaign games miniatures, someone has mentioned somewhere that these are the same miniatures from Man at war?

So, looking forward to a review of the rules, and the minis.


meledward23 Inactive Member11 Aug 2011 4:30 a.m. PST

I have read them. There is a brief review from about 25 days ago on here.

I will work on a write up later today I hope. Very behind , rough week.

TMP link
about halfway down the topis, Suferdude.

Surferdude11 Aug 2011 5:48 a.m. PST

I've played them a lot. I really like them.

trailape Inactive Member11 Aug 2011 6:03 a.m. PST


meledward23 Inactive Member11 Aug 2011 6:32 a.m. PST

I havent played them. My impressions.

This is a Napoleonic period Game. Its not historical Sim. It is intended to be a game with a Nap flavor. It as some have said similar to FOW in feel. Mechanics wise may not be the same (I hadnt picked up FOW in years). But the feel, streamlined fast and fun game play. At least that is what I come out with from reading. I am still waiting on gameplay.

link here my comments on the book. They may seem a bit harsh, but overall it is an avg publication. Not the best, but better than many.

I personally will be cutting some bases on my bandsaw and labeling them and giving a couple run throughs this weekend if I get the time.

This is a gamers set of rules and not a Sim set of rules.

Reading through I think it has some very interesting (without playing) balance between fire fights and melee.

Just my two cents. I received the book in yesterdays post.

gunnerphil11 Aug 2011 8:37 a.m. PST

I have played several games using them. They are easy to follow and give a good simple game. Which I enjoyed.

If you want button counting detail maybe not for you. But if want to have a divisional size game in a reasonable time, then they do that.

Surferdude11 Aug 2011 11:28 a.m. PST

Reasons I like them:
Simple mechanics – easy to pick up and for people to learn.
Robust gameplay – very hard to be a pedant pain.
Fast – things happen quick. Moves when out of contact are easy to do and you get a support move at end of turn which means lots of units to begin with can move twice in a turn. Also you get back bases by rallying if you pull troops back in this phase.
Neat fire and melee. – quite a lot of d6, opportunity to fire and fight back so long as you pads the test. Saving throws for odd hits (every four hits in fire takes a base off. Parts of 4 make a save. So 7 hits is one base and a save of 4+ to avoid losing another). One hit would be just a savevof 2+.
Neat and simple attrition mechanic.
Good for pick up club games – points and missions.
Decent period feel if it falls into the old national stereotypes

They are just what want out of a napoleonic game. I have a feeling nap heads will find them lacking. Bit like the die hard WWII players with FOW

But for me I have found the set I am happy with. I was almost settled with BP and/or Lassalle But now I think I will stick with these.

meledward23 Inactive Member11 Aug 2011 12:08 p.m. PST

Suferdude sums up exactly the sentiment I get from reading the rules.

yorkie o1 Inactive Member11 Aug 2011 12:13 p.m. PST

I may have to order the book, Maelstrom games are stocking it in the UK, I really like the way the minis are packaged etc, all in one box, very FOW ish, but certainly not a bad thing.


Redcurrant11 Aug 2011 12:56 p.m. PST

I have the Campaign Game Miniatures 1815 figures, and from looking at the photos on the Napoleon at War website I do not think that they are from the CGM ranges. I think Dermot (at CGM) is now on holiday so have not been able to confirm this.

It would be interesting to find out who is producing these, and how they measure up against the current market leaders. Also useful to know if more figures could be bought either seperately, in packs or as whole battalions.

Steve J

meledward23 Inactive Member11 Aug 2011 1:18 p.m. PST

I would like to see these miniatures in a line up with the other 15mm/18mm manufacturers.

Natholeon11 Aug 2011 1:26 p.m. PST

thanks for letting me know Maelstrom was stocking it. They haven't been getting anywhere near as much of my money as they did when they stocked Flames of War. I'm sure they will thank you too!

yorkie o1 Inactive Member11 Aug 2011 2:17 p.m. PST

No dramas, im glad Maelstrom are stocking it too, always great service.

Im curious as to who makes the minis too, im torn between ordering CGM, or going for the Nap at war stuff. I suppose ill have to get the rulebook and judge for myself.

@Redcurrant, what do you think of the CGM minis? they look pretty good on their website.


Rallynow Supporting Member of TMP11 Aug 2011 3:53 p.m. PST

What unit scale is it? Battlion or Brigade?

Jacko27 Inactive Member12 Aug 2011 3:07 a.m. PST

Havent read the rules but I think the figures are the range previously sold under the name NapoleoN.
They were sold as 20mm figures so they are probably on the big side of 18mm

I have left the building Inactive Member12 Aug 2011 3:53 a.m. PST

I have a box of the MaW British infantry and they look very nice, as a comparision I have just order a pack of the CGM British inafantry as I can do a direct comparision

once they arrive I'll take a pic and post it up here


basileus66 Inactive Member12 Aug 2011 3:58 a.m. PST


I'm not sure. I've seen the NapoleoN 20s and they didn't look at all like the minis used in MAW pictures. They remind me CGM, rather than NapoleoN. Which would make sense, as NapoleoN only produced minis for Peninsula, while MAW is focused on the Hundred Days, as CGM.

Best regards

12345678 Inactive Member12 Aug 2011 4:28 a.m. PST

They dont look like CGM figures to me. I have a lot of CGM figures and these just do not resemble then; in particular the poses just do not seem to match. I could be wrong though:).

meledward23 Inactive Member12 Aug 2011 5:19 a.m. PST

Rallynow 11 Aug 2011 3:53 p.m. PST

What unit scale is it? Battlion or Brigade?

Lets see. I always find these questions confusing.

The entire one side of an army is meant to be a division or division sized collection of troops.

You select your Brigades from a force org chart. Each Brigade comes with a set number of Battalions as a standard.

On AVERAGE in the examples given you end up with around 4 brigades / 16 battalions in a force.

Surferdude12 Aug 2011 5:23 a.m. PST

Unit is a battalion. Game control is a division.

basileus66 Inactive Member12 Aug 2011 5:44 a.m. PST


Yes, I know. The poses don't match. That's why I didn't say they were CGM, but that they reminded me to CGM rather than to NapoleoN. Still I can be also wrong! Perhaps they have commissioned a specific range for their rules. Wouldn't be surprising, would it?


12345678 Inactive Member12 Aug 2011 9:27 a.m. PST

If they have, it is very much the FoW model!

basileus66 Inactive Member12 Aug 2011 9:56 a.m. PST

I'll try to get some more info and let you know. If it's like FoW model, I think it can be a good idea to get people interested in Napoleonics. There will be always time to initiate them into the most obscure parts of Napoleonics, as the you-know-who ongoing guerrilla wars in TMP forums! :)

basileus66 Inactive Member12 Aug 2011 1:12 p.m. PST

Ok, here is what I've learnt about MaW minis.

The minis are a new range, not an already existing company's miniatures. They have been sculpted to go with the rules, just as FoW did. Sizewise they are 18mm, the same height than AB (now Eureka) miniatures. Sculpts are nice, and the casting is not bad at all. Not as good as ABs, but in the same quality range than CGM and the like.

Infantry boxes include 114 foot minis (96 for the battalions, 16 skirmishers, and 2 mounted officers). Pricewise it is 39GBP/44EUR per box, i.e. around 34p/38c per figure.

Best regards

12345678 Inactive Member12 Aug 2011 4:00 p.m. PST

I wish them every success; it is a bold move that might just help bring new players into Napoleonics (although I have my doubts) and they are using what seems to be a tried and trusted business model.

Maxshadow12 Aug 2011 4:47 p.m. PST

Yes i hope they do well.

Prince Alberts Revenge12 Aug 2011 5:53 p.m. PST

How rigid are the basing systems for NaW? My battalions are 24-36 figures each (depending on if flank companies are detached). Battalions are 4-6 bases with six figures per base. Would this work, without major modification?

Surferdude13 Aug 2011 2:04 a.m. PST

Only real thing is the base removal. They have 6 bases to a battalion with a frontage which matches the 6" musket zone. This is in 15mm of course. We play with 10 mm with 6 bases on a 90mm frontage and I have just 60 percented the ranges etc making 9cm the musket effective zone.

Works fine so I'm sure other fixes could be made

Clays Russians12 Sep 2011 5:08 p.m. PST

I am finding this rather--------interesting. BTW, I have sellers regret, I sold my enormous FOW soviet army to a guy in Spain (Madrid FOW club?). Dang I wish I hadn't done that. But Blue Moon French and Russians could very well find thier way marching into my mailbox.
regards Clay
BTW, anyword when MINIFIGS is gonna re-surrect itself? I have a complete Crimean War Russian army, I need the Allies,,,,,dammit!

Connard Sage Inactive Member12 Sep 2011 5:11 p.m. PST

Minifigs isn't dead. Only the USofA operation is moribund.

They're still alive and kicking in the UK


malekithau Inactive Member13 Sep 2011 5:36 p.m. PST

As this hasn't been mentioned here thought it would be worth mentioning here that the bases sizes provided in the rulebook are incorrect.

Good rules let down by poor proofreading. How many times have we seen that?

Clay the Elitist Inactive Member13 Sep 2011 5:54 p.m. PST

Rushed out the door. They say so in the Q&A doc. Gotta meet those deadlines…..

That said, I think it's great to have another ruleset and this one seems to be gaining interest in the FoW crowd.

malekithau Inactive Member13 Sep 2011 6:24 p.m. PST

I'm not a Nap player but after reading these I have taken the plunge. When I have time I'll write a review from the POV of a newbie Nap player. There's plenty to like.

basileus66 Inactive Member14 Sep 2011 7:28 a.m. PST

Good rules let down by poor proofreading. How many times have we seen that?

Yep, I've notice a couple of errors too. Still, it is a good move… or at least I HOPE it is. God knows we need more people interested in Napoleonics!

Redcurrant15 Sep 2011 7:31 a.m. PST

Re Yorkie o1 from 11th August

Sorry – didnt see your question – I have been in hospital and away from home for the last month.

I have about 1600 of the CGM figures, for my 1812-1815 armies, and am very happy with them. Lots of variations, especially within the infantry codes, realistic poses, proportions look good, detail is crisp and accurate. I know that Dermot (of CGM) takes a lot of care to ensure accuracy – look at the options available for the Nassau range.

The Brunswick infantry look slightly slimmer when compared to the French, Dutch-Belgian etc but look good when painted.

The ranges are expanding, and the first of the Russians and Prussians are now available, although I have not seen them other than on the website – first impressions are that they look good.

I dont know if you can purchase additional figures for Napoleon at War, or if you have to buy a brigade at a time. No such problem with CGM, indeed if you have any particular requests regarding size or composition of units then just e-mail Dermot, who is usually happy to help. In short – I recommend them.


malcolmmccallum18 Sep 2011 6:54 p.m. PST

We tried a 1500 point game of it today. French assaulted British in a prepared position.

There's things to like about it (no markers on the table, reactions, zones of control) but also a fair few things that left us scratching our heads. We'll read over the rules, figure out what we did wrong and try it again.

Certainly there's going to need to be some changes (oe errata) in the force costs. We had 9 battalions of French infantry (one understrength) and a battery of medium artillery going up against a defending Anglo-Dutch force consisting of 5 battalions of British line, one highlander, one light infantry, a battery of British foot artillery, Dutch-Belgian artillery, 4 battalions of Dutch-Belgians (one militia) with two regiments of British light cavalry in reserve. Equal points.

Again, that's 9 French battalions with one battery attacking 11 Anglo-Dutch infantry battalions, 2 british cavalry regiments, and 2 artillery batteries.

Yes, British troops are better than French.

malekithau Inactive Member18 Sep 2011 7:16 p.m. PST

Yeah I find the points a bit odd as well. If 2 French battalions in column could attack the same Brit battalion then maybe, maybe, the French are worthwhile but otherwise it is too easy for the Brits to repulse any attacking forces. Even limiting the defenders to equal the attackers frontage plus 2 (flanking bases) may help but the overarching emphasis on ease of play has made them choose the easiest options. Except for some unlucky Brit players I cannot see an equal points battle by equivalent experience/skilled players going the way of the French very often.

M C MonkeyDew19 Sep 2011 5:40 a.m. PST

" Except for some unlucky Brit players I cannot see an equal points battle by equivalent experience/skilled players going the way of the French very often."

Maybe they are historically accurate! I'll get me hat…

Surferdude19 Sep 2011 9:59 a.m. PST

Playing with the army lists you can get heaps more French than Brits – making the french conscript and understrength – also playing the scenarios seems to redress the all out attack imbalance that some question.

The way the VPs work for the attacker also takes some getting used to but makes the attacking win more likely.

Rallynow Supporting Member of TMP19 Sep 2011 11:45 a.m. PST

…playing the scenarios seems to redress the all out attack imbalance that some question.

So there are historical scenarios which come with the rules?

Clay the Elitist Inactive Member19 Sep 2011 12:28 p.m. PST

I've been reading on the forum that French infantry battalions are very powerful due to their special rules.

Surferdude19 Sep 2011 12:35 p.m. PST

Not really historical … but the scenarios in the book (small parts of a battle) are all OK.

The special rules for the French do help out … still seems odd to Nap players to have the French having less on the table if you go with the lists without tweaking them with the options.

Mind you after all else the rules are firmly aimed at even comp games, not neccesarily historically looking games numbers wise.

malcolmmccallum19 Sep 2011 12:45 p.m. PST

The French advantages are:
Tres Manoeuvrier which allows them to reroll discipline tests to perform complext moves. Maybe we have to start playing more ruthlessly and get into tournament mindset, because we didn't see our French doing many complex moves. Instead they wheeled about as seemed reasonable and normal so there was never any real need to make complex move tests.

Elan: They roll favourable elan tests when charging. In almost every case, there were two unfavourable factors in the elan test (point blank fire from the Brits and at least a stand lost) so the net effect was always unfavourable even after cancelling out one unfavourable modifier.

The British get cold blooded which allows them to reroll failed tests (50% chance base) to hold their fire until point-blank range

They also get volley & charge which means that if the charging enemy fails their elan test the British defenders can choose to counter-charge and fight a decisive melee.

British line battalions cost 100 points. French line battalions cost 140 for the first 3 in each brigade and then 130 for each after that.

Surferdude19 Sep 2011 1:46 p.m. PST

Yes but without Elan you'd never charge in :)
The most important rule that the France has the 'voltigeur' rule which means that they can take off a skirmish base instead of a base. This means they can get into combat without losing bases (or at least 2 less) and has a huge impact.

Once tweaked our French armies usually win :)

malekithau Inactive Member19 Sep 2011 5:53 p.m. PST

yeah Voltigeurs is a powerful rule made a little less powerful by no option for oversized legere battalions yet. Being able to farm off 2 more skirmisher bases will certainly help the French. I'm not keen on the whole British inf must defend rules tbh. I'm leaning towards a straight roll off.

malcolmmccallum19 Sep 2011 8:20 p.m. PST

skirmishers are withdrawn in a charge, so the voltigeur rule should have no effect against incoming defensive fire, so it will not affect any elan rolls.

Surferdude20 Sep 2011 1:47 a.m. PST

True but it helps when it stops a unit losing bases on the round of firing it has to take on the way in before the charge phase.
The Elan roll normally lets you throw a normal test instead of an unfavourable one when you take hits on the way in from defensive fire. When they fail their defensive fire test or fail to hit it makes it a favourable test (basically a reroll).
Without the voltigeur rule a battalion will be lucky to get in without losing at least 2-3 bases. Taking a light will let them have 3 skirmish bases.

Crabbie Inactive Member15 Oct 2011 10:39 p.m. PST

Got the rules about 5 weeks ago. Have not had a game yet. I was wondering how the Prussians go in the rules. I have only just started Naps about 6 months ago and am playing lasalle. I am quite happy with the rule but am thinking of giving Nap at war ago.

trailape Inactive Member15 Oct 2011 11:46 p.m. PST

Hi Crabbie,…
Let's have a game

Pages: 1 2 3