CATenWolde | 13 Dec 2011 6:13 a.m. PST |
Not much useful info so far, but there will be two army list books coming out later in the year. Anyone know anything about this? link Cheers, Christopher |
nickinsomerset | 13 Dec 2011 6:39 a.m. PST |
Have a look here, plenty of discussion, link Tally Ho! |
bruntonboy | 13 Dec 2011 9:20 a.m. PST |
It'll make a good doorstop. |
Kevin in Albuquerque | 13 Dec 2011 9:22 a.m. PST |
Hey, I need a new doorstop ! And the pretty pictures will allow me to individualize each day ! Awesome. |
bruntonboy | 13 Dec 2011 9:38 a.m. PST |
I suspect the doorstop quip may be a little unfair. Just that I have been looking at the large stack of FOG ancient lists and the rules on the floor gathering dust. |
doug redshirt | 13 Dec 2011 10:19 a.m. PST |
Someone will buy it I am sure. Doesn't mean it will get played. |
John the OFM | 13 Dec 2011 10:51 a.m. PST |
Oh, good. Something to distract the whiners and complainers from Flames of War. Maybe they'll leave us alone now. |
YogiBearMinis | 13 Dec 2011 11:07 a.m. PST |
The press announcement mentions it is tournament-friendly. Is this a good thing? I am not that familiar with "tournament" rules for Napleonics--being a DBx player, I am well aware of the debates about tournament rules and mindsets versus "normal" games, but I wasn't aware whether there was any such debate or dichotomy in Napoleonics. I always thought of Napoleonics as the realm of serious history/uniform buffs and those who loved to recreate historical engagements. |
CATenWolde | 13 Dec 2011 11:40 a.m. PST |
Seems an odd sort of scale: (from the forum) "Troops scales are as follows: Infantry base (8 figures) = 450 men approx. (4 or 6 bases per unit) Cavalry base (3 figures = 175 men approx. (4 or 6 bases per unit) Artillery base = 6-8 guns approx. (2 or 3 bases per unit)" |
Who asked this joker | 13 Dec 2011 12:55 p.m. PST |
Seems an odd sort of scale:(from the forum) "Troops scales are as follows: Infantry base (8 figures) = 450 men approx. (4 or 6 bases per unit) Cavalry base (3 figures = 175 men approx. (4 or 6 bases per unit) Artillery base = 6-8 guns approx. (2 or 3 bases per unit)" Similar to Napoleon's Battles which is 480 men per base for infantry and 320 (I think) for cavalry. The game is aimed at 1 unit equaling a brigade. |
John de Terre Neuve | 13 Dec 2011 1:30 p.m. PST |
Well it sounds pretty similar to Lasalle, RtE, Warhammer,BP etc ie 4-6 bases per unit. John |
trailape | 13 Dec 2011 2:56 p.m. PST |
So it's a Division level game, with BDEs being the manouver units? Like 'Age Of Eagles'? Basing sounds like the 'accepted norm' for LASALLE also with 8 or 3 cav figs on a 40mm wide base, (30mm deep?). |
Rudysnelson | 13 Dec 2011 3:04 p.m. PST |
Way back when in the initial discussion, a unit represneted a Regiment or Battalion with each stand being basically a company. I was not part of the playtest group so I do not know how or why the scale changed. I am not sure about the brigade level for a unit assumption either. The number of stands per unit does not correlate to a Brigade 4 to 6 stands. How would you paint castings for a unit and stand. In a Prussian or British Army each stand has different facings? Awkward and not of the main reasons I have not liked Brigade Level + systems. |
ancientsgamer | 13 Dec 2011 3:23 p.m. PST |
There are two basing conventions in the rules set but my understanding is that they have made the basing flexible. In other words, the rules don't require bases to be the exact same size. They are trying to cater to people with existing basing. While not every basing system will work, I do know that the 40mm wide, Napoleon's Battles, Empire and a few other popular basing schemes such as 30mm wide will work. The rule are meant to have a Corps on each side for one off style battles. They will work fine for larger battles but more space and time will be needed to play. Before anyone jumps on the dis wagon, it would be refreshing if people actually played the rules before snapping judgment. I am intrigued by the rules being flexible on the basing. This is not to say that if someone has Grand Armee style basing and your opponent has 30mm wide stand that the rules will work. My understanding is that depth is not important and that units operate in a measured frontage which is why individual stand sizes are not critical in general. The rules were playtested at Britcon and have been in testing in the general community for about a year and a half. |
Spreewaldgurken | 13 Dec 2011 3:31 p.m. PST |
"it would be refreshing if people actually played the rules before snapping judgment." What!? What!? Heresy! Blasphemer! I have notified the TMP Opinion Authorities, and you will be dealt with, sir. We just can't let those sorts of comments go unpunished, or next thing you know, people will start demanding that a "reviewer" actually have the book before reviewing it. |
Sysiphus | 13 Dec 2011 3:37 p.m. PST |
I wonder if they will over-hype this like they did with FoG? Expect to see the "protection patrols" out, hammering down any dissenting comments. "
.mark your targets
" |
Jovian1 | 13 Dec 2011 4:27 p.m. PST |
It isn't April Fool's Day, I thought this was a joke! I will have to see what they do with the rules, because the Field of Glory rules are a bit cumbersome until you really sit down and play them with someone experienced. I've enjoyed my experiences with them, but it took having a group show you the nuances of the rules to get into them. Napoleonics might benefit from these types of rules. Then perhaps people could do hypothetical games, rather than refights of the historical stuff or sections of battles. I enjoy those more as I've played in enough re-fights over the years that it feels like beating a dead horse. On a positive note – this set of rules MAY spawn a standardized basing system for Napoleonics which hasn't happened previously. Then again, it might not! |
malcolmmccallum | 13 Dec 2011 7:44 p.m. PST |
Initially, I was ;Never, ever, ever' catefory for FoG: Napoleonics. I'd played FoG: Ancients and enjoyed them but didn't want to see that system transposed onto Napoleonics. I'm primarily a Napoleonics player, and have been since the 70s and intend to remain so. Since then, Ive taken to FoG: Renaissance and I've been enjoying the rules. Mostly I like them because we managed to get 5 or 6 people form our local club all building armies. They also did it for FoG: Ancients. Now, I can't get anyone to collect Napoleonics. For our 15mm NB campaigns (we're on our seventh), I provide all the figs for all the armies. For 28mm, I'm building both (all three) forces for Boys Own Waterloo done with Black Powder. Maybe, maybe, the ability to bring a 600 point army and see what sort of opponent you can get on any given games day (the big selling point for Warhammer and 40K), will encourage people in my club to give this a try. Otherwise, Napoleonics is all about scenarios or campaigns. Points battles might be the trick. We've learned to trust FoG so will at least give these a glance. |
Tarty2Ts | 13 Dec 2011 8:29 p.m. PST |
I'll be intereting to see what their like. I'm not a fan of brigade size units personally ( only because people still think, and try to use them like battalions ) this is the problem we've had with AoE in the past. Decades of Napy gamers using battalions as the standard unit size
..it'll be tough. Still we'll see, they could prove us wrong. |
ancientsgamer | 13 Dec 2011 9:24 p.m. PST |
My understanding is that they are NOT like the other FoG rules. At least that was the statement prior to Beta testing. Still, I can't help but believe some things will port over. As far as FoG: AM being a bit cumbersome. I agree but I still like the rules
. I do prefer having some ebb and flow. There is something that is distasteful in have one round of combat decided by one die roll. Hell, those were the kind of games I came up with when playing 20mm plastics and having no commercial rules
|
Who asked this joker | 13 Dec 2011 9:44 p.m. PST |
There is something that is distasteful in have one round of combat decided by one die roll. It's all statistics my friend. 1 roll, 2 rolls 3 rolls. Any can be distilled down to a percentage chance and resolved with 1 roll. |
NigelM | 14 Dec 2011 3:03 a.m. PST |
Units may well be intended to represent brigades/regiments but I bet if you called them battalions and played it that way everything will work just fine. |
thomalley | 14 Dec 2011 7:13 a.m. PST |
Units may well be intended to represent brigades/regiments but I bet if you called them battalions and played it that way everything will work just fine. Probably not. Its the cav vs infantry that usually throws off the brigade level in Napoleonics. |
EagleSixFive | 14 Dec 2011 7:55 a.m. PST |
I lost interest in play test development early on due to wishy-washy definitions of what a unit was supposed to be. It *may* end up OK as a tournament system, we shall see. |
Lion in the Stars | 14 Dec 2011 12:50 p.m. PST |
I wonder, will the rules presentation be in less of a fog? [pun fully intended] The original FoG rules were very hard to decipher (and I used to play Star Fleet Battles!). Since then, my new gold standard for clarity of presentation is LaSalle. It's OK to have complex interactions, but you need to make sure you explain them carefully. |
ratisbon | 14 Dec 2011 8:40 p.m. PST |
After being told the scale for FOG: NAPOLEONICS, it is not surprising it reminds some of NAPOLEON'S BATTLES. As the co-designer of NBs it reminds me of them too and the fact that six years ago, Osprey took a copy of the 2nd edition back to the UK reminds me even more and so too does the promotional statement: "These supplements will give background and full army lists for all of the major and minor powers that fought each other during the wars. Taken together, this trilogy offers everything Napoleonic players will need to master the battlefields of Europe in the late 18th and early 19th centuries." Up till now NBs was and is the only set that rates over 300 units from 1792 – 1815, so it will be interesting to see what units are rated and in what categories. Nevertheless, there is nothing to be done and there is nothing I would want to do; afterall, imitation is the highest form of flattery. The problem is, those who copy often do not understand what they are copying. So the proof will be in the rules – let's wait and see. Since 1989, when NBs was first published, I have seen dozens of Napoleonic rules sets come and mostly go, discarded not only by gamers but also by their designers who move on to design "new" and supposedly improved sets which are met with great fanfare by gamers who might as well be searching for the Holy Grail as a perfect set of rules. Whether or not FOG: NAPOLEONICS will, as Osprey claims, be one of the most popular sets of rules is yet to be determined but, given the company's distribution network, I think it will become one of the best selling sets. And that is a good thing! For the more new historical gamers the rules attract to the hobby the better. Let's just hope Osprey doesn't weary of Napoleonic rules as GW did. Bob Coggins |
Chad47 | 15 Dec 2011 5:59 a.m. PST |
Sorry, but £75 for a set of rules and 2 (essential?) supplements doesn't have any attraction for me. I can put that sort of money to better use. Chad |
Colonel Bill | 15 Dec 2011 6:33 a.m. PST |
Uhhhhh, Bob, Just checked and AOE has 347 listings in its Unit Data Charts :). My impression is that these rules are maximized for tournament and pick-up play. So 4 – 6 stands likely doesn't equate to a brigade, but simply a 4 – 6 "grouping" of a single troop type. In other words, you can't replicate the British 8th Brigade at Waterloo with the 28th, 32d ROF, the 79th Highlanders and the 1st bn, 95th rifles as a single unit. The goal seems to provide a game with the correct historical flavor, but not actual replication of historical reality as regards OB or command structure, so as to provide point based games with opposing armies of equal capacity. Quite frankly the concept sorta reminds me of the old Empire (II ?) in the green cardboard spiral cover. Remember the tables where it showed the % of troop type in each country's army. Thus scenarios were played without regard to historical organization, etc. But, by God, if the chart said 5 % of the French army was Old Guard, then for every 20 French battalions on the table, you can bet one was gonna be the 1st Bn, 1st Grenadiers of the Old Guard. JMTSW, YMMV Regards, Bill Gray ageofeagles.com |
Rudysnelson | 15 Dec 2011 8:00 a.m. PST |
Yep Bill that was E2. IIRC E3 was in a box. |
Kevin in Albuquerque | 15 Dec 2011 9:16 a.m. PST |
My copy of E3 still has it's original square box. And a doorstop it was NOT. Heh. I've dog-eared my comb-bound copy over the years. Had it out just this week to look at the reference tables in the back and compare them to the data in Jim Arnold's new book. "Sorry, but £75 for a set of rules and 2 (essential?) supplements doesn't have any attraction for me. I can put that sort of money to better use. Chad" Yikes, not even as a doorstopper in my ritzy neighborhood. |
ratisbon | 15 Dec 2011 10:40 a.m. PST |
Bill, Sorry, I guess I'm behind the curve. I was unaware AOE rated over 300 units. Does AOE also rank units by points based on their size and quality? Chris' email indicated a stand equaled 450 inf and 175 cavalry. Based on this information I concluded a 4 stand unit would equal about 1800 infantry and 6 would be 2700, definitely a brigade. But as I wrote – lets wait for the rules, though they most likely will use those cumbersome D6s. Bob Coggins |
Colonel Bill | 15 Dec 2011 11:18 a.m. PST |
AOE does have a per stand point value system so that players can calculate an overall Troop Effectiveness Rating when the formation has different troop types. It can be used for, but was never intended for, use in point derived pick-up games. I've found the concept flawed since WRG 6th. Brigades, well sorta. Both Austrian Regiments 59 Jordis and 14 Rudolf each fielded 4400 men at Hanau. Likewise, Albert's Division of V Corps in 1814 fielded two brigades of less than 800 men each. When you restrict the unit to 4 – 6 stands, you invariably wind up combining or segregating historical formations into something that didn't exist. BUT, for tournament play where the emphasis on the skill of the commanders given exactly equal forces, the FOG way will likely work much better. Regards, Colonel Bill |
Clay the Elitist | 15 Dec 2011 2:47 p.m. PST |
I have not read the rules. I have not played the game. But this is set in stone
.I will not rebase. Have fun with your new ruleset. At least until the next one comes out. |
trailape | 15 Dec 2011 2:58 p.m. PST |
"But this is set in stone
.I will not rebase". Ahmen to that! "£75" YIKES!!! Ummm,
will probably have to pass on the rules at that price. |
ratisbon | 15 Dec 2011 5:57 p.m. PST |
Bill, Craig and I disagree. The points system was developed by Craig over a period of 25 years. It evaluates units in 15 categories the sum total of which is its value. It has absolutely nothing to do with WRG and based on the success of its application it is not flawed, whatever you mean by that. Bob Coggins tailpipe et al, $105 is a substantial amount but if they are your ticket then the money is well spent. The problem is how can you tell unless you own all 3 volumes? Why publish multiple volumes of FOG: Ancients when all would fit snugly into one for $75 or so? Money! Bob Coggins |
1815Guy | 15 Dec 2011 7:31 p.m. PST |
"Chris' email indicated a stand equaled 450 inf and 175 cavalry. Based on this information I concluded a 4 stand unit would equal about 1800 infantry and 6 would be 2700, definitely a brigade." Or possibly a regiment, depending on nationality? |
Colonel Bill | 16 Dec 2011 6:29 a.m. PST |
Bob, I can't comment on the NB point system as I am simply not familiar with it to make an objective evaluation. I was speaking only of its use with AOE and of its use across the hobby generically, using the WRG baseline. The two issues I have always had are: a. Generically it encourages players to become graduate level mathematicians as the calculate and recalculate the ultimate army based on points, not what was historically fielded. The Empire II passage above is a good example and I've actually spoken to Scott on this and he swears he never intended it to be used this way, which is why I believe it disappeared in E III. b. The WRG problem was the all weapons are created equal paradigm. Every figure was rated for troop type, discipline, regular/irregular, armor classification, shielded or not, etc. For weapons, the only difference was whether the soldier had more than one. Thus 50 figs of Regular B close order armored, heavy Roman Legionaries with shield and pila = 50 figs of Regular B close order armored, heavy early Hoplites with shield and javelin or long thrusting spear. Until the two forces went head to head and you found out the pila had a significant advantage. Pila and javelin may be equal point wise, but they were NOT equal on the melee table. Regardless of how well researched, there always seems to be a WRG catch in most point systems I've seem. These two taken together have jaundiced my opinion but I have to admit a. is the one that gives me particular fits. On the other topic, because Ancients rules cover such a wide expanse of history and so many belligerents, I can see the need for separate army list pubs. But for 1791 – 1815 in Europe? I dunno on that one. Regards, Bill |
Lion in the Stars | 16 Dec 2011 7:23 a.m. PST |
Well, I can see an argument for separate lists. How many organizations did the French go through during that time period? What about the Prussians, Austrians, Russians, etc.? Of course, the other question is how *different* in effective range and rate of fire were the different nations primary weapon, rifles, etc.? |
Colonel Bill | 16 Dec 2011 7:47 a.m. PST |
Given the abstract nature of the game which specifies 4 – 6 stand units, I can't see how this matters enough for supplements. Yes, the French dropped their infantry battalions from 9 companies to 6, for example, the French changed their artillery from the Gribeauval to the Ans IX system, and post 1807 all countries began to mimic the French corps system. Why this would demand supplements or be necessary for game play at all has my head scratching. And if anyone can show me a significant difference between the Charleville and the Tower Pattern muskets that requires game replication, Id be impressed. Its a 148 page book, they should be able to get all the unit ratings in there unless they are super fantastic we segregate by drill regulation detailed. Does anyone know – outside the old WRG rules – of any other relatively recent Napoleonic rules that had supplements for army lists? Regards, Colonel Bill |
Delbruck | 16 Dec 2011 8:34 a.m. PST |
General de Brigade has five books of scenarios. |
Spreewaldgurken | 16 Dec 2011 10:51 a.m. PST |
I generally try to refrain from the banal, "there are two kinds of people in the world
" platitudes, but it does really seem that we're talking about two different basic ideas about historical games. One type is designed from the outset for use in recreating historical battles as scenarios. It often requires more documentation; things like unit labels, stat lines, etc., since it's important to the game's M.O. for players to know that this unit is a specific historical unit from 1808, and not the same as a different one from 1807. Those types of games then often add some sort of appendix with a points-system or fictional army builder as an afterthought
which nobody ever uses. The other type is designed from the outset for tournament or pick-up play and fictional battles. It can get away with less documentation and stats, since it doesn't really matter "which" Dutch infantry brigade you're moving around; it's just a Dutch infantry brigade. Those games then usually add a few historical scenarios at the end as an afterthought
which nobody ever uses. The historical scenario games are sustained by ongoing publication of further scenario books. The fictional battle games are sustained by ongoing publication of new army lists, codexes, whatever. Most historical game rules tend to stake out their turf as either historical/scenario based, or fictional/tournament based, and remain focused on that, whether or not they throw out some sop to the other side, as a way of saying, "See, look
we've also got a points system
" Or: "See, look
. you can also use this game for historical battles." But the requisite shift in mentality seems pretty difficult for the most ardent devotees of each type. The historical/scenario guys tend to scoff at "fictional" anything, and get positively apoplectic if you tell them that your French Young Guard are fighting against somebody's French Peninsular army at the club tonight. Their level of enthusiasm for the points system or army builder in their game is obviously pretty low. The fictional/tournament guys likewise scoff at the idea of playing some "boring" historical scenario for the umpteenth time: "Yawn, Waterloo again
please." And their level of interest in that handful of historical scenarios in their rulebook is likewise pretty minimal. (I played FoW for years, and never saw anybody playing any of the historical scenarios in the various codexes. Not once.) "Black Powder" seems to be an interesting outlier recently, since it's pitched to neither of these two traditional camps, and perhaps that uniqueness is one reason for its success. It offers no army lists, and its scenarios are mostly fictional. Instead, it's just about the playing, which seems to resonate with a great many people.
|
Colonel Bill | 16 Dec 2011 12:19 p.m. PST |
Actually scenario books I can understand, as the numbers of battle fought during the 1791 – 1815 is far more extensive than could be placed in a single document. The unit stats I don't. And I really kinda agree with U B Illin, so if the proposed two army lists books so super detailed that they are indeed necessary, my question would be why? if the rules are for tournament play? Regards, Bill |
Spreewaldgurken | 16 Dec 2011 12:27 p.m. PST |
" if the proposed two army lists books so super detailed that they are indeed necessary, my question would be why? if the rules are for tournament play?" Well, never underestimate the amount of documentation generated by army lists, fictional army builders, and so on. How many Warhammer Ancients codexes are there? How many FoG-Ancients codexes? How many different FoW codexes feature the Germans? All of them, right? Each one with a slightly different set of offerings. None of them are required for an historical scenario. But they're sort of "required" for the collector of that genre. (Or at least a selection of them is required, and the rest are for the curious.) People might prefer building fictional armies, but they usually want to do so within some historical context. There was one ancients game that produced a set of 14-15th century army lists, and there were something like eight (!) different English armies available to choose from, for that period. Personally, without much interest in the late-medieval English army, I can't tell one from the other. But for enthusiasts, I'm sure it's a great boon to have so much detail in their choices. (That's their idea of "historical flavor," that the game treats Henry V's army differently from Henry VII's.) You also have to consider that FoG/Slitherine will be trying to convert many of their existing Ancients players to Napoleonics with this set. So it will be in keeping with that marketing model, which makes sense. That said, it does seem a bit pricey! (Presumably, it will be available on Amazon for considerably less, as was the case with the ancients books.) "Actually scenario books I can understand" See, that's just our different perceptions at work. I can't imagine why anybody would pay for a printed scenario book anymore in the internet age, when so much is available for free online. But I'm not much of a historical scenario player, at least not anymore. |
VonBurge | 21 Dec 2011 12:29 p.m. PST |
On a positive note – this set of rules MAY spawn a standardized basing system for Napoleonics which hasn't happened previously. Would love to see that. |
Spreewaldgurken | 21 Dec 2011 1:31 p.m. PST |
"Would love to see that." Yeah, but for every guy who says he wants a standardized basing system
I can show you three who foam at the mouth and bug-eye whenever anybody suggests they might need to re-base their figures. (And sometimes they're the same guys! "We need a standard basing scheme," sometimes actually means: "Everybody needs to do it My Way!") |
VonBurge | 23 Dec 2011 1:26 p.m. PST |
I'm not too worried about guys who don't want to rebase. I'm happy for them to continue on playing whatever rules they like with whatever basing system works for them. I do like the fact that Lasalle, March Attack, and appearently these rules use the same basic basing tough! |
Ghecko | 27 Dec 2011 4:52 p.m. PST |
Just what we need – yet ANOTHER set of Napoleonic rules
|
malcolmmccallum | 27 Dec 2011 4:59 p.m. PST |
I really would like concrete information on basing standards for FoG Napoleonics. It may be a dealbreaker for me and apparently some others. |
Hengiste | 01 Feb 2012 7:09 p.m. PST |
The Forum on the Slitherine site gives all the details of basing. |