"FOG Naps?" Topic

I saw in Wargames Illustrated that Osprey's "Field of Glory: Napoleonics" is coming out this month. But I've seen almost no talk about it.

Will it be that bad? I'm just wondering about it… I haven't played Nappys yet, myself (I'd like to try 28s, actually). I've heard that Napoleon at War is very good.

TMP link

Of course, your mileage may vary.

Ed

Supposedly some demos at Cold Wars this weekend (but I forget by whom).

All I've seen is that there is one book for each of infantry, cavalry and artillery. They are £25.00 GBP each I think. If I want to waste money it won't be by paying £75.00 GBP for a set of rules!

Chad

Yep.

I'm pretty sure that was debunked a while ago – it's going to be the much more likely 1 rule book and 2 army list books.

Not sure if you need the army list books to play your own scenarios though …

C

All I've seen is that there is one book for each of infantry, cavalry and artillery. They are £25.00 GBP GBP each I think. If I want to waste money it won't be by paying £75.00 GBP GBP for a set of rules!

Chad

Please get your facts right before posting rubbish like that.
The rulebook (which is all you need to play) is available for pre-order on Amazon for £16.00 GBP

I think they would have been forced to Nap during heavy Fog.
Combat would be very dangerous in these weather conditions.

The RRP is indeed £25.00 GBP though you can get it discounted for a pre-order. You can get all three at a discount for just over fifty quid though none seem to be published yet.

I too would not even consider any of them at half the price, but only because I'm content with what I already have.

I have to admit that im tempted. I bought Fog when it was first released, and really wanted to like it, but didn't.

Im still tempted though, even though I really like Lasalle….At only £16.00 GBP on Amazon…

Steve

All I've seen is that there is one book for each of infantry, cavalry and artillery. They are £25.00 GBP GBP each I think. If I want to waste money it won't be by paying £75.00 GBP GBP for a set of rules!

No…No, we do not want to be troubled by facts, this is TMP after all.

Im still tempted though, even though I really like Lasalle

My thoughts exactly. I'm a big fan of LASALLE, but it hasn't got as big a following as I hoped.
I will not be rebasing for FOG-N!
I understand the frontages for bases do however match my Lasalle bases, (40mm). Only the infantry bases in FOG-N seem to differ depth wise, (20mm deep with only 4 figs in a single rank, where as I have my LASALLE infantry on 30mm deep bases with 8 figs in two ranks of 4)
Can anyone confirm the FOG-N basing?

Cheers

I was so dissapointed with FOG not meeting my personal gaming wants that I can't hold much hope for the napoleonic one being the one for me.
But I'm open to suprises!
Max

Well I have ordered FOG Napoleonics, but on Amazon at £16.25 GBP plus free delivery, rather than the "official" Osprey price of £25.00 GBP plus £1.50 GBP delivery.

I can't seem to resist new rule sets!!! I always think I will learn something, or come across the perfect set, but somehow never seem to.

Rod

Yes Rod. I have the same affliction.

Marshall Mark

Many thanks for your polite comment. I took my information from a recent wargames mag. As I said that is all I have seen.

If you want a translation of 'all I have seen' please feel free to ask or a recommendation of a good optician.

Cheers

Chad

Well even clicking on the link in the second thread would have corrected your misunderstanding. It may have been "all you have seen" but it was very wrong.

And why would an optician be useful if somebody needed help understanding a sentence ? I'm confused…

Napoleon at War is very good. Having played a bit of FoGR there are a few similar mechanisms (but N@W is better).
Cheers,
Andy

And why would an optician be useful if somebody needed help understanding a sentence ? I'm confused…

Yes, you are.
I think he's suggesting the 75 quid is a bit much for a set of rules, (which was the advertised price he had seen) and based on that information he would not be buying them considering in his OPINION that was an excessive price.
Amazon seems to have them for a good price however, so I'll get them to have a look at.

I think he's suggesting the 75 quid is a bit much for a set of rules

But it is not £75.00 GBP for a set of rules, it is £25.00 GBP for the rules and £50.00 GBP for a couple of army books, undiscounted. About par for the course and a little cheaper than some – such as Black Powder for example.

This whole £75.00 GBP back and forth is caused by the old rumour that there was three books, one for infantry, one for artillery and one for cavalry. I don't know who started it, but they did a good job because it refuses to die! :o)
Though I doubt wargames magazines would still be publishing that sort of disinformation.

And what good are the rules without the army lists?
It's a mute point however. Buy them through AMAZON and save a packet.

Well if they're any good I'll buy them at my local shop. But I was surprised that nobody was talking about them.

Is a mute point one that you cannot hear?

Is a mute point one that you cannot hear?

LOL!!! What a card!!! Comic genius!!! Brilliant!!!

The rumour/comment was in WSS.

Regards

And what good are the rules without the army lists?
------------------
Well, I imagine you can play the rules, and refight historical battles and do scenarios just fine without the army lists.
I think there are some lists in the rules anyway to get you started (as there were in the ancient and renaissance sets).

You only need army lists if you want to do equal points pickup games.

According to Slitherine site the rules have 8 lists within them. I expect that's in case people feel they can't work out lists based upon historical battles…

I'm sure you won't need them, just pretty eye-candy.

I picked up a copy of these today.

I haven't had time to read them fully and any comments below are based on a quick scan through. This is not a review. Just thought some readers may be interested in a few first impressions.

In appearance and production values they are exactly like all the previous FOG family i.e. very nice.

As stated in all their advertising material these rules are based on a unit on the table being a regiment. I find this type of concept very difficult as a regiment was not a tactical entity. There may have been several battalions from the same regiment in a brigade, sometimes not, but either way they were not a tactical unit. I can understand rules based on battalions, brigades or divisions as units on the table but regiments?

The number of bases in a unit is the factor that affects firing and combat not figures. There is no casualty removal. Movement and firing distances work on base widths like Lasalle so any consistent basing will do. No need to rebase figures. The recommended basing if you are starting from scratch is consistent with Lasalle.

Formations are somewhat abstract i.e. there are no discrete infantry columns lines or squares etc. The main formation is called Tactical, which could be a group of units in line, column or a combination of both.

Move sequence is alternate with:

Command Point Allocation
Assault Phase
Firing Phase
Movement Phase
Combat Phase
Recovery Phase

There are no arcs of fire (small exception for artillery) similar to Lasalle. Movement has a Simple and Complex set of movement types a bit like Napoleon at War.

They look like a competition style set of rules if that is your thing.

Impossible to tell how it will play from a quick read through.

Bit of a non-starter for me as I prefer rules that use a battalion as the basic unit for this period. Your preferences may well be different.

Thanks for the post Alan. Im going to wait before getting the book i think. Im very happy with Lasalle so it can keep for now.

Steve

What is Command Point Allocation ?

Are there any C&C rules such as activation rolls, PIPs, etc, or can every unit be moved each turn ?

@marshal mark

There are no C&C rules as such. No written orders are given nor are there any kind of command chits. In general every unit can move every turn as desired by the player.

However, moves are divided into simple moves and complex moves. Simple moves such as a move forward including a wheel are automatic. Crossing an obstacle for non-skirmishers is deemed to be complex. There are roughly 18 categories of normal move and 11 categories of assault move so at first glance it looks a bit complicated but no doubt is a bit easier than it looks to administer in practice.

Every commander (typically say 4 commanders in a game) gets a fixed number (1-3) of command points which replenish each turn. In the Command Point Allocation phase these are distributed to those units which which you are planning to make a complex move. The complex move is not an automatic success as there is a die roll required with modifiers to succeed.

Hope that helps.

Same basing as Lasalle……

I received my copy yesterday from Amazon.
At first glance a beautifully prepared book.
I still don't quite get / agree why they picked the 'Regiment' as the base 'unit', though I don't think it matters.
I usually play LASALLE, and this set (FOG-N) appears more complex at first glance, with talk of 'Points of Advantage' (PoA) etc.
Hmmmm,.. Looks a bit like FOG Ancients (should I be surprised?)
I like there is a requirement for the use of 'Command Points' (CP) and how these CP are encouraged to be in the form of ADC models, and the concept of 'Lines Of Communication' (LoC) that need to be protected. The need for a LoC 'marker' will encourage the model maker in us to build 'Baggage' like elements like we use to do for DBM etc.
AND NO NEED TO REBASE!!! Even better, my Lasalle based units can be used with no modification at all! BRILLIANT!
I'll hopefully play a game on Saturday or Sunday and post a review on my Blog.

"Is a mute point one that you cannot hear?"

Actually, it should be "moot point", meaning a "debatable or undecided" point" – Oxford English Dictionary.

I still don't quite get / agree why they picked the 'Regiment' as the base 'unit', though I don't think it matters.

The reason it makes a difference is that you don't have the tactical interplay of a battalion forming line, column and square, you just have a generic "Tactical" formation which has just been invented for the rule mechanics.

"Is a mute point one that you cannot hear?"

Actually, it should be "moot point", meaning a "debatable or undecided" point" – Oxford English Dictionary.

Guys, it was a typo. You've never typed 'there' when you ment 'their'?

"The reason it makes a difference is that you don't have the tactical interplay of a battalion forming line, column and square, you just have a generic "Tactical" formation which has just been invented for the rule mechanics".

Yeah, I can see that. But why use the term 'Regiment'? It is as you say, 'an invented rule mechanisim'. Why not call it a Manouver Unit, or a Tac Formation, or Battle Group (to coin a modern term). I just don't agree or am convinced calling it a 'Regiment' is a good idea.

I guess they felt it would jar more to call it by an anachronistic modern term than use a period term?

I guess I don't really see why it should cause a drama. For example, Grande Armee works well enough with its 'brigade' bases, even though they are 'regiments' for the Late Prussians, or possibly 'divisions' for the 1814 French.

Regards

Hi Whirlwind
Agreed.
Hence why I wrote:

still don't quite get / agree why they picked the 'Regiment' as the base 'unit', though I don't think it matters.

Emphasis on "..though I don't think it matters"
;o)