"Napoleon at War vs FoG Napoleonics!" Topic

Which do you like better?
Compare and Contrast.
Discuss!

What has put me off FoGN personally is the selection of the regiment as the basic maneuver unit.

Others have made arguments in favour of that approach, but I prefer to see individual battalions. Second choice would be brigades abstracted [as per say Grande Armee] – so FoGN has the worst of both worlds IMPO.

NaW put me off on first sight by the approach/design. I may have judged the book by its cover and might well pick up a copy soon. I have plenty of other sets in hand though, some of which I'm at least reasonably happy with.

Well, of the two mentioned, FOG-N.
Though it's a much tougher call if you add LASALLE

NaW, simply because I prefer individual battalions.

I like NaW, it has nice easy to follow rules and an integrated miniatures line.

It's a "one stop shop" and has all you need with more unit boxes coming out all the time.

Does Napoleon at war use basing from Empire?

timmmy

here is a basing guide PDF link

Thank you. Always looking for an Empire alternative that uses that same basing….

Has been said already but they are two different scale of games..

FOG-N command a corps, basic inf unit is a couple/three of battalions together represented by one maneuver element

NaW you command a division, basic inf unit is one battalion…

I like NaW better cause I like that scale better, but I'll play either one depending what game I'm trying to do…

Example: A full day to play Quatre Bras with 5-6 players per side -> NaW, Half a day to play Quatre Bras with 1-2 players per side -> FOG-N

I think Lasalle is faster to learn for new players, so I like it for convention games.. I prefer NaW for club scenario games or pick up games…

( And I like General de Brigade, for actions with less than a division per side )…

cheers
Francisco

I think FoG: N is scalable up or down? You can call a unit whatever you want, I would think? I know the lists are written for regiment as the base unit but I think you can do with it what you want. Have not played the system. I know there are some elements from other FoG rules but my understanding is that it doesn't help you to know FoG to play the Napoleonics version as it is quite different. I have watched the rules develop but have not played.

Lasalle is a good game and I think it would scale up well as well. The lists give you some limited choices but you would have to build your own for scenarios. The lists and objectives do balance out say a Guards force vs. a force comprised of lots of militia. You get more militia units and to win, the Guards have to totally trounce the militia ;-)
This isn't played as much near me because of the release of NaW. Looking forward to Blucher which will handle larger battles and should be released next year I think?

Napoleon at War seems to be a nice system. And I think you have more flexibility in building your force as it is a points based system similar to Flames of War. I know the Austin, TX group has gone over to this as I think they like the flexibility of army building and the fact you can buy ready made units from the publisher. As stated above, the base unit for infantry is a battalion, which is something I tend to prefer too but realize that very large battles make more sense at the regimental level. After all, orders were given to regiments and regiments fought together (Prussians use the term Brigade instead and it gets confusing ;-) But battalion formations is what I am used to from the Empire days and I tend to think of things on a tactical term when it comes to individual units. I will say that I love the trend to 1:20 or 1:30 figure ratio units. More to paint up but they sure look the part.

Also, I will say this, one of the above games "borrows" a lot from Lasalle according to Sam. I am not saying which as he is not saying which himself…

Not a fan of either, but if I had to choose, FoGN.

I assume you can scale FOG-N up or down, but to me it really works for that scale due to how those interactions in the rules work. Of course that is just my feeling…

I like all three for different contexts as I mentioned.. I saw that comment from Sam and I was not totally sure which one he meant.. The similarities in form are numerous with FOG-N, but they really play quite different.. and NaW and Lasalle are very different..

I do think that I might be more inclined to play Blucher than FOG-N when it comes out due to the ideas that Sam was brainstorming in his forum… Until then for higher level games more about command and control than battalion formations FOG-N seems to flow well…

Overall I think all three are great products, no set of rules will ever be perfect to everyone, and people will always lean one way or another.. but I'm happier for having all three available..

I've played much more NaW and Lasalle ( and even GdB) than FOG-N.. I need to play it more but I really think I'd enjoy it better if I do some 10mm ..

Given how the systems work you can pretty much play all three with the same basing scheme… I base my troops for NaW, but the footprint is the same as Lasalle and FOG-N mostly…

Francisco

much wider than the typical 40mm frontage rules.

I have collected miniatures for years and have always had a facination with the Napoleonic era. Over the last few months I have been lucky enough to meet a guy who has got me into Napoleon at war, which we play every week. We both really enjoy these rules and both of us feel that it is a very good divisional rule set that ticks alot of the boxes that we are looking for in a rule set. The big plus for us is that we can play a game in an evening as we both have young children. The rules are easy for newcomers to pick up while still adding a really good feel of a divisional napoleonic battle. We like the points system as well but I know this is not everyones cup of tea!

I have not played Lasalle but have heard only good things about it. It is available on PDF.

Its funny this topic has come up because my friend has recently bought a copy of FOG N and he has had a quick look at the rules and thinks it looks pretty good. We will probably play this for corps level actions in the future whilst still playing napoleon at war for divisional level. My friend has also bought the FOG N supplement which we both agreed was very detailed and has lots of nice army lists.

FOG N has a good supportive website and napoleon at war also has a great site with a good forum and friendly members.

To sum it up, if you have the available funds why not buy all 3 rule sets, thats what I plan to do, but maybe check out the systems on their web site to see if you may like it first.

Good luck

Chris

One thing with Napoleon at War is you do not need to use their infantry basing system (typically 6 bases of 4 figures).

We play using Lasalle basing, use the arrangement of the bases for indicating formation, no base removal and keep track of the hits on the formation.

It works fine and is a nice tactical game that flows well and has, to us, a 'Napoleonic' feel.

First choice: Napoleon at War
Why? Standardization of play, as cited above

Second choice: Clay the Elitist's Napoleonic Rules
Why? They're better rules but no one else but us play them and CtE has a bad taste in his mouth about them like a cook doesn't like their own cooking.

Third Choice….there are no other choices….
Why? Go to First Choice

Continuing to gather dust in my library….LaSalle. Definitely someone else's cuppa' joe. It failed miserably in our DFW test. I'd sell my copy in a minute but I've written in it and have highlighted in it. No one else would want my scribblings or twaddle notes.

Timmmy, Le Feu Sacre by TooFatLardies uses what I believe to be Empire basing. It plays much faster. Musket fire and close combat are all resolved in one go. A unit attacks: it may refuse to charge, get into a firefight or close and rout the enemy or get routed, all decided by 2D6.

Also, I will say this, one of the above games "borrows" a lot from Lasalle according to Sam. I am not saying which as he is not saying which himself…

That would be FOG-N.
Probably one of the reasons I like FoG-N I suspect.
:o)
So I play Lasalle at Divisional level (where the 'Battalion is the Manouver Element), and FoG-N at the Corps Level (where the Regiment / Brigade is the Manouver ellement).
I think it's dificult to compare FoG-N with NaW because both systems model the battle at different levels.

NaW you command a division, basic inf unit is one battalion…

Command is irrelevant. What is to keep me from commanding two or three divisions? The unit scale is battalion. Always go by the smallest maneuver unit.

NaW you command a division, basic inf unit is one battalion…
Command is irrelevant. What is to keep me from commanding two or three divisions? The unit scale is battalion. Always go by the smallest maneuver unit.

I don't know how many times I've heard that in my 30+ years of soldiering,..
;o)
I must disagree however.
If the rules are written with the Basic manouvour element being the Battalion but within the structure of say a Brigade, then it will (should) play differently if the basic manouver element is a Battalion but within the structure of a Division.
So are you playing a Brigade Commander or a Divisional commander?
At different levels you should be dealing with (or not dealing with) different issues.
So respectfully 'Command Level' is relevant IMHO.
Cheers
Scott

Haven't played any FoGN, but really enjoying NaW at the moment……good set of rules. I also think NaW could handle corps size actions without much difficulty at all, once you've got your head around it…..quiet a fast pace game.

"Command is irrelevant. What is to keep me from commanding two or three divisions? The unit scale is battalion. Always go by the smallest maneuver unit."

Ok.. I see your point.. the basic maneuver element is inf battalion or cav regiment in NaW … normally in our games players tend to command a division or a couple of brigades.. the standard pick up game army is a division with some attached elements from other divisions in support or in reserve depending if they are from the same corps..

Probably I should have said, the standard army is about the size of a division plus some attached elements and the manevuer element is the inf battalion or cav regiment… that would be more specific..

That is what I meant :)

True you could command more divisions still being one player, but given the standard span of control for wargames it could be a bit much, although if you are an experienced player you could manage…. The rules seem to be thought for a player zooming in and out between division commander and brigade commander… just like in Lasalle … you get the idea :) Nothing would prevent you from filling in the shoes of two divisional commanders..

In contrast in FOG-N you would seem to zoon in and out between Corps Commander and divisional commander… in NaW you zoom in to make decisions about formations within the brigade, while in FOG-N most of those decisions are supposed to be abstracted within the tactical formation concept ..
Again, in a large game you could control more than just one corps if you are an experienced player..

Both games certainly feel different to me, I really get more the corps command feeling in FOG-N and division command in NaW or Lasalle.. You could upscale or downscale units in FOG-N or in Lasalle or NaW, but I prefer to just switch rules if I want to switch the scale, after all I like all sets.. ( I'm really curious to see what Sam will do with Blucher, he is always very innovative )
We have played the full battle of Quatre Bras using NaW, we started at 10AM and finished by around 5PM ( with a break for lunch ), in that game each player commanded a divisional sized force

TMP link

cheers
Francisco

I simply love NaW. It is the most enjoyable game I have played for many years. I have not played FOGN, so cannot really compare. And since NaW scratches my itch, I can't see a reason for diverting myself at this point.

(Yes, I sell NaW, but the reason I started selling was that we really enjoyed them so much.)

Gotta agree with GHG….Napoleon at War is The One.

Finally.