parrskool | 18 Sep 2012 8:52 a.m. PST |
Well, If you had to choose between these two sets of rules, which would it be and why ? A purchase hangs on the feedback. Ta |
Shagnasty | 18 Sep 2012 9:01 a.m. PST |
Neither, but I have nothing to offer as an alternative. My local group is much taken by Napoleon At War however and they are intelligent gamers. |
Lion in the Stars | 18 Sep 2012 9:01 a.m. PST |
LaSalle has clearly-explained mechanisms that you get walked through. Yes, the instruction order is different than the game order, but there's a box in the corner of the page that shows where you are in the turn sequence. Only downside is that there are almost no physical copies of the rules left, you're pretty much limited to .pdf copies. |
TMPWargamerabbit | 18 Sep 2012 9:10 a.m. PST |
Never FOG (N). Basket case of rules. Thumbs down from several original playtesters I know. Several hobby stores locally have discounted them already
.. sort of tells you what some local average gamers think. All gloss (typical for Osprey) but poorly written. LaSalle is interesting but the lack of general availability is a drawback. Have you reviewed the Battle reports for both games on TMP? WR |
parrskool | 18 Sep 2012 9:15 a.m. PST |
Thanks. The FOG reviews seem to say that there are good ideas in there, but very poorly presented. Whereas Lasalle seems to be regarded by some as a bit formulaic and lacking in character but very well set out with a good turn order mechanism. Or did I get that wrong ? |
the ed is a douche bag | 18 Sep 2012 9:30 a.m. PST |
Just picked up a copy of Lasalle on fleabay for £17.00 GBP Caliver Books list it as in stock btw |
Another Account Deleted | 18 Sep 2012 9:36 a.m. PST |
Agree with the general ideas about both on their layout and ability to explain rules. What is it with English writers and clarity? :) I sold my copy of Lasalle after a couple games. It just didn't have any character/flavor. Now that I've played a couple games of FOG(N), I'm starting to really like it. Good friction and flavor. We also were specifically looking for rules in this "regimental" level. I'm painting some figures for it to round out some units that I already had. I have not played Napoleon at War. |
parrskool | 18 Sep 2012 9:45 a.m. PST |
I think (but am not sure) that Nap. @ War is for smaller units ? |
nickinsomerset | 18 Sep 2012 9:55 a.m. PST |
We are about to have a play with Lasalle, have a few problems with it, but nothing that a few house rules should put right. The chaps at the club are playing a fair bit of FOG (N). I enjoy FOG (R) but do not like the feel of FOG(N). However I feel both are designed for pointed fantasy Napoleonic forces to play quick games in an evening where they seem to be successful, whereas I prefer scenario driven games with historical orbats. Odd as with FOG(R) I am quite happy to play a pointed evening game! Both are supported by good forums that the games designers contribute to. Tally Ho! |
Clay the Elitist | 18 Sep 2012 10:07 a.m. PST |
If I had to pick between the two, it would be Lasalle. However – Napoleon at War is the way to go. This ruleset is brilliant. |
DeRuyter | 18 Sep 2012 10:21 a.m. PST |
Hey the good news is that the basing is the same for both! 15mm = 40x30mm base x4 for a standard unit. Try both! Lasalle is easy to pick up and play (except for the turn sequence, but that comes with time). FOGN is well FOG – steep learning curve, but with some interesting features. Lasalle would make a quicker game and yes it is designed to set up a hypothetical scenario bewteen typical division level forces of the combatants. However is can be used for historical scenarios as well, there is one in the book I believe. I disagree that it is bland, there is sufficent distinction in leadership, tactics and force compostion between the nations without going overboard. |
TodCreasey | 18 Sep 2012 10:22 a.m. PST |
Lasalle totally revitalized Napoleonics at our club. It does play fast so if you like more intricate rules it may not suit you but I have yet to find a set I preferred. I am running a Lasalle game at Fall In if you wanted to try it out. We play FOG(R) at the club and don't mind it – FOG itself was beaten hands down by DBMM. I likely won't try FOG(N) unless someone runs it at a convention. |
MadsBjerregaard | 18 Sep 2012 10:36 a.m. PST |
I like Lasalle but you need to make rules for command and control yourself or take it from another system. We use a houserule were you cannot get your battalions annihalated if your opponent only have 1 succes i close combat. That improved our experience very much. |
Tzen67 | 18 Sep 2012 10:53 a.m. PST |
I think it's hard to compare given the rules are for different levels of game. I had quite a number of games of Lassalle and thought they were pretty good, however like a few others above I gave Napoleonic at War a try and I've been hooked ever since. I've not tried FoGN yet but would consider them for higher level games. |
John de Terre Neuve | 18 Sep 2012 2:53 p.m. PST |
I agree with Tzen67. You can not compare these two rulesets (that are actually quite similar with excellent mechanisms) as they are for different types of games. The basic element in Lasalle is a battalion and in FOG-N is a regiment or small brigade. Fortunately he same basing will work for both. Pick what level you want to play at and buy that set. They are both quite good. John |
Mr Pumblechook | 18 Sep 2012 3:58 p.m. PST |
I started on Lasalle and there are a lot of good points to it but didn't like the way it handled irregular cavalry in particular. I'd recommend Napoleon at War too. You don't need to re-base from Lasalle (or Fog-N) either. You just need to keep track of the number of hits a unit has taken with a dice or markers without any base-removal. |
Tarty2Ts | 18 Sep 2012 4:39 p.m. PST |
Yep another vote for NaW, I played a lot of Lasalle before these came out. NaW just has a bit more flavour I think, both are written for the same scale of game. NaW could handle a bigger game than Lasalle in in evening, much faster pace and very decisive. FoGN is a different game again from what I've read so far, haven't played it so can't comment. Brigade size units, very different kettle of fish. |
Maxshadow | 18 Sep 2012 5:59 p.m. PST |
Lasalle is the best written set of rules I've owned. Very easy to pick up. I don't own FOG:N but understand the aren't. |
trailape | 18 Sep 2012 8:02 p.m. PST |
Hi I like both sets very much. Both great fun IMHO! Lasalle is easy to pick up and play and you can always buy the PDF version if you find the Hard copy difficult to come by. VERY well written. Great Battalion level game, (units are battalions) You can find a few AARs on my blog here: link FoG-N is also very good, but is more difficult to get to grips with (more complex) but certainly gives a great game in a very reasonable time. Units are Demi-brigade / Regiments (though they look and feel like Brigades to me). You can play larger battles with these rules. Army lists are good also. You can see AARs on my blog here: link So it depends on what 'level you wish to play at and the complexity you are willing to deal with. I don't like NaW myself. It's a bit like Flames Of War without tanks,.. Just my opinion of course. Cheers trailape.blogspot.com.au |
Rudysnelson | 18 Sep 2012 8:06 p.m. PST |
I have sold both sets of rules in the Southeast USA. I currently sell FOG-N more frequently than the other. I see more games of FoG-N being played than laSalle in my area. I have never sold a Napoleon at War and have never seen of game of it played at the shows that I attend.
|
Clay the Elitist | 18 Sep 2012 8:10 p.m. PST |
Napoleon at War players are becoming ADDICTS for the game. You're liable to see some of us traveling to shows just to get the game some more exposure. Damn Spanish economy
. |
ancientsgamer | 18 Sep 2012 8:50 p.m. PST |
One caution of Napoleon at War is that artillery is a bit too powerful and covers a lot of the board from what I have heard. Seems to me some sort of a house rule might be necessary? Having said this, everyone that I have had correspondence with likes NAW with the exception of the few who noticed the too powerful artillery. Russians have to be very nasty in the game? Lasalle is a great game. I actually think it scales up well beyond the division level game as the mechanics are fast enough to handle more units IMO. The army builder section is good. Don't expect fully even matches from list to list but they do seem balanced enough. The better armies with guards for instance have to totally trounce the enemy to win for their victory condition. NAW seems to have done well because I think that the army lists allow for a bit more flexibility. There seems to be some elements of Flames of War (not that they play the same as FoW but the point building seems similar. There is also a rumor that NAW may have "borrowed" a bit from Lasalle actually. I own Lasalle and have enjoyed it. I do think that going for bigger battles is very viable and to me it would shine well as a corps on corps game too. I can't comment on FoG. I do know that it is quite different than the other FoG offerings but will have some concepts such as CMT being the same. Our group started with Lasalle but Napoleon At War seems to have taken off even more so. I think the boxed figure sets make the game attractive to newer gamers too. |
Clay the Elitist | 18 Sep 2012 8:58 p.m. PST |
From what you heard? Artillery is beautifully modelled in Napoleon at War. One of the cool 'unwritten' rules is the way you learn to protect your artillery because you don't want to give those easy VPs to your opponent
.. |
parrskool | 19 Sep 2012 2:49 a.m. PST |
So what is it about N@W which makes it so popular ? Is comparing it to Flames of War a compliment ? Ta |
juanturku | 19 Sep 2012 5:41 a.m. PST |
NaW is very funny to play and more than once I have figured a way to use my troops and afterwards realize I was replicating a historic tactic! I playtested the game and I am still surprised how good the game is. BTW Artillery is not too powerful but if you charge in straight line against the guns maybe canister will make a few new holes in your suit. :) |
Clay the Elitist | 19 Sep 2012 6:17 a.m. PST |
I can definitely see a vague resemblance to Flames of War in Napoleon at War, but don't let that influence you. These guys have found an easy to play ruleset that rewards historical tactics without artificially forcing you to do play that way. The best part of Napoleon at War is what I call "the unwritten part" – concepts that occur to you after you've played the game a few times and go "AHA!". For example, there is nothing in the rules regarding spacing, or 'bunching up' like wargamers do. You can certainly run your battalions crammed together side by side with no reserve. If you do that to me, I'll beat you like a drum. Once you try it and see why, that's an "AHA" moment. This IS a 'protractor' game, with rigidly defined shooting zones that are a very important concept in the design. Once you embrace that and start to play within it, you see how it affects so much else
another "AHA" moment. Anyway, I'm not a playtester and just recently got into Napoleon at War. Lasalle just did not do it for me. It seemed more like a clever game concept with Napoleonic miniatures glued to the bases. As my forum name suggests, I'm very picky about my Napoleonics and Napoleon at War is The One. Finally. |
Rudysnelson | 19 Sep 2012 6:30 a.m. PST |
I was a little surprised to see an announcement in an email today from a Miss Gulf Coast group. It was an announcement thata club in birmingham Ala was having a FoG-Napoleonics torunament in a few weeks. I imagine it gives unexpected reinforcemetn to my post. |
Clay the Elitist | 19 Sep 2012 6:39 a.m. PST |
That's GOOD NEWS, because any organized Napoleonic wargaming activity helps us all. I'm glad to hear about it. |
parrskool | 19 Sep 2012 7:06 a.m. PST |
I just read the reviews of N@W on the Nap. message board. The early comments seemed to be quite "anti-" the system, but later comments seem to have changed that view. The game seems to be based on Battalions as base units. |
Clay the Elitist | 19 Sep 2012 7:32 a.m. PST |
You can go straight to here to look at Napoleon at War: manatwar.es Yes, infantry battalions are the base units, organized into brigades
|
1815Guy | 19 Sep 2012 7:40 a.m. PST |
Re N@W it might be helpful to have a look at the forum on the Man at War website. The rules are clearly big in Austin, Texas, thanks to (I think) the very active promotion and support of the rules by a games store out there. The forum posts are modest in number, but a high proportion of them come from a handful of the Texan gamers. I've never seen it played here in UK yet, but I think it could catch on with new gamers coming from FOW. The rules remind one very much of FOW, and FOW players are already used to a fully packaged product experience
What I liked about N@W was the simplicity of the game – looks v easy to pick up, with dice rolls avoiding the need for tables to consult. What I didn't like was the lack of historical depth for the period. You could have anything on the table from any period, imho. If anything it seems more 18thC/7YW than Nap. For example infantry odds against a cavalry attack reward standing in line for most troops. I also felt some of he mechanisms were purely contrived. So a cavalry attack coming in from the far flank of an infantry unit – significantly overlapping the flank but not quite counting as a flank attack – has to be positioned directly in front of the line to take close range fire from the full battalion. The example shown on the forum caused the cavalry to beam across to that dangerous position without the cavalry being able to physically reach that point
.. The officer/C&C rules are also rather weak, imho, and the base sizes totally unique to the N@W system. So if you want a pleasant game using colourful figures, plenty of dice rolling, not too demanding, and you aren't bothered about the historical foundation (more Napoleonic thin veneer than deep foundation) them give them a try. Dont expect lots of nice figurine eye candy in the colour photos, as its not there. Lassale is a totally different starting point and wargames quality imho. Why not have a look at Age of Eagles or General de Brigade? Both excellent sets of rules (at two different levels of play). |
Fredloan | 19 Sep 2012 7:50 a.m. PST |
LaSalle is a great game for a beginner of Naps. Easy to follow rules and that is important for most people starting in Naps. Now it may not be the most historical or as some say flavorful. In my area Shako2 has taken hold pretty strong. I also watched some Carnage & Glory II at Historicon. That was interesting because it took fatigue into account. Yes you have to play with a computer a lot during the game. |
Rudysnelson | 19 Sep 2012 8:36 a.m. PST |
The system has not been mentioned but I do hope to see a few battles of Command & Colors napoleonics at Hurricon next week in Orlando. I do not know if Richard plans to do Napoleonics, run some more of the SYW system or do ACW. I know that Col Pitts may run some at Hubcon in Hattisburg MS that same weekend. he run some fascinating 15mm napoleonic battles at bayou Wars/ New Orleans in June. So I hope he will do more. |
parrskool | 19 Sep 2012 8:51 a.m. PST |
I read a critique and comparison of Age of Eagles in battlegames Mag and it was not too favourable. It implied that adaption from Fire & fury did not really fit in with the Nap. period. |
ancientsgamer | 19 Sep 2012 9:31 a.m. PST |
Basing in NAW is actually more flexible than it appears. The boxed sets do include bases and they sell bases separately. I for one wouldn't use their basing system as it would lock you into playing only certain rules. Clay, from what I have heard (people that have actually played the game) the artillery is a bit more powerful than most rules sets. You don't have to agree as their opinion is theirs. Having said this, I wouldn't be surprised if the opinion is based on frontally taking on artillery with infantry; not the best tactic when light cavalry is available;-) I am glad you found your rules set. I will be picking up the game eventually as I live in Central TX. Frankly, even if the rules weren't as good as what I have been told, I would probably pick them up anyway as there is a lot to be said for having the ability to play a pick up game on short notice. There is no perfect rules set. There is a perfect rules set for you; maybe. I have yet to find a rules set that doesn't get something wrong or a bit off. But in the end, are the problems outweighed by playability to you and your fellow gamers? We will also be playing DBN for large battles. There, I said it ;-) Again, not because it is the best but because my inner gaming circle has picked it up. The game is fine but you definitely have abstracted out what makes the Napoleonic period unique in many ways. But, I will not lack for opponents and we have less to paint than usual (we are doing this in 10mm). In the limited context of where and why we are using the rules, DBN works fine for us. It also allows us to have one off games locally and at conventions that novices and children can pick up. Our main proponent puts on a summer camp for children and is now organizing a once a month gaming day for said children and adults to participate. He is doing what he can to keep historical gaming going to the next generation; a very admirable goal. My tendency is for more granular rules. Probably because I come from a period where we played Empire and all day affairs were the norm. I have a hard time getting away from battalions as the base unit. Having said this, I prefer my infantry battalions to be 24 man in size for the average unit. Makes it tough to do very large battles as space and lack of painted figures is a big hindrance. |
nickinsomerset | 19 Sep 2012 9:45 a.m. PST |
Clay, in some rule sets the only viable formation for infantry appears to be the column/attack comlumn, how does NAW handle the different formations? cheers, Tally Ho! |
Tzen67 | 19 Sep 2012 2:17 p.m. PST |
I'd certainly refute the suggestion that N@W lacked historical foundation. It may be set up as a game system like FoW but it's the way the game does an excellent job of recreating the period at a tactical level that has got me hooked. The concept of a firefight as opposed to simple shooting is excellent. The way attackers have to endure a hail of musketry before their attack goes in makes it hard to charge home but if they succeed then the melee is short and frequently decisive. These things and many more make the game easily the best fast play ( game in an evening) rules I've tried to date (and i've been through quite a lot.) 1815 guy points to cavalry hitting flanks being moved to the defenders front if the majority of the unit is not behind the flank but this just reflects that if the attack is not considered a flank attack then it is considered a frontal attack instead. What constitutes a flank attack is similar to Lasalle (and many other systems). I've certainly never had an issue with how this rule mechanic works. Also, the debate about infantry preffering to stay in line to receive a cavalry charge is hot one, but it is only preferable as compared to testing to form a hasty square. Ideally you should form square in your movement phase and not wait to be charged before deciding on a reaction. If cavalry do charge home on infantry in line then the result is pretty historical (the infantry usually gets annihilated!) As Clay suggested the rules start to show real depth once a few games have been played and that depth is not realised on simply reading through the book. Most of the people i've introduced the rules to here in the UK have really liked it. Cheers, Andy |
juanturku | 19 Sep 2012 3:14 p.m. PST |
In NaW columns are formations apt for low quality troops that can not beat their foes with firepower and are forced to rely on a bloody and costly assault. I am thinking on french conscripts and Prussian Landwehr. Standard infantry forms in line to fire better and cover more terrain. The problem of this rules is you have to play a few games to see its beauty. It is not enough to read the forum or look the game photos to get it. |
Clay the Elitist | 19 Sep 2012 6:00 p.m. PST |
Yes, in Napoleon at War you get columns, lines and squares. I run a French division of mostly conscripts, and ironically find it best to keep them in column and run them straight in. They don't do so well on defense, in firefights and having to make fancy maneuvers. I think the biggest issue is these rules are produced by a couple of guys in Spain in their spare time. If you can get your hands on a rulebook
pick it up! |
John de Terre Neuve | 19 Sep 2012 7:20 p.m. PST |
You 2 have convinced me to take a look. Is the ruleset basing flexible/ John |
juanturku | 19 Sep 2012 10:39 p.m. PST |
They have their own bases but what most starters do is using one infantry 40mm base as two NaW bases and mark the casualties. Cav and art bases are more or less the same. Once they are NaW beleivers they buy the bases to NaW and rebase the army. The company sells bases independently. |
nickinsomerset | 20 Sep 2012 12:03 a.m. PST |
I have just ordered a copy of NAW, but will not be re basing to play it! My aim is to try it with myt latest 28mm stuff, happy to stay with Napoleons Battles for 15mm large battles, Tally Ho! |
nickinsomerset | 20 Sep 2012 1:45 a.m. PST |
And hopefully it will play well with historical orbats as the downloads seem to based for fantasy Napoleonics. My little chaps are based 8 Inf/3 Cav per base 60 x 40. Units are either 4 bases or 6 bases. Hopefully this will work with NAW, Tally Ho! |
Trajanus | 20 Sep 2012 3:28 a.m. PST |
I love you guys! What complete TMP thread. Starts with a question on FOG(N) Vs Lasalle and ends up as promo for NAW! Outstanding! Anyhow, my take on the original question is that FOG(N) probably is a more challenging game than Lasalle (certainly reading the rules is) but is ultimately worth it and once the penny drops they are pretty straight forward. FOG(N)requires a lot of player decisions and the need to plan an attack, keep reserves and being prepared to rotate troops out of the line as they wear out. Probably the best representation of units gradually fading in usefulness I've ever come across. None of this here one minute gone the next that's become the fashion. You actually get to see attacks running out of steam rather than evaporating. I have to say that I'm getting into them in a way I haven't done with a Napoleonic set in the past 20 years. |
Tzen67 | 20 Sep 2012 3:30 a.m. PST |
I guess it's the nature of discussions! They evolve! |
parrskool | 20 Sep 2012 3:45 a.m. PST |
The thing is that I had a look at FOG Ancient rules and did not like them at all, which is why I was concerned about their take on the Napoleonics |
nickinsomerset | 20 Sep 2012 4:02 a.m. PST |
I like daffodils!!! I have not yet played Lasalle (we try tonight) but from what I have seen of FOG(N) at the club it does not strike me as a Napoleonic Battle. More a system to allow players to use small made up forces to play a game in a couple of hours. Tally Ho! |
parrskool | 20 Sep 2012 4:24 a.m. PST |
nickinsomerset
.. some have said similar things about Age of Eagles rules |
nickinsomerset | 20 Sep 2012 4:30 a.m. PST |
parrskool, indeed every set of rules has its supporters and detractors! Tally Ho! |
shadoe01 | 20 Sep 2012 5:20 a.m. PST |
parrskool, Asking for an opinion on a set of rules is rather like asking for a restaurant recommendation. You don't know what you'll get unless you know something about the preferences of the person making the recommendation. It would be useful to know a little more about what you want. There are many fine rule sets out there – some may suit you and some might not. I would happily play most but life is short and you do need to make choices. "The thing is that I had a look at FOG Ancient rules and did not like them at all, which is why I was concerned about their take on the Napoleonics." Don't be fooled by the name. There's more in common between FoG(N) and Lasalle then between FoG(N) and FoG(AM). I think you need to decide if you prefer a divisional level game where your division has a mission and you try to achieve that mission. Lasalle and Napoleon at War are designed for this type of game. The corps level is about deciding on missions for those divisions and assigning corps level resources to those divisions. Obviously a corps level game will need some type of game mechanism for resolving divisional encounters. FoG(N) and Napoleon's Battles are designed for this level with a more abstract mechanism for resolving divisional encounters than Lasalle, NaW, etc. Empire tries to do it all by having two levels of games – the divisional encounter and the corps level. Opinions vary about how well that worked out, but
hey, they tried. I do not believe that rules sets are as scalable as people think. Yes, if you have a big enough space, enough figures and enough players you can recreate Leipzig at 1:10 scale using a detailed tactical rule set, but one has to accept that any fidelity with respect to simulating the all important time dimension of warfare has been completely lost. The higher up you go in representation the more time troops spend doing nothing but wait for those few minutes of terror when they are actually fighting. My own preference, which has as much to do with past decisions – i.e., invested time and money – is a corps level game since it is the "corps concept" that the French introduced and latter adopted by all other major powers that interests me. Column, line and square have long since disappeared from warfare, but the corps concept on the other hand has survived until the end of the Cold War. We still have "corps" but Operation Iraqi Freedom has shows that as a sub-theatre, all-arms force working in conjunction with other corps concept it no longer applies. The modern corps is the theatre force and hence
.more equivalent to "army". Obviously, my preference is FoG(N)
I like it enough that I am rebasing my 5,000 figures – 85% done at the moment. But that's not a problem as the FoG(N) based figures can be used for many of the other rule sets out there. However, it might not be right for you. Are there any gamers near you playing any of the rule sets mentioned? Might be useful to see if you can play – or at least observe – the various games before deciding. If you can't do that buy a few rule sets – the cost is minimal compared to the cost of the miniatures. If you don't understand the rules
.each rule set has a forum where you can ask questions. Have fun with some exploration of options. Cheers. |