"Field of Glory Napoleonics" Topic

Anyone tried these yet? Are they a good set? Too complicated? I find the earlier sets of Field of Glory to be sort of unwieldy.

Had 3 or 4 games. Have recently got back into Napoleonics after 20 years or so away, when I used to play Grand Manner or Richard Butlers "to the Sound of the Guns". Key is not to start off with too big a game, unless you have someone who knows the rules well, as some of the mechanisms are a bit obscure. One big criticism is that the proof reading of the rules book was shocking, all kinds of typos and mistakes, which are slowly getting corrected through errata sheets. I do expect better of Osprey
It does encourage " combined arms" tactics- trying to smash through with cavalry is rarely effective as most cavalry units are " one shot" , as they become spent and so less effective in combat. Using all three arms in attacks usually leads to a good result, for the attacker.
I haven't really got my head round the command points system yet, generals are rated at 1, 2 or 3, but no general can attempt to rally more than one unit per turn, so the 3star guys aren't really worth the points cost. The main use is when attempting so-called complex moves. It can be disastrous not to have CPs in certain situations e.g. my cuirassiers being shot up from the rear, with enemy light cav within 2 mu to their front, could not do the sensible thing ( run away!) because their divisional commander was too far away.
Once units start to become disordered( through fire or combat) they seem to go rapidly downhill and broken units can spread panic very quickly!
British lines on slopes can cause havoc to French columns, our first game was a 6 mm refight of Corunna, and the infantry did well, until French heavy cavalry worked around their flank and threatened the LoC.
Would suggest you take a look at the Slitherine forum- the questions and answers in there help to give a better idea of some of the subtleties. I am enjoying playing the rules and think they are worth a go. Play sheets can be downloaded from the Slitherine site.

link

They were my first rules back after a spell away fr Naps and I really like them for the way they represent units getting worn own during battle rather than suddenly routing off the table.

Key thing is to read the rule book over and over as important things are tucked away in odd places and if there was an editor they should have been shot.

Don't let that put you off they are worth the effort.

One problem; it probably helps not have played the other two FoG rules. The rules do have significant variations and so there are issue of 'oops, sorry that was in the other set'.

The rules have potential IF you like that kind of 'Napoleon's Battles' kind of scale. Personally I want to play them more before giving a definite thumbs up or down, my group that plays these rules is tending up.

I have these rules and really want to try them.Problem is,I want to do it in 1/72,have lots of figures,but too many projects already in the works.In fact, my FoGR Italian Wars will be completed before these do.I guess the best thing to do would be to just stockpile the figures for now.

FOGN is fairly popular in NZ at the moment with a couple of tournaments having been played. Consensus is it gives a solid game suitable for competition play. Downside is the rules are shockingly badly written. So it is best to learn from someone who knows the rules.

The rules don't excite me that much – I find they lack elegance. But for competition play these are probably the best around.

It also have a strong group in Birmingham Alabama.

These and Napoleon at War are the most popular these days of the newer games. Napoleon at War is more at the battalion/division level. FoG N is more at the brigade/Corps level.

If you want something clear and a bit more streamlined look up Lasalle it is at the same level as NaW. Btw one of the above games has hmmm…"borrowed" extensively from Lasalle….

All three of these work well at the competition level. If I were doing larger battles, I probably wouldn't use any of these though.

I've played 3 games of FoGN so far and am starting to get a hang of the rules.

What I like about the rules and how they represent my impression of what Napoleonic:

- If you can handle the abstraction that each unit is a regiment I think they represent the idea of a Corps very well, in particular the idea of attachments and the composition of divisions. I don't like playing Division level games because a divisional commander would be more limited in your tactical options.

- A headlong attack straight into enemy lines will be costly, but if an assault is set up properly integrating cavalry, artillery and skirmishers the chances are greatly increased.

- The mechanics of combat are fairly streamlined and resolved with one set of dice rolls. Once you get used to the game sequence, the actions and reactions the games (I am hoping) should flow quickly.

One the downside, I don't think these are rules that are conducive to beginners in the Napoleonic era, as mentioned they are poorly written and are best learned from someone that knows them well. I also think that appreciating the concepts and subtleties requires some basic understanding of Napoleonic warfare a little dedication and several plays of the system.

I think the choice of game depends on what you are looking for:
If I wanted to invite my casual gaming friends over and have a large battle, drink beer and throw dice I would probably go with Black Powder.
If I want to control a Corps and all the assets that come with it, have a more discerning and dedicated opponent and want to get a good feeling for the interactions of troops I would go with FoGN.