Help support TMP


"Recommended Rules for New Napoleonic Player?" Topic


109 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

Napoleonic

Featured Hobby News Article


6,806 hits since 10 Apr 2014
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 

Bandit15 Apr 2014 5:22 p.m. PST

Looks like the original purpose of this thread is doomed to be lost while the two of you [Sparker & Glenn] take umbrage at Jeff saying what boiled down to "let's push our own preferences less and provide more 'data' to answer the question."

Not sure how the greater good is served by the two of you [Sparker & Glenn] claiming to be victims. The victim is the guy who gets his thread hijacked so that someone else can argue their preference with imaginary attackers.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Sparker15 Apr 2014 7:25 p.m. PST

Yawn…Just to go through the motions, if you could kindly point out where either of us has 'claimed to be a victim' I'd be grateful….

Personally, whilst I find you and your cronies' bullying attitude tiresome, in that it attenuates the useful or interesting exchange of information, I have yet to hear of a grown man come to harm by the antics of keyboard toughs like yourself…

I too am sorry this thread has been hijacked.

A simple exercise in chronological assessment will show where the fault lies; Catwenwold makes a disengnous comment about 'please don't hijack this thread too' and you accuse Glenn of speaking like a commercial and providing misleading information. He then rebuts those accusations, which he's perfectly entitled to do.

You don't like being called out on your personal comments? Don't make them!

CATenWolde15 Apr 2014 9:54 p.m. PST

I didn't reply to the web-warrior posts here because, from long experience, I know the futility of the engagement. I provided simple, straightforward advice and chose to leave it at that, and I hope the OP gets what he needs from the first part of the thread and ignores the relatively useless second half.

However, despite knowing where the greater wisdom lies, I have to say that I take umbrage at your specific comment, Sparker, as well as Glenn's more oblique combativeness. I find it simply incredible to believe that you actually post comments that derail a thread about my parenthetical plea not to derail the thread! This doesn't strike either of you as bordering on the absurd? I think you have to honestly consider whether the goal of your two's posts is not to provide information, but to engage in some sort of thread combat to establish the seeming superiority of your own views. You both have a lot of enthusiasm for your specific takes on Napoleonic gaming, which is great! But why not consider whether a change in tone would be more effective?

Good gaming to all!

Christopher

Sparker16 Apr 2014 2:45 a.m. PST

Same advice from me mate – don't like threads being derailed – then don't descend into personal attacks…Simple really!

Bandit16 Apr 2014 6:30 a.m. PST

Sparker,

There is a tiny coterie on this board who seem to me to be increasing their bullying towards those who dare to express a contrary opinion, to the extent of making an entire thread unworkable..

There you are claiming you are being bullied.

But that just does their work for them, and they are slowly getting more rude and aggressive and now banding together.

There you claim it is by a group organizing against you. Someone being bullied by a group would be a victim of bullying by a group of people.

Personally, whilst I find you and your cronies' bullying attitude tiresome

Now you're name calling and presuming that others who disagree with you have some attachment to me? (crony: a close friend or companion)

I too am sorry this thread has been hijacked.

Then you shouldn't have participated in doing so.

You don't like being called out on your personal comments? Don't make them!

I haven't complained at any attack on me though you are making them. My objection is that I do not see how the greater good, or the original poster is served by you or Glenn stating in long form over and again that your preferences are under attack and must be defended by anyone who holds a contrary opinion. In this thread no one has said your view was invalid. No one said it was a bad game even. Rather some people recommended it and stated reasons why, others said they did not recommend it and stated reasons why. By your own words you feel a need to:

…have the temerity to defend Black Powder…

That was in response to someone [Christopher] who ended their statement about Black Powder by saying:

I'm not saying it's a bad set of rules – just imho not a good fit in this situation.

Yeah, you really need to "defend" against statements like that, highly objectionable content there.

I don't understand your aim when you do this, are you trying to defend the honor or Black Powder? You aren't correcting any factual misstatements, you're arguing with opinions. You quote Christopher saying:

It's a quirky set of rules that is loosely written, covers a much broader period

assumes you know how to tweak the rules to achieve what you want for a specific sub-period like Napoleonics

having played Black Powder I would not recommend it as a set for a beginner. You need to already understand the period, the tactics, and the armies well to get value out of it.

but it presumes you know a lot of stuff.

And respond that none of those are correct. But you've said those same things, even in your response disputing their correctness you agree in places with them.

Black Powder is a loosely written:
February 6, 2014 @ 6:57pm PST

Perhaps some people [speaking of yourself and Black Powder] prefer looser rules that require a bit of thought and input to work

February 3, 2014 @ 6:33pm PST
BP is just a tool kit to adjudicate the action…

April 13, 2014 @ 7:43pm PST
…whilst its scatter gun approach can be frustrating when trying to clarify a particular rule, its period, chatty approach has a charm all of its own!

Black Powder requires "tweaking" for specific scenarios and periods:
January 22, 2014 @ 3:15pm PST
[playing requires taking] the trouble to do the hard yards in setting up appropriate unit stats and special rules prior to the game…

Black Powder shouldn't be played in isolation:
January 22, 2014 @ 3:15pm PST
by setting aside a day and enlisting the help of half a dozen like minded mates to share the task of command.

April 13, 2014 @ 7:43pm PST
I might further add that doing it alone will be hard.

Some guy says he is looking for a rules recommendation and you argue with the opinions of others rather than just explaining your own. If you posted saying, "I've had success with Black Powder in XYZ ways" rather than saying "so-and-so has it all wrong about Black Powder, let me tell you how his opinions are wrong!" then no one would be objecting to you.

then don't descend into personal attacks

Ahuh. You called Christopher a "crony" of mine because he didn't recommend Black Powder.

Cheers,

The Bandit

1815Guy16 Apr 2014 6:50 a.m. PST

There must be hundreds of different rules out there. If you are looking to encourage others to join in, go for a set that are FUN first and foremost, let the other rulesets come in as your understanding of the period grows.

Generally, whatever you can play in 15mm you can also play in 6mm using the same bases etc.

My first port of call might be eBay to see what is going on 2nd hand….there are some classic rules from classic authors such as Charles Grant, GW Jeffries and others that were excellent at inspiring new players, and going for a song. Keep away from Empire though, even if you have access to garlic and a crucifix…..

If not eBay, then Freewargames rules. There are a few decent sets on there that have been around a long time, and still going, so they must be doing something right. I think the old WRG naps catalogue is in there for a start – a set which I am sure weaned many of the players here into Napoleonics.

Another recommendation for fun games….. Well Shako2 is quite good to play, very easy to pick up and uses btns as the basic unit. We use this in our club when new members want to try. You will outgrow it and find its holes quite quickly, so buy a 2nd hand set, and be prepared to modify itas you learn more! And no to Black Powder, its a rule format, you have to finish them off yourself to fill in the holes. You arent ready for that yet.

Although it isn't battalion scale, Napoleon's Battles often plays as if it is. It's a very complete set, and comes up regularly on Ebay for about a fiver or so. It's a good intro to the period as it's a very structured game turn,but what will be especially good for you as a newbie will be the scenarios it comes with, and the data booklet giving e.g troop nationality ratings and officer ratings for the complete wars. It's almost a reference set for new players, and although some would disagree with some of the opinions, for a new player to the period it's an ideal set in many ways.

Do please come back and tell us what you have chosen.


Enjoy the period!

CATenWolde16 Apr 2014 7:14 a.m. PST

I didn't even realize I was a crony, and now I'm a bandit crony! I think I've always wanted to be a crony, deep down … that's something like deep fried croissant, right?

Bandit16 Apr 2014 8:02 a.m. PST

And while Geoffery (1815Guy) didn't plug them his own Corps d'armιe is a very nice set that is plenty complete for "starting off" in fact, its command system would even facilitate solo play rather well. It is out-of-print but it can be found if you look on second hand markets.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Whirlwind16 Apr 2014 8:43 a.m. PST

One thing I would caution the OP to consider is that rules which require figure removal can be a bit fiddly when using 6mm figures. Lots of modern rules don't use figure removal, but some older ones do, so take care, or be prepared to use rosters or some other means of recording casualties. Removing a single close-order infantryman can be quite tedious, to be honest.

When using these older rules, one good piece of advice is to consider using the basing width for larger figures but with more 6mm figures. Say you use the venerable WRG 1685 – 1845 rules PDF link which many of us started with, and some posters still use, it asks for 'regular skirmishing infantry' (i.e. any regular troops which can skirmish) to be based as 2 figures on a 7.5mm x 5mm base. You *can* do this, but it is quite fiddly to use. But try using the width recommended for 25mm figures – 30mm – instead; much easier to use (you'll probably find you can fit 6 figures on instead).

Hope any of that helps

Regards

Glenn Pearce16 Apr 2014 10:55 a.m. PST

Hello Bandit!

"Looks like the original purpose of this thread is doomed to be lost while the two of you [Sparker & Glenn] take umbrage at Jeff saying what boiled down to "let's push our own preferences less and provide more 'data' to answer the question."

Interesting that you have identified people who you deem to be dooming the thread, while applauding the without any doubt hijacker. Why have you chosen to ignore his actions and try and make us out to be the bad guys? Not only that, but I clearly advised him not to do it and he still did nothing about it. He even ignored his own advice! Still all this seems to be oblivious to you, why?

"Not sure how the greater good is served by the two of you [Sparker & Glenn] claiming to be victims. The victim is the guy who gets his thread hijacked so that someone else can argue their preference with imaginary attackers."

So now you go on to label us using a term that was never uttered by either of us. You then identify what the term means to you and it clearly does not apply to us. So why did you label us this way?

You have clearly established a victim, but completely ignore the perpetrator, why?

It's certainly clear to me that for some unknown reason your impression of Jeff's message is greatly different from Sparkers and mine. That difference seems to trouble you, why? It seems that you have drawn a line between you and people that have different opinions. That line seems to be so thick that you can't wait to jump on them for whatever reason. Some people might see that as a form of bullying.

Best regards,

Glenn

KTravlos16 Apr 2014 11:29 a.m. PST

I have not read the previous topics since it seems some unpleasantness erupted so I do not know if anybody suggested this. May I suggest

"Paddy Griffiths Napoleonic Wargaming for Fun"

link

A multi-level ruleset with simple rules for conflict from the skirmish to the Army level.

The Division and Amry games use the 4 stand battalion as their building blog (each stand is two companies), while the brigade game uses the 12 stand battalion (each stand in a half section). But they are easily modable.

Glenn Pearce16 Apr 2014 11:38 a.m. PST

Hello Christopher!

"I didn't reply to the web-warrior posts here because, from long experience, I know the futility of the engagement."

Well I'm certainly glad you cleared that up. I was thinking the worst, maybe he was afraid to apologize, or maybe he couldn't answer my questions, or perhaps even worse he couldn't support his claims!

"I provided simple, straightforward advice and chose to leave it at that,"

I think you left out a few bits. I won't waste your time refreshing them for you as it seems that you want to put all of that behind you.

"However, despite knowing where the greater wisdom lies"

And just where would that be?

"I have to say that I take umbrage at your specific comment, Sparker, as well as Glenn's more oblique combativeness."

Ah a two in one shot. It has never been my intention to offend anyone who did not offend me first. I think Sparker identifies one of the first ones that you made. Do you want me to highlight them for you?

"I find it simply incredible to believe that you actually post comments that derail a thread about my parenthetical plea not to derail the thread!"

"Parenthetical", is that an alternate word for humiliate, embarrass, chastise or bully?

"This doesn't strike either of you as bordering on the absurd?"

The only thing that is actually absurd is your comments. Someone actually takes the time to hijack the thread and you ignore him. Instead you accuse Sparker and myself. I even tried to stop it, another action that completely escapes you.

"I think you have to honestly consider whether the goal of your two's posts is not to provide information, but to engage in some sort of thread combat to establish the seeming superiority of your own views."

It's called self defense. If your not prepared for people to react to your comments, don't ridicule or talk down to them.

"You both have a lot of enthusiasm for your specific takes on Napoleonic gaming, which is great! But why not consider whether a change in tone would be more effective?"

I don't see how a change in our tone will stop you from making offensive remarks.

Regards,

Glenn

Bandit16 Apr 2014 12:06 p.m. PST

Glenn,

Interesting that you have identified people who you deem to be dooming the thread, while applauding the without any doubt hijacker. Why have you chosen to ignore his actions and try and make us out to be the bad guys? Not only that, but I clearly advised him not to do it and he still did nothing about it. He even ignored his own advice! Still all this seems to be oblivious to you, why?

I do not consider anything stated in the quoted paragraph above to be factual or accurate, I guess that answers your question of "why?".

So now you go on to label us using a term that was never uttered by either of us. You then identify what the term means to you and it clearly does not apply to us. So why did you label us this way?

I quoted Sparker's words regarding his view of your paired circumstance to identify the term's application.

Bully: a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
Victim: a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.

You and Sparker have now both stated that others are bullying you, that means you are being done harm, if you are harmed, you are by definition a victim. Don't argue with me, argue with the New Oxford American Dictionary.

It's certainly clear to me that for some unknown reason your impression of Jeff's message is greatly different from Sparkers and mine.

Yep.

That difference seems to trouble you, why?

Nope.

It seems that you have drawn a line between you and people that have different opinions.

Nope.

That line seems to be so thick that you can't wait to jump on them for whatever reason.

Nope.

Some people might see that as a form of bullying.

Some people might see a lot of things.

Regarding some things you directed at Christopher:

Well I'm certainly glad you cleared that up. I was thinking the worst, maybe he was afraid to apologize, or maybe he couldn't answer my questions, or perhaps even worse he couldn't support his claims!

Or maybe he believes that if he replies then you'll reply and the thread hijacking will never end, thus he might conclude the only way for anyone to win is not to play.

Ah a two in one shot. It has never been my intention to offend anyone who did not offend me first. I think Sparker identifies one of the first ones that you made. Do you want me to highlight them for you?

If you feel offended you are justified in offending regardless of whether offense was actual or imagined. That is giving yourself rather infinite justification treat anyone however you feel.

"Parenthetical", is that an alternate word for humiliate,
embarrass, chastise or bully?

Only if he is misusing it:

Parenthetical: of, relating to, or inserted as a parenthesis: ignore the parenthetical remarks that pockmark every page.

It's called self defense. If your not prepared for people to react to your comments, don't ridicule or talk down to them.
I don't see how a change in our tone will stop you from making offensive remarks.

Jeff asked people in general not to do what he observed some doing, I presume but do not know that his statement was directed at you. You consider that hijacking. I had previously tried to express that your long post about 6mm, Baccus and Polemos didn't come off well when I read it, I didn't say anything to offend you, you seemed to accept my intent was not to offend you. Then you replied by providing a long list of your credentials. I have no idea how that speaks to what I expressed. Jeff made comment in his post that listing a lot of credentials as to why your opinion is the best and correct opinion commonly will be seen as pompous. I signaled I agreed. Then you and Sparker got upset.

I don't see how a change in our tone will stop you from making offensive remarks.

Because changing your tone might result in less criticism further resulting in less arguments. No one said to change your message, just your delivery. And in fact, it was said because it would cause more people to be receptive to your message.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Glenn Pearce16 Apr 2014 12:08 p.m. PST

Hello Bandit!

"My objection is that I do not see how the greater good, or the original poster is served by you or Glenn stating in long form over and again that your preferences are under attack"

I think we actually agree on this. So why do you keep bringing it up?

"In this thread no one has said your view was invalid."

That's clearly not true. Do you want me to highlight it for you?

Regards,

Glenn

CATenWolde16 Apr 2014 12:08 p.m. PST

This has passed into farce. Even in academia I have never had any of my comments be so minutely parsed with such willful intent. I see there is no escape from the Military Industrial Persecution Complex!

(by the way, "parenthetical" means a minor aside (or a remark made "in parentheses"))

Bandit16 Apr 2014 12:09 p.m. PST

Glenn,

I think we actually agree on this. So why do you keep bringing it up?

I don't believe I've brought it up multiple times.

That's clearly not true. Do you want me to highlight it for you?

Yes. Please highlight it for me.

Cheers,

The Bandit

CATenWolde16 Apr 2014 12:15 p.m. PST

By the way, you may rest easy, as I have reported myself to the editor for this thread, specifically citing the terrible post in which I used parentheses to such awful effect! I will await my sentencing in barely dignified silence.

Glenn Pearce16 Apr 2014 12:26 p.m. PST

Hello Bandit!

"I really appreciate Glenn's enthusiasm, but telling someone new to the hobby that using 60x30mm bases is somehow a standard, and that he'll never has to rebase … is a bit misleading to say the least. He won't be able to use those large bases with virtually any other rule set than your favorite Polemos, which is a decidedly minority set of rules.

(and no, Glenn, please don't hijack this thread too)"

Go ahead, peel out whatever you like.

Regards,

Glenn

CATenWolde16 Apr 2014 12:31 p.m. PST

(Bandit – thank you, but there is really no need to waste more time responding to the above.)

Bandit16 Apr 2014 12:33 p.m. PST

Glenn,

Christopher didn't say your opinion was invalid, he disputed a factual conclusion you made.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit16 Apr 2014 12:36 p.m. PST

Christopher,

(Bandit – thank you, but there is really no need to waste more time responding to the above.)

Wait a second, you used parens, aren't I supposed to be offended?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Sparker16 Apr 2014 12:43 p.m. PST

I'm glad to see that Glenn and my standing up for the right to post our opinions hasn't prevented other gentlemen from making useful and relevant posts in answer to the OP – good on you Guys! Personally I've made my points about Black Powder, but I hadn't realised what a crowded market it is for battalion level rules.

I think Glenn and I have now made our points, and neither us feels like victims, especially given that we have insisted on expressing our points at a place where we feel they are appropriate. I will continue to post my opinions and I hope Glenn continues to wax enthusiastic about his views.

I don't have a dog in the 'parenthesis' fight, although personally I prefer the term 'brackets', particularly as its quicker to type ;-)

there is really no need to waste more time responding to the above

Amen!

Bandit16 Apr 2014 12:49 p.m. PST

Sparker,

In the spirit of not fighting but sharing fun, random trivia:

Curious thing, parens and brackets and braces are all different. Parens () are used for asides that are not necessary for understanding the text but may provide addition information, related or unrelated. Brackets [] are typically used in quoting when you are making a change to the quoted text, such as changing the pluralism of a word or substituting a proper noun instead of saying he or she. I'm honestly not sure when braces {} are used.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Sparker16 Apr 2014 12:51 p.m. PST

Well you live and learn!

Whirlwind16 Apr 2014 1:01 p.m. PST

link

Regards

Glenn Pearce16 Apr 2014 1:38 p.m. PST

Hello Bandit!

"Interesting that you have identified people who you deem to be dooming the thread, while applauding the without any doubt hijacker. Why have you chosen to ignore his actions and try and make us out to be the bad guys? Not only that, but I clearly advised him not to do it and he still did nothing about it. He even ignored his own advice! Still all this seems to be oblivious to you, why?

I do not consider anything stated in the quoted paragraph above to be factual or accurate, I guess that answers your question of "why?"."

Certainly answers why, puzzling, but it does answer it.

"So now you go on to label us using a term that was never uttered by either of us. You then identify what the term means to you and it clearly does not apply to us. So why did you label us this way?

I quoted Sparker's words regarding his view of your paired circumstance to identify the term's application.

Bully: a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
Victim: a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action."

So now you have a different definition. Certainly looks better then your first one.

"You and Sparker have now both stated that others are bullying you"

And that is stated where?

"Regarding some things you directed at Christopher:"

Now see this gets back to my jumping on people for whatever reason remark. You can't even leave posts that were never even directed at you alone.

"Well I'm certainly glad you cleared that up. I was thinking the worst, maybe he was afraid to apologize, or maybe he couldn't answer my questions, or perhaps even worse he couldn't support his claims!

Or maybe he believes that if he replies then you'll reply and the thread hijacking will never end, thus he might conclude the only way for anyone to win is not to play."

Well you see the problem with that is his reply was due long before the hijacking took place. But of course you don't know that because your in denial as to when it occurred.

"Ah a two in one shot. It has never been my intention to offend anyone who did not offend me first. I think Sparker identifies one of the first ones that you made. Do you want me to highlight them for you?

If you feel offended you are justified in offending regardless of whether offense was actual or imagined. That is giving yourself rather infinite justification treat anyone however you feel."

No, if you like I will clearly identify the offense for you.
Strangely enough though others seem to see them with no problems.

"Parenthetical", is that an alternate word for humiliate,
embarrass, chastise or bully?

Only if he is misusing it:

Parenthetical: of, relating to, or inserted as a parenthesis: ignore the parenthetical remarks that pockmark every page."

Obviously you missed my point. Sorry, I will try and do better next time.

"Jeff asked people in general not to do what he observed some doing,"

But it was okay for him?

"I presume but do not know that his statement was directed at you."

It was rather a long statement and covered a lot of points. So why do you presume it was directed at me? If so why would it trouble Sparker?

"You consider that hijacking."

Absolutely, he even starts off admitting it. But your in full denial.

"I had previously tried to express that your long post about 6mm, Baccus and Polemos didn't come off well when I read it, I didn't say anything to offend you, you seemed to accept my intent was not to offend you. Then you replied by providing a long list of your credentials. I have no idea how that speaks to what I expressed."

So you make a statement about me. I try to explain me and now you tell me that you didn't even understand it! Yet you have never stated that until now! And your lack of communication with me is the root of your problem with me?

"Jeff made comment in his post that listing a lot of credentials as to why your opinion is the best and correct opinion commonly will be seen as pompous."

Yes he did and it was a false statement. That has been identified at least twice. Seems to be something else that your ignoring.

"I signaled I agreed. Then you and Sparker got upset."

And should we not when people support false statements?
Even here and now you are repeating it.

"I don't see how a change in our tone will stop you from making offensive remarks.

Because changing your tone might result in less criticism further resulting in less arguments. No one said to change your message, just your delivery. And in fact, it was said because it would cause more people to be receptive to your message."

Your putting the cart in front of the horse here. Offensive remarks made first, tone second.

Regards,

Glenn

Glenn Pearce16 Apr 2014 1:44 p.m. PST

Hello Bandit!

"Christopher didn't say your opinion was invalid, he disputed a factual conclusion you made"

Even I wouldn't step on that slippery slope.

Regards,

Glenn

KTravlos16 Apr 2014 2:23 p.m. PST

Again man, try Paddy Griffith :p no wars over it! You will thank me!

Bandit16 Apr 2014 5:04 p.m. PST

Glenn,

So now you have a different definition. Certainly looks better then your first one.

Nope. I used the same definition both times:

There you [Sparker] claim it [bullying] is by a group organizing against you. Someone being bullied by a group would be a victim of bullying by a group of people.

Bully: a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
Victim: a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.

And that [statements made by Sparker and yourself that others are bullying you] is stated where?

Sparker's was previously quoted but was:

Personally, whilst I find you and your cronies' bullying attitude tiresome…

And:
There is a tiny coterie on this board who seem to me to be increasing their bullying towards those who dare to express a contrary opinion…

Yours was:
Some people might see that as a form of bullying.

And:
"Parenthetical", is that an alternate word for humiliate, embarrass, chastise or bully?

While I'm correcting things:

…something else that your ignoring…

If your not prepared…

…because your in denial…

But your in full denial.

'Your' does not mean what you think it does or at least does not apply how you are using it. I presumed it was a typo at first which we all make, but since you are doing it rather chronically, FYI, I presume you mean 'you're' as in the contraction for 'you are'.

Also, you are concluding and accusing me of a lot. I'm ignoring a lot, I'm not prepared for a lot, I'm in denial of a lot, except the times I'm in 'full denial'.

And your lack of communication with me is the root of your problem with me?

Nope.

Well you see the problem with that is his reply was due long before the hijacking took place.

I am unaware of due dates for replies on internet forums.

No, if you like I will clearly identify the offense for you.
Strangely enough though others seem to see them with no problems.

Who are these 'others'?

Offensive remarks made first, tone second.

They weren't actually unless you withheld your offense for sometime. You say you were offended by Jeff's post but the tone that Jeff, Christopher and myself are commenting on was present in your long post about Baccus, 6mm & Polemos. Thus, your tone (the one in question) pre-dates the comments you say you take offense to. I understand you believe otherwise from your statements saying that you believe otherwise but people aren't objecting to your message, they are objecting to your method.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Glenn Pearce16 Apr 2014 6:09 p.m. PST

Bandit!

"You say you were offended by Jeff's post but the tone that Jeff, Christopher and myself are commenting on was present in your long post about Baccus, 6mm & Polemos. Thus, your tone (the one in question) pre-dates the comments you say you take offense to. I understand you believe otherwise from your statements saying that you believe otherwise but people aren't objecting to your message, they are objecting to your method."

Wow, wow, wow………….I'm in shock!!!

I'm clearly stating that I now feel I'm a victim. You are the first person to admit that you "are objecting to your (my) method" and "tone" in a single message! You also state that Jeff and Christopher are as well. That's disgusting and extremely offensive. This confirms that you have indeed been attacking me all along just because of my "method" and "tone" in a single post. Although I was suspicious and somewhat puzzled by your relentless messages it's now very clear that it is all part of a gang attack. It's now obvious that the three of you have been trying to bully me into posting in a "method" and "tone" that is acceptable to you. That's also called harassment. How dare you consistently attack someone over the "method" and "tone" of a post.

You have without any doubt confirmed Sparkers statement in spades!

"There is a tiny coterie on this board who seem to me to be increasing their bullying towards those who dare to express a contrary opinion, to the extent of making an entire thread unworkable..

At first I felt that just ignoring these 'Keyboard Heroes' was the way, rather respond to the points they were making, if indeed they made any coherent points. But that just does their work for them, and they are slowly getting more rude and aggressive and now banding together. So I now think its best to support each other, and any one else they are attempting to shut down or ridicule, and tackle them head on…"

Your actions, your goals, your comments are disgusting. I no longer have any respect for you Jeff or Christopher. I will do everything I can to try and stop the three of you from doing this again.

Glenn

Bandit16 Apr 2014 6:14 p.m. PST

Huh?

You challenged me to show where you and Sparker said you were bullied, I did. You tell me regarding each of our points of disagreement that I am in denial. I tell you that your tone leads people to object to what you say and you tell me that is harassment? Before you complained as to others not posting a response before one came "due" but now you're saying that I reply too much. I think we've replied to each other at roughly the same rate. You conclude by saying that you've lost all respect for myself and some others because we didn't like your tone but you just lost respect now after my last post when you acknowledged the point of contention was over tone earlier on this second page of the thread.

In case it is needed, when I said "method" I meant method of stating your view which seems to be highly adversarial at the least provocation, at least that is how it comes across – I don't know how you intend it.

You keep saying I am attacking you but I don't *think* I've said anything mean or rude, I'm not name calling, I haven't accused you of doing anything that you haven't stated you are doing. I don't get it.

Are you OK? [not a sarcastic question]

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit16 Apr 2014 6:31 p.m. PST

Whirlwind – Thanks for the link! I had not realized.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Chortle Fezian16 Apr 2014 6:36 p.m. PST

One, two, three, four, I declare a thread war!

When I saw the title it crossed my mind that that badweasel may be an account recently created by a regular member to start a ding-dong just for the chuckle factor. I'm sure it isn't and I apologise for my flitting paranoia.

I play mostly with "In The Grand Manner" in 28mm where a unit is a battalion. It is "old school" with firing and melee tables. Collecting the figures is very involved. You won't go down this road unless you manage to attend a game and fall in love with the spectacle. Feast your eyes on the games here:

wargameshc.co.uk/index.php/waterloo-march-2014

picture

My suggestion for one guy who has to paint "both sides" is go down another route. This is assuming you really can't find an established opponent in your area. Another vote for Baccus for me. Baccus paint up easily. As has been stated here, you can get the rules from the same source. I know they are very popular because I've sold over a hundred thousand Baccus figures based for Polemos (probably a lot more). If you are going to do everything yourself, and then convert your local players, you may find this "all in one" (and popular) package helpful.

Baccus Polemos armies pack up easily and don't take up much space. That is handy for bringing them to a convention or another gamer's house. If you move onto another rule set later at least they won't be taking up your spare room.

Baccus figures:

picture

picture

More pictures on my web site (Sorry, French mostly out of stock till Baccus send me more). Baccus are very busy now catching up on orders following the big UK convention/show "Salute".

link

CATenWolde16 Apr 2014 9:29 p.m. PST

Glenn – I'm honestly concerned about the state you seem to have put yourself in.

You are being needlessly and somewhat histrionically paranoid, and in the process being more insulting and rude by orders of magnitude than anything you have imagined you've endured at my hands – which essentially consisted of me disagreeing with you about 60x30mm bases being some sort of Napoleonic standard for a new player to adopt!

You should try and read your post above in a more rational light, and then consider the breathtaking mental leaps you made about my (and others) behavior. You have directly accused three people, in highly offensive terms, of forming a secret internet conspiracy against you with the goal of bullying you into submission – on a hobby forum. Think about that for a moment.

For the record, I don't know "bandit" from the proverbial Adam, and have never been in communication with him; and while I do know Jeff from back in the day, I have not been in communication with him for many months. To be frank, I don't know you or have any sort of history with you either, aside from a passing impression that I've seen your name on the forums before.

At least I no longer consider this farcical – I honestly consider it worrisome on your behalf. I hope you are able to overcome whatever has afflicted you concerning these honestly trivial circumstances and go back to enjoying the hobby.

MichaelCollinsHimself17 Apr 2014 1:12 a.m. PST

For the original poster and another beginners/returnees to the hobby…

Just perhaps to try out some rules or basing ideas in 6mm – why not look at my 6mm Napoleonic paper armies?
They offer a cheap and renewable supply of units in a growing range of Napoleonic armies.

They come in 20mm widths for infantry and cavalry and so you can build up from there to make bases of larger sizes skirmishers and artillery are also available with each army…

So far I have the following armies represented:

French
British
Austrian
Austrian Landwehr/Hungarian Insurrection
Russian
Prussian
Spanish
Portuguese

The next to be added will be the French Imperial Guard.

You get unlimited units for only £5.00 GBP per army download…
the Austrian landwehr is only £3.00 GBP!

a photo or two…

Highanders…

picture


Austrian Line & Hungarian Grenadiers…

picture

and the link…

link

KTravlos17 Apr 2014 6:08 a.m. PST

To be frank in my eyes the paper armies do look as good as the 6mm and 3mm stuff. But that is just me.

MichaelCollinsHimself17 Apr 2014 6:19 a.m. PST

Thanks KTravlos!
They do look better enmasse; and at a little more distance than in the close-up photos I have posted.
Mike.

Glenn Pearce17 Apr 2014 6:31 a.m. PST

Huh!

"In case it is needed, when I said "method" I meant method of stating your view which seems to be highly adversarial at the least provocation, at least that is how it comes across – I don't know how you intend it."

provocation = adversarial, see another of Sparkers posts:

"Same advice from me mate – don't like threads being derailed – then don't descend into personal attacks…Simple really!"

"You keep saying I am attacking you but I don't *think* I've said anything mean or rude, I'm not name calling, I haven't accused you of doing anything that you haven't stated you are doing."

I'm not going to quantify your remarks any further at this point. You have clearly accused me of having some kind of unapproved "method" and "tone" in my original message to the poster. I never stated I was doing that! It's very clear by your own message that it's the now famous gang of three that is doing that!

"I don't get it."

Apparently.

Are you OK? [not a sarcastic question]

In what sense? [not a sarcastic answer]

Glenn Pearce17 Apr 2014 6:45 a.m. PST

Christopher

"You should try and read your post above in a more rational light, and then consider the breathtaking mental leaps you made about my (and others) behavior."

You should try and read all the posts sent by the three of you. Especially the one by Bandit admitting to your collective transgressions.

"You have directly accused three people, in highly offensive terms, of forming a secret internet conspiracy against you with the goal of bullying you into submission – on a hobby forum. Think about that for a moment."

I never said it was "secret", it's plainly there for anyone to read. I can assure you, I've thought about it a lot, that's why it's so troubling.

"At least I no longer consider this farcical"

And so you shouldn't, attacking a person for their "method" and "tone" is serious.

"– I honestly consider it worrisome on your behalf. I hope you are able to overcome whatever has afflicted you concerning these honestly trivial circumstances and go back to enjoying the hobby."

Once you have assured me that you will no longer attack people for their "method" or "tone" I'll be fine.

badweasel17 Apr 2014 7:09 a.m. PST

After reading through all of the posts, I think I will try and acquire copies of Shako II, Polemos, and Black Powder; possibly Lasalle as well though I prefer to always have a copy of rules in paper and not just electronic.

This is basically early fact finding and I have no problem comparing the rulesets before settling on one. This will give me time to get some Adler and Baccus sample and then paint them up to see how I like each manufacturer.

In case of the slim possibility of not being satisfied with either manufacturer, what are the favorite 10mm or 15mm figures? I know Heroics and Ros and Irregular also produce 6mm, but I prefer a more substantial look so am not leaning towards them at all.

Thanks for all of the help!

badweasel17 Apr 2014 7:15 a.m. PST

In response to Saber6's query:

Well we need some specifics on your area. I'm in Northern Wyoming and I know of players in Helena and Missoula

I can reasonably get to the Missoula area. If there is an active Napoleonic gamer in the region, I would love to try and get a game. The local convention is coming up in another month and would be a perfect opportunity for me to see a game in action

Bandit17 Apr 2014 7:19 a.m. PST

Glenn,

There was no attack, there is no conspiracy, there is no coordination between myself and anyone regarding much of anything.

You've accused myself and others (Christopher & Jeff) of a bunch of stuff that I can't attribute to any plain reading of posts by well, anyone.

Sounds like badweasel is going to sample several rules sets and I am glad a portion of this thread was able to contribute to him making those choices.

As for what is going on between me and you… I can't account for it. Your responses appear radically disproportionate to what they are responding to. I'm going to stop replying in this thread to anything you post so that I do not contribute to continuing whatever this is.

Cheers,

The Bandit

badweasel17 Apr 2014 7:23 a.m. PST

Also on a related note, any recommendations for good books on the period? These can be over any aspect of the wars. I would really like to bulk up my knowledge to add to the gaming enjoyment.

I recently picked up a copy of David Chandler's The Campaigns of Napoleon and trying to track down Vincent J. Esposito and John R. Elting's A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars to read in tandem with it. Elting's Napoleonic Uniforms looks impressive, but I'm not sure on what is considered the "best" uniform books.

Jefthing17 Apr 2014 7:34 a.m. PST

Badweasel

I've been in your situation and ended up buying loads of rules and trying out the lot! The set that I found gave our group a good game without needing a lawyer on hand was the Neil Thomas rules, although I had to tweak a few things (like the artillery rules) for bigger games. If you pm me I'll send you a PDF of our tweaked set but it's also worth buying the book to see the reasoning behind them.

I'll second the Paddy Griffiths book too. It gives rules for various levels and the army set can be used for campaigns etc.

it's also worth looking at Fast Play Grande Armee, which is free off the web, and Volley and Bayonet. Both are simple and suitable for 6mm.

Hope this helps.

Jef

badweasel17 Apr 2014 7:50 a.m. PST

I'll second the Paddy Griffiths book too. It gives rules for various levels and the army set can be used for campaigns etc.

Is this the Lulu printed book? I didn't realize that it was POD. I may have some credit on my Lulu account that I could use to grab these cheaply on the next sale.

Bandit17 Apr 2014 7:51 a.m. PST

badweasel,

The Campaigns of Napoleon is a really nice overview, not everything is completely accurate as people here may tell you but it gives a sense of the sweeping nature of the period and the interconnection of events. There was a time when Chandler

A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars is also quite nice. It has its imperfections too, largely in the text but if you're not looking for perfect, puristic source material the maps are fantastic for getting a sense of the ground and the placement of locations and events. Unfortunately it is hard to find and generally expensive. I got a copy last year for maybe $35 USD which was a real steal. It is not uncommon to see it for twice that price. Not sure I know of a better single compilation.

Elting's Napoleonic Uniforms is wonderful. It is four volumes in total, two on the French army (including many non-French units in French service), the 3rd on French vassal states, i.e. allies, by choice or consequence who fought with the French but were not necessarily integrated into the French army and the 4th on French adversaries. Volumes 1&2 are sold as a set and can be found online for ~$100-200 if you hunt for them, volumes 3&4 are available from Military History Press and I think are going for $200 USD-300.

They are great, that said, there will still be holes. Even with four volumes of uniform plates you will still try to look up the coloration of some random cavalry regiment like the 7th Hussars of the Prussian army post-1807 and you won't find it (no idea if that is a real example, I didn't look). I use those four volumes as my primary uniform reference, after that I turn to a combination of Osprey books and Philip J. Haythornthwaite's Uniforms of the Napoleonic Wars 1796-1814. The problem with Osprey books is you need a ton of them and they aren't cheap unless you find them second hand.

Last point regarding uniform resources, don't over look online searches and old forum posts on these boards – there are a lot of uniform plates freely available.

People will likely recommend Gill's works (a 3 volume set and a single separate book) on 1809 – they are very well thought of. Arnold writes some of the most readable history on the period, if you are looking for secondary sources for specific campaigns he has one on Italy, two on 1806-1807 in Poland (Napoleon vs Russian & Prussia, mostly Russia), two on 1809 (Napoleon vs Austria broken into the spring campaign and the summer campaign).

"Older" works that you might be able to find pretty easily would include Petre's books, he wrote a bunch of them on various campaigns and they are pretty good again for overviews of specific campaigns. After that I suppose the next step is primary sources and translated memoirs of which there are a *lot*.

Cheers,

The Bandit

CATenWolde17 Apr 2014 8:01 a.m. PST

Badweasel,

Those are good choices, and odds are your familiarity with those rules will let you hook up with other players eventually. I know its a bit late in the day, but I just thought about mentioning the new set "Napoleon at War". To be honest I don't own it, but it looks like it's set up for easy entry into the field and has some interesting mechanics.

As for figures, I would surprised if between Adler's and Baccus' extensive ranges you didn't find something that fit your needs. If you do decide to move up to 10mm (I wrestled with that decision myself), there are several good lines, but Pendraken is a perennial favorite and expanding. Coverage of certain Napoleonic sub-periods in 10mm can be a bit spotty, though, so do look things over closely. As for 15mm, there is simply huge number of lines out there, and many excellent choices. My recommendation would be to do a search here on the site or start another thread for that one! However, the change from 6mm to 10mm isn't as drastic (in terms of scale and look on the table) as the move to 15mm, so keep that in mind.

There are so many good (and not so good) books on the Napoleonic period that you almost need to specify a particular interest. However: Elting's "Swords Around the Throne", Blond's "La Grande Armee", John Gill's trilogy on the 1809 campaign, James Arnold's books on 1800 and 1809, Boycott-Brown's "On to Rivoli", Goetz's book on Austerlitz … these are ones that stick out for me at any rate.

Good gaming, and check back in and let us know it goes.

Cheers,

Christopher

Whirlwind17 Apr 2014 8:09 a.m. PST

There is lots of free stuff on the internet to get you started. None of this is 'the last word', but all worth a read.

Can't go too far wrong with Petre for a decent start:

1814: link

(plus Houssaye for more French focus link & Mikhailovskii -Danilevskii for the Russians link

1813: link

Prussian 1806: link

Poland 1806-07: link

Austria 1809: link

(is there an online version of that one btw?)

Oman for the Peninsular War:

link

link

link

link

link

link

link

Siborne & Chesney & Houssaye & Ropes for Waterloo:

link

link

link

link

1805:

Maude link

Stutterheim for Austerlitz link

Hope some of that helps

Regards

Glenn Pearce17 Apr 2014 10:18 a.m. PST

Huh!

"There was no attack,"

Apparently not in your eyes. That's a major part of the problem.

"there is no conspiracy, there is no coordination between myself and anyone regarding much of anything."

I never said there was! I could suggest you carefully read all of the posts, but I won't, as I can't see how it would help.

"You've accused myself and others (Christopher & Jeff) of a bunch of stuff that I can't attribute to any plain reading of posts by well, anyone."

I simply highlighted your post and explained my shock and extreme displeasure. Apparently even reading your own posts is beyond your comprehension. You have once again also chosen to completely ignore the posts made by Sparker.

"I'm going to stop replying in this thread to anything you post so that I do not contribute to continuing whatever this is."

At last a positive step!

Jefthing17 Apr 2014 11:31 a.m. PST

Badweasel

You can get Napoleonic Wargaming for Fun from Amazon or direct from John Curry at wargaming.co. John's a nice chap to deal with.

Regards

Pages: 1 2 3