"Why AOE?" Topic
15 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.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
cabin4clw | 07 Sep 2016 10:18 a.m. PST |
I have finally painted enough troops to play a game. I was wondering about, Age of Eagles, specifically why do you play these rules and not another set. Joe |
daler240D | 07 Sep 2016 10:37 a.m. PST |
I am interested in them as well. They seem to have a very loyal following that play them. I have been a little intimidated because it is always unclear to me what is stand alone and what is not and too many iterations of name of game….based on this….based on that….supplement to this. I have no idea what fire and fury is and why I need to to play a napoleonic game or their syw rules. Anyway, rant over. I hope to hear some responses from people that play them. |
Toronto48 | 07 Sep 2016 10:55 a.m. PST |
Age of Eagle is a a Grand Tactical set of rules It also has expansion sets that let you go out of the Napoleonic era. As with other rule sets whether you use it or not is a personal choice based on both personal preferences and ideas a s well as availability of opponents. So the reasons I like it may not be yours. link AOE does have an excellent WEB support presence and there is a lot of information there to get you started and to help you once you start playing After looking at it you will have a good idea of whether the rules meet your own needs |
Porthos | 07 Sep 2016 11:57 a.m. PST |
Fire & Fury ACW, brigadelevel) was the base. This (F&F) ruleset was the first in all my wargame years (about fifty) that could be understood in about five minutes and played with twp pages QRS, AND feel historical realistic. Age of Eagles(Nap.), Age of Honor (SYW) and hopefully Age of Valor (19th century up till RJW) have the same historical feel, while instignator Bill Gray is a great person to ask questions. |
6mmACW | 07 Sep 2016 1:02 p.m. PST |
Our club plays Age of Eagles and enjoys the rules. You get to see formation changes from line to column, etc, while still being able to play bigger, grand tactical battles. I also host a website that has tons of free scenarios and after action reports if you want to see more info: napoleonicscenarios.weebly.com Having played these rules for many years (along with other Napoleonic rule sets), I think one of the weaknesses in AoE is that it bogs down quite a bit in large battles. It took our club about 18 hours to play Waterloo, for example. That was with 4-6 players (all of whom knew the rules well) over the course of several weeks. Personally, I think it's a great set of rules for small and mid-size battles. Highly recommended. If you really want to play the major battles like Borodino or Waterloo, you should take a look at faster-playing sets like Volley & Bayonet, Grande Armee, or Blucher. There are plenty of others, of course. |
Robert Kapa | 07 Sep 2016 1:05 p.m. PST |
F&F got me into wargaming twenty years ago. It was well laid out, easy to understand, versatile basing system and visually appealing. So it was natural for me to adopt AOE. I know, some purists refuse the idea that the whole brigade might deploy into line or square but it works, visually and in a grand tactical way. There is enough detail in the 1/90 figure ratio to use your favorite uniforms and it is abstract enough that you can complete the game within a reasonable number of hours. Of course is not the only game out there and I like using different rules too. |
coopman | 07 Sep 2016 6:00 p.m. PST |
I agree with 6mmACW's comments above. If you want to play the big battles of any era, it is important to take formations out of the game (or at most abstract them like Blucher does). |
rmcaras | 08 Sep 2016 3:12 a.m. PST |
Joe, another reason is that there are players within 2 hours, or so, from you! |
Puddinhead Johnson | 08 Sep 2016 5:03 a.m. PST |
I respect AOE and it's author, but it strikes me as an uncomfortable mix of tactical and grand tactical rules. The basic unit on the table is a brigade. Yet the rules call for those units to adopt column, line or square. Also, why is there distant small arms fire at the ground scale? Again, its a well-written, well-produced, and well-supported set if rules. Just an odd design choice. |
Allan F Mountford | 08 Sep 2016 8:42 a.m. PST |
The basic unit is an infantry brigade, cavalry brigade or artillery battery. Infantry figures are mounted 2 x 2 per base. One base represents 360 men. The brigade unit is made up of the historical strength divided by 360, so a brigade mustering 2500 men at a particular battle would be represented by seven bases. Cavalry figures are mounted 2 x 1 per base. One base represents 180 men. The brigade unit is made up of the historical strength divided by 180, so a brigade mustering 1500 men at a particular battle would be represented by eight bases. Formations are abstracted and are one of the following: 'Line of battle' : A single rank of bases. For infantry this represents a single line of battalions. Whether the battalions themselves are deployed in line or column is not addressed by the figures. For cavalry this represents a single line of regiments. Whether the regiments have their squadrons deployed side by side in line, echeloned in depth or whatever is not addressed by the figures. 'Line of battle supported': Two ranks of bases. For infantry this represents two lines of battalions, one supporting the other. Whether the battalions themselves are deployed in line or column is not addressed by the figures. For cavalry this represents either two lines of regiments having their squadrons deployed side by side in line, or regiments echeloned in depth. 'Masse': Two bases wide by at least three bases deep. This represents a much deeper deployment which improves manoeuvrability but at the expense of presenting a much denser target to enemy artillery. 'Square': Occurs in only two circumstances: (1) as a mandatory result when infantry brigades defeat cavalry in close combat; and (2) as a voluntary option if infantry brigades begin a move outflanked by enemy cavalry. It is important to recognise that the formations do not relate to traditional line, column and square definitions as you would find in rulesets where the representative unit is an infantry battalion or cavalry squadron. Allan |
Colonel Bill | 08 Sep 2016 8:46 a.m. PST |
PJ I can explain those two design decisions. First, I wanted to keep the game as faithful to Basic Original Fire & Fury (BOFF) as possible, and the game does have formations and ranged fire. I think BOFF is great by any measure, and familiarity does make the game easier to learn. In both AOE and BOFF, the formations really aren't traditional lines and columns, but simply represent how the battalions within a brigade are aligned, side by side or one behind the other. Thus while a Prussian 1806 Field Column may look the same as an 1806 French Field Column, and inside the brigade area both have the battalions aligned one behind the other, the battalions thereof are assumed to be in line for the Prussians, column for the French. Thus the Prussian Field Column moves 1/3 slower than the French. For fire, I read several places, to include a Russian regulation from 1853, that the effective range of smooth bore musketry was 180 – 200 yards. That's 2 inches in AOE ground scale of 120 yards/inch rounded. Units with skirmishers increase that range to 4 inches to account for the skirmish screen forward. Also, since units within an inch in BOFF are assumed to be in melee, I wanted to provide a cushion to allow firefights. Finally, there is consumer expectation. Gamers like formations and ranged fire, so if its somehow reality backed, I allow it. A lot of why folks like one set of rules over another is simply personal preference, so if AOE doesn't fit your particular bill, that's fine. I just wanted you to know there was some logic at play here, and not simply that I forgot to take my meds that morning. Ciao, Colonel Bill ageofeagles.com |
Old Contemptibles | 08 Sep 2016 9:36 a.m. PST |
Because the club I belong to plays AOE. But I don't have figures for it. I sometimes furnish the venue and terrain. I have never liked the "Fire and Fury" system. But aside the game system is that I much prefer playing battalions instead of brigades. In battalion scale I can have all my favorite units instead of being only one figure in a brigade. I like to do British and all the really neat units are amalgamated into a generic brigade. The same goes with buildings. Hougoumont is just one building. What's the fun in that? |
Puddinhead Johnson | 08 Sep 2016 2:14 p.m. PST |
PJI can explain those two design decisions. Thanks for the explanation Colonel. I was aware of the rationale behind the design decision as I have the rules, have played them, and I've asked you the question on the Yahoo Groups forum where you graciously responded. It's just one of my pet peeves about grand tactical Napoleonic rules. I'm one of those guys that thinks they shouldn't require you to choose a formation (as those decisions are made below your level of command) or separate combat into distant shooting and "melee" (since at the ground scale and distances why not just wrap the two up togather, call it "Combat", and save some rules overhead). That being said, I'll reiterate that if those things aren't important to you AOE is an excellent set of rules that is well produced and well-supported. |
dantheman | 08 Sep 2016 5:13 p.m. PST |
I play several Napoleonic sets for various reasons. AOE is good if: You want to play medium to large battles at brigade level. Are familiar with the Fire and Fury system and like its mechanics. Two disadvantages are the need for a lot of figures, and the pre-game preparation in making commands and labels. I like the system and it is one of my top three Napoleonic rules. It all comes down to personal preference. I find the rule author very knowledgable of the period and felt it captures the feel of the period, at least as I see it. |
McLaddie | 08 Sep 2016 8:00 p.m. PST |
I'm one of those guys that thinks they shouldn't require you to choose a formation(as those decisions are made below your level of command) If you are speaking of Corps or army level command… such corps or division, you certainly can decide that. If However, that isn't true historically. The corps and army command could and did have a lot to say about the formations of brigades and divisions… for a variety of reasons. or separate combat into distant shooting and "melee" (since at the ground scale and distances why not just wrap the two up together, call it "Combat", and save some rules overhead). There are a number of Grand Tactical rules that do just that. However, there is no particular 'should' around choosing one set of mechanics from another. |
|