"Why is NAPOLEONICS the best genre for mini gaming?" Topic
23 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 Getting Started with Napoleonics Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe fascinating history of one of the hobby's major manufacturers.
Featured Workbench ArticleAfter many years of resisting the urge to start a Napoleonic collection, Monkey Hanger takes the plunge!
Featured Profile ArticleFor the time being, the last in our series of articles on the gates of Old Jerusalem.
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
The Red Goblin | 19 Jan 2018 11:36 a.m. PST |
I know, it's a very general question open to interpretation. I've personally never gotten into Napoleonics, mostly because I'm a fantasy / medieval kind of guy. When I start thinking of shooting and guns, my interest jumps right to sci fi, skipping all that stuff in-between. Still, I've always been fascinated with the popularity of this one point in time among miniature gamers. Sure, there are lots of other interesting wars that get pretty good individual treatment (the American Civil War comes to mind), but, in a way, it seems like Napoleonics garnishes a lot more love than any other specific time. I mean, the other big genre are generally lumped into much broader categories, spanning more time, like "Ancients" or Medieval", or "Modern". So, if you have the time and desire to humor me, tell me why you think Napoleonics is the best and why you love it so much more than other battles/times/genre. Thanks! |
Winston Smith | 19 Jan 2018 11:40 a.m. PST |
|
Dynaman8789 | 19 Jan 2018 12:12 p.m. PST |
|
Mick the Metalsmith | 19 Jan 2018 12:15 p.m. PST |
Square, Column, Skirmisher or Line and Artillery, Cav or Infantry interactions. Plus all the cool uniforms to paint. 18th century comes in a close second. |
N0tt0N | 19 Jan 2018 12:35 p.m. PST |
I think because it is the transition between colorful but fairly static armies prior and deadly arms driving camo to ground that follow. They are inventing mobile combined arms while providing a spectacle of mass. ACW and FPW are borderline slaughter because the tactics haven't caught up to the weapons before the complete tragedy of WWI. |
robert piepenbrink | 19 Jan 2018 12:48 p.m. PST |
Hmm. Actually, minis are very expensive, and probably best reserved for skirmish gaming or RPGs. But if you want a good miniatures game, Napoleonics offers probably a wider range of different tactical interactions and interesting battles on a wider range of levels than you can get out of anything else except WWII. Purely in terms of tactics, I might give a slight edge to WWII, but as spectacle, a period in which the point of uniforms and equipment colors is NOT to be visible on the battlefield starts at a serious disadvantage. The better I paint my WWII miniatures and the more realistic I make my WWII terrain, the more time I'm going to lose trying to find my troops. Whereas for sheet color and variety it's very hard to top a well-done Napoleonic command stand. And of course it's very difficult to represent a major WWII battle on a tabletop. They have to be so abstracted you might as well be using cardboard counters. While at, say 1"=100 yards, many major Napoleonic battles can be fought out in private homes. The very largest Napoleonic battles were fought out on frontages which might accommodate a WWII division. Many, such as Waterloo, were more a regimental frontage. I should note that as far as I'm concerned, in many respects there really only are four of five broad categories of land warfare: Ancients (possibly Medievals) Horse and Musket, Colonial and Moderns. Within those, at any given level of warfare, it's relatively simple to adapt rules to a particular conflict. The big horse and musket conflicts are referred to individually because of the number of players and the specificity of uniforms, but watch players adapting Regimental Fire and Fury to, say, War of 1812 or AWI battles. No sensible person would try to adapt them to WWII or the Wars of the Roses, but borders in horse & musket are permeable. |
jeffreyw3 | 19 Jan 2018 2:18 p.m. PST |
Didn't we just have like six rounds of polls on this subject? |
21eRegt | 19 Jan 2018 2:24 p.m. PST |
The personalities involved, the politics, the vast armies on one hand but fascinating small(er) actions, the colorful panoply of the uniforms, the perfect union of all three arms of service, the wooden castles at sea, global conflict, etc. etc. No super tanks, no technological imbalances, tactics are in tune with the warfare. I can't imagine anyone making a similar case successfully for another period hitting all these marks. |
Bashytubits | 19 Jan 2018 2:45 p.m. PST |
|
corona66 | 19 Jan 2018 3:47 p.m. PST |
I must disagree with several statements from Mr Piepenbrink, namely his claims that miniatures are too expensive for anything other than skirmish gaming and that wargaming can be clumped into four or five catlegories. Although the cost of 28mm figures can be high, that hardly precludes using 15,10 or 6 mm figures. Young people entering the hobby should not be told it's a rich man's hobby, because it doesn't have to be. Secondly I don't think that pike and shot armies can be clumped with Napoleonic or Seven Years War forces under the horse and musket category. Pike and shot artillery was neither mobile nor deadly enough to allow the rock-paper-scissors of horse and musket. |
Sobieski | 19 Jan 2018 4:00 p.m. PST |
The previous speaker has preempted me, so I'll just call out "Hear, hear!" from the back benches. |
rmcaras | 19 Jan 2018 5:28 p.m. PST |
|
robert piepenbrink | 19 Jan 2018 8:45 p.m. PST |
No, no, corona66! I said "MINIS" were too expensive. Miniatures are just fine, as are castings and figures. But the people who call their toy soldiers "minis" are usually paying a lot more than I can afford--often full-ticket GW and up. I saw two wookiees priced at about $6.50 USD each at the local game shop last week. To put together a decent 500-casting Napoleonic army like that,You'd need to be a Silicon Valley magnate or a Wall Street broker, and they don't have the time for a game. And I quite agree. This is not inherently an expensive hobby, even though many of us spend quite a bit of money on it. A gamer who pays attention to what he's doing can generally put a game together--both sides and terrain--for $100. USD Even the 28's are not bad if you use hard plastics as much as possible, and confine your ambitions to a 4x4 or 4x6 table. You also left out the soft plastic option. We know how to keep the paint on now, and there is an abundance of well-sculpted 1/72 figures at very reasonable prices. A "half Grant" army--one to fight out the classic Charles S. Grant scenarios with 24 casting infantry units--would involve 10-12 boxes of plastics per side. Armies for "One Hour Wargames" would be six boxes a side. 54mm soft plastic toy soldiers are amazingly cheap--and spectacular if you can find room for the table. On pike and shot, though, I'm not convinced. My own feeling is that "medievals" should run down to about 1600 for massed battles and down to the introduction of the plug bayonet for smaller fights. Naseby and Marston Moor should be fightable with big battle horse and musket rules, suitably amended. They just aren't battles with a lot of options for the generals, which is why no matter how much the drama of the period attracts me, I have a hard time with it as a wargaming period. But if we all agreed, it would be a less colorful hobby. |
DJCoaltrain | 19 Jan 2018 9:08 p.m. PST |
|
Midgetmanifesto | 19 Jan 2018 9:13 p.m. PST |
I feel like you see "friction" present in many of the napoleonic rulesets. Troops often don't obey the 200 foot general perfectly. Due to the very similar types of gear training/morale become very important. If you are the type of gamer that appreciates these aspects over having a legion of robot troops that obey you perfectly then you may like gaming period more. From a strategic point of view, napoleonic armies could move reasonably quickly, but still lacked rapid communication technology. I very much have appreciated playing in a number of napoleonic campaigns at the multi corp level where fog of war was the largest hurdle of all. Once you get to colonials and beyond rapid ship movement and telegraphs start eroding this. |
attilathepun47 | 19 Jan 2018 10:40 p.m. PST |
1. More than 20 years of warfare (including the Wars of the French Republic), involving just about every European nation means players have a wide range of armies to choose from. It also means there are a great number of historical battles and campaigns to refight or serve as inspiration for hypothetical scenarios in locales ranging from Finland to Egypt, and North America to Russia. 2. A large number of troop types and a vast array of colorful uniforms are available to select from. 3. Very similar weapons capabilities among the nations and throughout the period means one does not have to deal with numerous charts with a dizzying array of different ranges and rates of fire. Likewise the speed of movement is very similar for all armies, making it easier to develop balanced scenarios where both sides have a decent chance to win. 4. The range of projectile weapons, including artillery, was still short, so you do not have the problem of units being able to fire clear across a table--and beyond. Combined with the dense close-order formations, this means that battles of a size large enough to have been historically significant can be played on tables of reasonable size. Now compare the above with many wars which only involve two countries over the course of a couple years, and may offer only half a dozen important battles. Those are scarcely worth the time and expense of creating a wargaming army. Compare again with the many wars where the balance of power scarcely leaves any chance for one side to win. I am not saying that there aren't plenty of other conflicts worth wargaming. What I am saying is that the above reasons go a long way toward explaining the enduring popularity of Napoleonic wargaming. |
corona66 | 19 Jan 2018 10:45 p.m. PST |
Hear, hear Mr Piepenbrink. The hobby is richer for civilized debate and you're right, I should have mentioned soft plastic figures, which were how I got started in the hobby. |
MajorB | 20 Jan 2018 5:34 a.m. PST |
|
Tin hat | 20 Jan 2018 9:00 a.m. PST |
|
Winston Smith | 20 Jan 2018 9:34 a.m. PST |
Do I have to turn this car around? |
olicana | 20 Jan 2018 9:36 a.m. PST |
Miniatures are just fine, as are castings and figures. But the people who call their toy soldiers "minis" are usually paying a lot more than I can afford--often full-ticket GW and up. I saw two wookiees priced at about $6.50 USD USD each at the local game shop last week. To put together a decent 500-casting Napoleonic army like that,You'd need to be a Silicon Valley magnate or a Wall Street broker, and they don't have the time for a game. A very nice white metal 28mm Napoleonic casting by Front Rank is £1.25 GBP, so 500 figures, even with cavalry, would only cost you about £750.00 GBP Given the typical speed most people paint at, that probably doesn't work out at a lot per week – if you painted them over a year it would be less than £15.00 GBP a week and I know many, many people who spend much more than that on Starbucks coffee or a drink after work. As for "Silicon Valley magnates and Wall Street brokers", I assure you, they do find time to game. So do doctors, lawyers, and other well paid individuals. They do tend to work very long hours and consequently don't have time to paint. This is a good thing because they commission people like me to paint for them. Now, what they spend a year would make your eyes water, and good luck to 'em. |
wrgmr1 | 20 Jan 2018 12:29 p.m. PST |
I just finished 1100 Calpe 28mm Prussians. My cost averaged st $2.00 USD as I bought from friends and those who wanted to sell them. I took me 3 years to paint, so cost was approximately $60 USD a month. |
evilgong | 24 Jan 2018 3:33 p.m. PST |
Because you can have Indonesian local potentates and their forces armed with pike, pistol and kris or as light cavalry with javelins and pistol fight along side your Franco-Dutch colonial army to oppose redcoats. |
|