Help support TMP


"flames of war Napoleonic " Topic


49 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 use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

Napoleonic

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset

Napoleonic Wargaming


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Workbench Article


Featured Profile Article

Herod's Gate

Part II of the Gates of Old Jerusalem.


Current Poll


2,952 hits since 11 Mar 2006
©1994-2021 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

glenkk11 Mar 2006 12:28 a.m. PST

hi how many people are looking into these new rules . i think there great . though i like 12 men on medium bases faceing small side for french etc . large side for britain etc .6 cavarly on medium base .artillery 1 to 2 on large base ,have not worked out hq yet . ps love 15mm

Desert Rat11 Mar 2006 12:35 a.m. PST

I for one will not be.

Broglie11 Mar 2006 1:12 a.m. PST

Has such a rules set been produced?? I never heard of them but would like to know more

Regards

GeoffQRF11 Mar 2006 4:16 a.m. PST

As far as I can tell, it's one of those unsubstantiated rumours doing the rounds, along with FOW style version of just about every other period going, from ancients to sci-fi.

It seems to be to do with another rumour, that Battlefront/FOW will be making some big announcement about their future in the next few weeks.

2nd British Bulldog11 Mar 2006 4:51 a.m. PST

Geoff

BF are making that annoucement next week, its on their website.

As for the Nappie rules, I think its something some has already made, unoffically. Id look them over, not sure id play them but who knows.

Cheers Neil

Stevenmack6511 Mar 2006 5:14 a.m. PST

Bf are making an announcement which will be regarding the Figure Releases and plans for the next 2 years.

Barks111 Mar 2006 5:14 a.m. PST

I can't see BF doing this, but I think something similar would be a shot in the arm for the genre; e.g. a nice rulebook with pictures, diagrams, painting guides and 'fluff', and miniatures prepackaged by the regiment. Puritans would say it would take away from the 'joy of research', but I suspect it would draw new players who are scared off by the complexity of the era.

Grinning Norm11 Mar 2006 6:32 a.m. PST

Actually, I like the idea. Depending on whether the rules will catch the flavour of the era in an adequate way, I might get to field my 1/72 napoleonics at last.

RudyNelson11 Mar 2006 7:20 a.m. PST

No I do not like such large scale rules for Napoleonics.

rmcaras Supporting Member of TMP11 Mar 2006 7:29 a.m. PST

Frankly anything that attracts new consumers to a product line [Napoleonics – books, figures, buildings etc] is a good thing.
Plus how much more can BF do with WWII? They have to be looking ahead to remain a vital, growing concern. If they have done, say 80% coverage of WWII rules, figures etc, then they must look to ramping up with new product line. [Didin't they spend a ton of $$ a while back on sophisticated production equipment?]

Now are they going to go into the figure business? or just do cool rules & scenario books? Seems to me with their product concept they either:

1. Need to team up with an exisitng figure manufacturer to repackage products to match their FOW brand…eg, prepackaged units etc

or

2. Launch their own products..which mean they would be competing with OG, BH, AB, Essex, Fantassin, Mini-Fig, etc…in 15mm. A pretty crowded field already, with a range of price choices, sizes, sculpting styles…

But, other scales, like 20mm, or to a lesser extent, 10mm are less crowded with choices.

ANyone have any ideas on their intent? But it stands to be a benefit to the consumer, and will stir interest in the period in general IMO.

Stevenmack6511 Mar 2006 8:15 a.m. PST

Adding all the "Minor" nations will be Bf next step I would have thought, I read somewhere about a possible South America WW2 idea.

Regards

Blind Old Hag Fezian11 Mar 2006 9:03 a.m. PST

Theres tons of stuff left for WW2. They haven't even touched the Pacific let alone finished the European theatre.

astronomican11 Mar 2006 9:33 a.m. PST

I'd prefer BF finishing WW2 off before branching out into other periods.

Eric O11 Mar 2006 10:47 a.m. PST

While I'd like to see some more user-friendly Napoleonics (as anyone who's listened to me beforehand, knows.) I think BF is going to be shooting themselves in the foot with any new period releases if they don't reorganize their sales structure.

Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut11 Mar 2006 10:49 a.m. PST

I for one would love to see a FoW-style Nappies game. If I could get into Napoleonics for under 200 models, I might just consider it. But all the guys here in Sin City are playing these massive 750-100 model games, and I'm just not going to paint that much stuff to see if I like the game.

aecurtis Fezian11 Mar 2006 11:57 a.m. PST

Punkrabbit, who's playing Napoleonics in Sin City? I hadn't seen any reference to them on the LV Gamers or LV Historicals groups.

Anyway, you might look at "Shako" as a good set of accessible rules that doesn't require huge armies.

Allen

Condottiere11 Mar 2006 12:12 p.m. PST

Please god NO!!!!

Jemima Fawr11 Mar 2006 12:35 p.m. PST

What? So the French didn't fight in line and the British didn't use column? If that were true, you'd have a job fighting Auerstaedt, Castiglione, Vittoria, Waterloo…

50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick11 Mar 2006 12:55 p.m. PST

Eh, sure, why not.

It makes me wonder, though: will they have the staff, the capital, the new product lines, etc, etc, etc… devoted to this project, the same way they supported FOW? If so, that's a BIG endeavor. And if not, it runs the risk of being just another Nap game.

coopman11 Mar 2006 1:16 p.m. PST

I wonder if they'd do a main Napoleonic rulebook, followed over the next ten years by a series of early-war, mid-war and late-war Napoleonic country specific supplements? Could be a lot of money to be made here.

Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut11 Mar 2006 1:16 p.m. PST

Punkrabbit, who's playing Napoleonics in Sin City? I hadn't seen any reference to them on the LV Gamers or LV Historicals groups.

Anyway, you might look at "Shako" as a good set of accessible rules that doesn't require huge armies.

Allen

Dan and some of the other LVHistoricals guys have the Nappie armies, but aren't planning on playing anything until the fall or winter this year. I'm too unfamiliar with the rules and actual TOE of the era to have a conversation about it, hence my interest in figure counts. They play using LOTS of little soldiers :)

glenkk11 Mar 2006 1:29 p.m. PST

NapoFoW The Napoleonic Flames of War Group at yahoo.just starting ,but i like the rules so far .join up and have some input.wargaming is fun.

Condottiere11 Mar 2006 2:15 p.m. PST

No, no, no say it ain't so!

Arteis11 Mar 2006 2:18 p.m. PST

I like the idea. An entry-level, fun game with lots of fluff and gloss to enthuse new players. Rules that capture the flavour of the period, but not necessarily with absolute accuracy and detail. A primer guide to Napoleonics. And a subsequent base of new interest in the period, many of whom may gradually channel themselves into higher-accuracy rule-sets as time goes on.

Maybe they could tie in with an existing figure manufacturer, like Eureka, for instance (a trans-Tasman union of a New Zealand company and an Australian one).

ADC2Davout11 Mar 2006 2:58 p.m. PST

It simply will not sail, at least no better than The Shako effect. The summit of tabletop war gaming is Naps. Unfortunately there is no simplification of this masterpiece in military history, unless preferring finger painting over Van Gough and/or Jackson Pollack(sp). It goes beyond the bounds of common sense to apply a Checkers format to Chess.

Example, Conlif and Barkley are excellent at Medieval (and prior).But it seems symptomatic(if not automatic) that when an author excels at one field, their feet simply leave earth (if not reality), and try the very same principles which made them a superstar to the most incompatible (as humanly possible) genre/era, i.e. thus Shako disaster.

It's like the Daystrom effect in Star Trek – invented the transporter, now pressured to invent time travel to maintain self esteem of/and accolades.

So recommended next, Oh I know, lets try a 40K format to Naps . . .

50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick11 Mar 2006 3:59 p.m. PST

"The summit of tabletop war gaming is Naps. Unfortunately there is no simplification of this masterpiece in military history, unless preferring finger painting over Van Gough and/or Jackson Pollack(sp). "


"Empire" player, are you?

astronomican11 Mar 2006 4:05 p.m. PST

"If I could get into Napoleonics for under 200 models, I might just consider it."

Take a look at Napoleonic POW – both my French and British armies are at 160 figures. principlesofwar.com

GreenMountainBoy Supporting Member of TMP11 Mar 2006 4:10 p.m. PST

Regarding Battlefront's future plans, here is a portion of a post I made regarding a Gencon 2005 highlight of mine:

"…My big highlight was bumping into Mr. Poole from Flames of War/Battlefront. I believe he is the president of the company… It was a great conversation, and I am really excited about future plans the company has. Within a year, they plan to come out with Resin scenery for the game, possibly starting with a 'Russian Farm' boxed set. (incidentally, GF9 will be doing scenery as well). Also, longer term plans for the company include opening up to other historical generes. He was a bit vague, but indicated they would start with a smaller period, such as Feudal Japan, with plans in about 2 years to break into another major period such as Napoleonics. Whoohoo!"

Arteis11 Mar 2006 4:42 p.m. PST

ACD2Davout said: "So recommended next, Oh I know, lets try a 40K format to Naps . . ."

In actual fact, that is proably not a bad idea, ACD2Davout, for a type of small skirmish Napoleonic game.

I find one of the most frustrating things about the way people perceive Napoleonics is that they think you can only play the big battles. But Napoleonics can be played from the level of a very small skirmish game, right through to the refight of a huge majhor battle. And so can every other period.

So a company-level Napoleonic skirmish game might actually be quite possible under FoW or GW type of rules. Particularly when the aim of the game is to have fun with period flavour, not to accurately replicate every minor nuance of Napoleonic warfare.

Lord Platinum11 Mar 2006 5:02 p.m. PST
50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick11 Mar 2006 6:36 p.m. PST

It's cute. They haven't even done the basing or most of the rules yet, but they've already sketched out the national bonuses, special rules, etc… Like "British Bulldog" or "French Elan," and so on.

I was surprised, though, to see that it's basically the same scale as "Shako." I would've thought that a FOW Napoleonics game would do something more tactical, like each base represents a company. Your "army" would be a single division, or something like that. That would give you a better spread of ranges, and capture more of the tactical flavor.

Patrick FL11 Mar 2006 7:29 p.m. PST

Reminds me of 10 years ago, when everyone was adapting DBx for every period.


Browsing the site, I don't see many actual rules. Additionally, the rule PDF displayed upside down for me. Bizzare.


I am curious to see how it progresses.

Patrick FL11 Mar 2006 7:33 p.m. PST

Whoa, I just looked at some of the basing suggestions and the one that has three rank infantry formations being almost twice as deep as two rank and with half the frontage is a bit extreme. Seems to take the "Brits in line / Frogs in collumns" think a bit to far.


I am not a Nappy player (yet) but I remember Sam wrote an article a few years back in MWAN addressing the issue of how our base depths were way to large to the ground scale. this seems to exacerbate the problem.


Does bear watching, though.

Grey Ronin Supporting Member of TMP11 Mar 2006 8:12 p.m. PST

"So recommended next, Oh I know, lets try a 40K format to Naps . . ."

Well, you are a bit late then as there are a few Warhammer variants for Napoleonics; look in yahoo groups and freewargamesrules.co.uk for starters. In fact Warhammer Napopleonics plays quite nicely for a Divison minus action!

ADC2Davout11 Mar 2006 11:30 p.m. PST

Sincere Compliment(s) for exposure/informing of the Frankenstein-Mad Scientist attempts of amalgamation(s) – in a time in history when the accepted mindset is; anything(Oh really?) is supposed to be possible(denial-ism of the military's pragmatism: Best way to get it done), there can obviously be no absolutes on the matter – but allowing a free market system to make the call.
But a Gongard must(and can do no other) obsess and speak of the (almost) extreme absurdity of an FOW format looking Backwards. Instead the Voltiger advocates FOW should have leaped Forwards. Even the Pragmatic Dragoon acknowledges that the same format works much more apply in and around Inchon(as itself advocates passively), Wei, and/or even Dubai. And the greasy – grit Cossack claims FOW will work much further ahead based around the Firefly's, Galactica's, or the Millennium Falcon's travels. Hey, even Gondor and the undying lands would benefit.
Should/could Naps play in a small individual scenario? The much better question is why, especially when so much out there is doing so already only without Busbies and Pom-Poms, and without the agony of having to reload Charlevilles and Brown Bess'.
Most salt and peppers play Naps for the en-massed look and feel. As stated somewhere at another time it is the most perfectly balanced era in military history where the Inf., Cav., and Art., are equal in impact, w/out the extreme domination of infinite Gene Stealers and/or Dreadnoughts. And oh the magnificence in beauty of 4 inf. figs to a 40x15 base, of which 6 bases justifies a Frenchy-Bat. Not four to eight round bird droppings for the Eaters of the Dead.
Ergo all must be free to experience and develop individual taste – such as Gilligan's Chocolate covered Cheeseburgers vs. the Gongards Filet Mignon and a cold Schells (one of Minnesota's finest brews).
But if only Napoleon had Terminators at Leipzig – Oh wait a minute, now he dose . . .

French Wargame Holidays12 Mar 2006 1:08 a.m. PST

nice pics,
well laid out pics…..organisation…..pics….

why not!!!!!!!

RudyNelson12 Mar 2006 6:37 a.m. PST

I wonder what type of background does the author have in the historical area to provide accurate supporting data? Or in the military area to understand the proper use of tactics, operational strategy and weapons effectiveness in order to design proper game mechanics?

If the author's do not have these, then there will always be problems in a system. Converting a system designed for one era (good or bad) mechanics is not an easy process. More such systems fail than work.

roundie12 Mar 2006 9:51 a.m. PST

I got these rules when they were 1st posted on the flames site and we gave it a crack at the club. They r good fun, but we changed the cavalry rules abit to get them to work alittle better (for us). But it's now the pefered naps rules set for 3 of us at the club (we r the only 1's that play naps). give it a go.

brushmonkey13 Mar 2006 3:41 a.m. PST

My 2c ………..

If it brings people into the hobby of gaming and studying the Napoleonic conflicts that cannot be a bad thing unless it is an elitist club, where you must undertake the perceived learning curve and derision of some proponents of the period as pennance to entry.

There is never a ruleset written that pleases everyone some people like all of the detail and minutae that to them creates the feel for the period. IMHO I want a game that can reach a conclusion within 2-4 hours, beyond that if it moves so slowly that tedium sets in then to me it has failed to meet my basic precept of gaming which is good reasonably quick fun for the participants which reaches a conclusion. I hate playing in games that after a day or two there is no result or a draw.

Cole

Personal logo aegiscg47 Supporting Member of TMP13 Mar 2006 6:45 a.m. PST

Battlefront was smart to start out with WW2, but transitioning into other periods may be a lot tougher. First,, let's face it. painting 15mm WW2 tanks and infantry is a helluva lot easier than a regiment of French Old Guard. Also, most WW2 gamers have a pretty flexible basing system or unbased models, so trying out FOW was pretty easy and they could go back to something else if need be. Add to that fact that WW2 gamers are always searching for new rules and there wasn't much risk involved for FOW.

Napoleonics(and Ancients, Seven Years War, etc…) are a much more entrenched lot and it will be much harder getting the "crossover effect". Where as I had stuff based for CD3, I was able to try out FOW and even when I made a British army for the desert, I can always switch back to CD3 or IABSM. Not so for Napoleonics. I have several corps based for AOE and I'm not interested in rebasing or even trying a Napoleonic FOW set of rules. FOW was helped by a number of experienced WW2 gamers who were able to help new guys, but I can't see a lot of expereinced Napoleonic gamers making the switch. Just my two cents.

Eric O13 Mar 2006 7:12 a.m. PST

I don't think a Napoleonic FOW would ever appeal to many of the established Naps players. So yes, I agree that there won't be many experienced players around.
Though locally I can say that FoW got popular all by itself, without much of a hand from the historical gaming community. So I can't say for certain that people with period wargaming experience are necessary for a successful product.

Personal logo aegiscg47 Supporting Member of TMP13 Mar 2006 7:31 a.m. PST

Eric O, I think your view is probably correct. My point is that it's easy to get people into a game when you can say, "OK, paint these 10 Shermans Olive Drab with steel tracks, then use these decals for the stars", rather than "Here's 200 French figs, now follow the Nap FOW painting guide for the proper facing colors on the cuffs, collars, and turnbacks." You can get a FOW army painted(even to a grade 5 standard) by using spray paint and some touch up, then onto the game board fairly quickly. I think a period like Samurai, Napoleonics, 7YW, etc.., done in a FOW format would lead to a lot of unpainted lead on the tabletop, although from what I've seen lately in stores with Warmachine it doesn't seem to bother anyone.

50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick13 Mar 2006 7:46 a.m. PST

I don't see why painting should be any sort of barrier to entry. After all, look at the absurdly over-detailed fantasy and 40K figures by GW. They make painting a Saxon Grenadier a walk in the park.

Most of the fantasy/sci-fi players just slap a few colors on, and play with shabby-looking figures.

(And let's face it… there are quite a few shabby-looking, speed-painted Napoleonic armies out there, especially in 15mm. I should know, because I use to have a few!)

TheRugdoctor200313 Mar 2006 12:45 p.m. PST

If a FOW style rule set can entice even 5% of the "youngsters", into what old gits like myself consider the mainstream of the hobby, then GREAT.

Once they get the Napoleonic bug, can you really imagine them not wanting some Eureka/Battle Honours/Fantassin/whatever (with apologies to the other manufacturers- I have some of everything in my collection!)?

The only danger is that they try to dictate a version of Nappy history which we will consider "wrong". And I don't think there's any danger of this list letting them get away with anything so ghastly :-)

Daz

DugalMcangus114 Mar 2006 6:04 a.m. PST

First off, sorry for the following message. I have to say that i am only speaking for myself and am by no means represent anyone else!

I have to say that most on this board seem very full of themselves. The NapoFOW group is a collection of gamers who enjoy a system of play and would like to try and come up with something similar in another era. We like the quick, simple gameplay that FOW allows. Quite frankly we're doning this because no current system meets our needs. I believe that a game should be fun first and foremost. Anyone that thinks their "game" is an accurate historical simulation should take a reality check. And then join the army of their respective country to get the realism they desire, as that is the only way to achieve that sort of realism.

Obviously you all have a system that plays the way you like. I seriously hope that none of the people working on NapoFOW will be one these boards trash talking other systems. It just doesn't make sense, to each his own.

NapoFOW isn't meant to appeal to established Nappy players, they've already got something they like. It will fill a niche for others like myself who prefer this style of play.

DugalMcangus114 Mar 2006 11:28 a.m. PST

Sorry about that, after reading the posts and my post the line

"I have to say that most on this board seem very full of themselves."

should read

"some on this board"

and after a re-read it seems to be about as balanced as a discusion on FOW Nappy as could be expected.

Maxshadow14 Mar 2006 5:25 p.m. PST

Looks like a good way to give current FOW players a chance to try out the Napoleonic period. Who knows, the addiction my last. If, after awhile, some decide they need more detailed rules then good luck to them.
As for converting rule systems from there original period. How many WRG6 or DBA "Napoleonic" rules have we seen over the years. Its all part of the fun. Just hope they stike a good solid balance with the rules thats all.

MattDLM14 Mar 2006 11:09 p.m. PST

No doubt the rumors are really about Legacy of Glory 2nd Edition.

Full color, painting guides, fully prepackaged and painted miniatures from China, full flexibility from Sharpe level skirmish games to large scale battles, simple yet amazingly accurate.

Okay, I am kidding, but only a little.

Whattisitgoodfor15 Mar 2006 1:16 p.m. PST

If it's a good game, then HOORAY.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.