|
Napoleonics is a sprawling, terrifying chasm as a wargaming hobby to get lost in, but whatever you do, if you value the enjoyment you get out of it, for the love of God stay off the TMP Napoleonics forum. It's good for information, but there's just something about Naps that gets the fire going in peoples eyes. God forbid you ever paint your toy soldiers something that isn't 100% accurate to period, or play a set of rules that doesn't have a hundred million charts to wade through to work out firing and melee combats ("realism"). Having said that, they can generally answer any question you have, even if the question itself ends up plunging the thread into another flame war. The Napoleon Series also has some really good information on just about every major and minor state during the wars, their militaries and battles. "Napolun" has some fantastic information on organisations, and some really in depth descriptions of the more famous battles and campaigns as well. I personally used Wikipedia as a primer on the overview of the Napoleonic wars, then went a little more in depth and read the articles on the Third Coalition, Fourth, and so on, and when I wanted more depth than that, it was off to good old fasioned books (an enormous amount of which are dedicated to the subject). As for rules, like anyone else will tell you, it depends on what you want. In this era, there are three general "scales" people play at - there's skirmish (somewhere around 1:1 to 1:5ish figures:men represented), wherin the action is generally between companies or single battalions having a skirmish (duh). There's "petit tactical", where the basic manoeuver element is the battalion, and each stand of figures might represent a company or simply a more abstract fraction of the battalion. Petit tactical generally has you as commander of a division or sometimes up to a corps (somewhere between 5,000 and 25,000 men), a few batteries of artillery and maybe some cavalry. Then there's brigade level, where each stand or group of stands represents 1 brigade (that's ~3,000 men) and you're commander of multiple corps, an army complete with light and heavy cavalry divisions, reserve divisions, and a multitude of artillery. Obviously the higher up you go the more abstracted everything becomes, and for some people playing a brigade level game with 28mm figures is a bit jarring (these 6 figures represent 3,000 men?). The "old school" played with clearly defined ground scales/time scales/figure scales, wherein each man represented a set number of men (usually 1:10 and 1:20), the base represented a set number of feet/yards, and the turn represented a set number of minutes. These rules usually also used figure or stand removal, or "death caps" to mark casualties. There was a definite emphasis on RECREATING or SIMULATING Napoleonic warfare, rather than gaming it, and despite this approach to realism, grognards would still not bat an eyelash at the anachronisms used to make a working game (figure scale is 1:20, paper strength French battalion is 720 men, so each of my battalions will be 36 figures! Campaign attrition and desertions? What are those?), but scoff if you suggested abstracting time or distance in favour of playability. Probably the most popular of these is rulesets is General de Brigade, which is petit tactical. The new school of though is of course, to make a playable game that feels Napoleonic. Games that are fun and not a chore to slog through every time you play a game. Time/ground/figure scale is elastic or non-existant, distances are in base widths or something variable so anyone's figures can play, and the rules are generally abstracted enough to be able to get through a game in a night. Not to say it's not realistic, if that's what you're looking for, but you're certainly not rolling to see if your men have the morale fortitude to fire, then rolling to see how many fire, then rolling to fire, then rolling to hit, then rolling to wound. . . and so on, just - rolling to shoot. I'm sure you can see which philosophy I adhere to. Some rulesets like these are Lasalle and Black Powder, both petit tactical. It's difficult to suggest sets of rules other than those I personally use or have used, because there are just so many out there. Personally I run a campaign and use Lasalle for division sized fights, Polemos GdD for battles between corps, and Grande Armee for full-on army battles. If you have people in your area that play (and that you can stand to be around), ask them, because there's no sense going against the grain if there's something of a following in your area. There's also a question of actual figure scale, the size of the little mens you'll be using. There's a lot of these too, but the biggest I think are 15mm, 28mm and 6mm, in that order. But like it says in the OP, there's pretty much anything from 2mm to 54mm to choose from. Personally I use 6mm Baccus and Adler, because I like my armies to actually have some mass (see my above comment about 6 men representing a brigade). For example, when I play Lasalle, my French battalions are at a scale of around 1:10 and only take up a 16cm frontage, and when you have a small table, the ways you can reduce frontage become priority #1. If you want a little more detail to paint, apparently you can cram on just as many 10mm figs to a base as 6mm, but I have no experience with this. This post is a lot bigger than I intended it to be, and in a way is a good analogy for Napoleonic wargaming. You can start small and with good intentions, but soon you'll be looking at all sorts of conflicting sources, and the thing just keeps building bigger and bigger and bigger and consuming far more time than you ever thought possible for a hobby. If all this hasn't scared you away from the period, welcome to Napoleonics! 
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
Sokrateez posted:A bunch of really helpful words. Wow man, thanks. I asked my local gaming group if anybody plays/is interested in Napoleonics and there was exactly one dude who plays 15mm stuff with a system called Empire. I looked that up and it definitely seems to be one of the old-school complex systems, although I may be mistaken. Just because I'm personally a fan of that scale, I'd probably be looking at 15mm stuff and the idea of painting anything smaller gives me the willies. And I'm not even sure what level of battle I'm interested in :/
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 05:35
|
|
|
Yep, Empire V (I believe 5 is the latest, and last, incarnation), is definitely what most would describe as "old school" Napoleonics. Lots of charts and things like "national characteristics", that is, giving the French a +1™ to march speed say simply for being the French. I went over my post before and it seems really heavy handed favouring the new school of rules, and I don't want to be the guy discouraging you from something based on my personal opinion, so try it before you dismiss it if it looks interesting! I personally found Empire hard to get through, but I don't think it would be too bad with a small amount of troops (ca. 1-2 brigades). I would also suggest picking up a few of the smaller scale figures, even just to test. I started with 28mm Warhams, moved onto 15mm Flames of War, and ended up trying out 6mm as a tester for ancients and fell in love. They really are deceptively easy to paint up, you can put an army together quick and for much cheaper than other scales. I know both Baccus and Adler send samples too, for just the price of shipping, so it can't hurt to try! I like painting my 15mm WWII minis and I'd like to slowly get back into 25/28mm for maybe another era, but my mainstay is definitely 6mm. As for the level of battle, the way I like to think of it is what "triangle" or "rock-paper-scissors" balance you want. At petit tactical, it's the interaction between lines, columns and squares of infantry battalions, and for some this is the classic definition of Napoleonic battle. Without representing that balance, it might as well be 18th or mid-19th century warfare, or anything generic in between, some might say. At the brigade level it's the interaction between line divisions, massed artillery "grand batteries", and the indomitable charge of the heavy reserves, with all the manoeuvering that goes with it. Proponants of this level might say this is true Napoleonic warfare, as things like grand batteries and massed divisional cavalry charges really were the icon of early Napoleonic victories, and why recreate only a small part of the battle? Of course you can usually do any scale you want, depending on how you base your figures, it's all a matter of what rules you're using. Like I said, I use 3 different rulesets depending on the scale of battle, and that's a personal choice. I know there are some who use petite tactical rules - say Empire - to refight entire corps or multi-corps battles, too, though I hear tales of these being multi-day affairs as well, since the rules generally are designed to be played with far fewer forces. It might help to sort of "latch on" to a specific theatre or war, as that might help define your first steps. I know for many it's the Peninsular War or the Hundred Days campaign, as these are the two theatres that the British played a major role in, and for me it was the Fifth Coalition, a stand up fight between France and Austria on near equal terms. In the peninsula, say, there is a lot of room for skirmish games in country that lended itself to guerilla warfare, and with both sides thinking of it as a sort of "secondary theatre", battles usually didn't have more than 50,000 to a side. Compare that to the Sixth Coalition, where all the major powers finally came together to oppose Napoleon, where battles like Dresden and Leipzig numbered in the hundreds of thousands, Leipzig having over 600,000 total combatants. The scope is pretty overwhelming, but the nice thing is that there is so much variety, there's something for everyone. hot cocoa on the couch fucked around with this message at 07:05 on May 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 07:03
|
|
|
Just joining in to confirm that it is deceptively easy to assume that bigger scale = easy to paint, and smaller scale = hard to paint. After trying 6mm I agree that it is the easiest and fastest scale to paint, at least the way I paint. I paint everything from 54mm to 6mm, and 6mm is definitely the scale where I can switch off my brain and just churn out finished miniatures, factory style.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 07:44
|
|
|
A local wargamer friend of mine says that napoleonics are generally pretty deterministic systems in his experience. Is there any truth to that?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 09:43
|
|
|
Sokrateez posted:I would also suggest picking up a few of the smaller scale figures, even just to test. I started with 28mm Warhams, moved onto 15mm Flames of War, and ended up trying out 6mm as a tester for ancients and fell in love. They really are deceptively easy to paint up, you can put an army together quick and for much cheaper than other scales. I know both Baccus and Adler send samples too, for just the price of shipping, so it can't hurt to try! I like painting my 15mm WWII minis and I'd like to slowly get back into 25/28mm for maybe another era, but my mainstay is definitely 6mm. I checked out the Baccus stuff and I have to say I really like them. They're very nice once painted and have enough detail to look pretty without having enough to drive me insane. I'm thinking about paying the tiny amount of money it takes to get a sample. And if I'm still interested (and if I can get my friends interested, a few have expressed some desire to play Napoleonics down the line) it's pretty drat cheap. After reading some of the stuff on wikipedia, I'm actually finding myself drawn to the lost cause that is the Prussians of the Fourth Coalition, when they absolutely got their asses handed to them. I'm not really sure why though. This is all ultra-helpful stuff! Actually while I'm talking about it, are there any adaptations to VASSAL for these kinda games? Edit: I ordered a sample pack of some Napoleonic stuff from Baccus. Amazingly cheap and so quick to reply. Once I see how they look and how easy to paint they are, I'll probably end up getting some more. I've also been reading good reviews about the associated system, Polemos. Bullbar fucked around with this message at 11:03 on May 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 14:25
|
|
|
CNN Sports Ticker posted:I checked out the Baccus stuff and I have to say I really like them. They're very nice once painted and have enough detail to look pretty without having enough to drive me insane. I'm thinking about paying the tiny amount of money it takes to get a sample. And if I'm still interested (and if I can get my friends interested, a few have expressed some desire to play Napoleonics down the line) it's pretty drat cheap. Baccus is really good, and Peter is really friendly if you need to ask him something over e-mail or through the forums.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 16:50
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Baccus is really good, and Peter is really friendly if you need to ask him something over e-mail or through the forums. This is the truth. I've not much experience with VASSAL personally, only having used it briefly for Advanced Squad Leader (  ), but I know there's a small following on TMP for computer-regulated wargames like Carnage and Glory, so there's some hope there.Arquinsiel, I'm not sure I understand. Deterministic in the results of the individual combats or of the overall result?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2011 02:24
|
|
|
I think he meant the individual combats, but I'm not sure. I'll have to ask again the next time I see him.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2011 11:57
|
|
|
What's Polemos like, can anyone tell me? I haven't been able to find any decent reviews. I'm fairly sure I'll be getting 6mm Napoleonics (and maybe some ACW stuff) from Baccus and it's sorta their associated system. They include it in some starter packs so it would be good if it's worth getting. Or failing that, what do you like better for 6mm Napoleonics? There were some suggestions up-thread but I just thought I'd throw it out. I want less skirmish-y rules but I'm not sure whether I'm looking at petite or grande tactical. Both are interesting. I mean, ideally it would be a game where I could build a 6mm army and then use it for either scale, scaled up or down. Edit: Reading the thread and much earlier someone mentioned starting oaths and painting and such at the start of this month. Is that still a thing? I'd be down. Bullbar fucked around with this message at 12:07 on Jun 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
Just jumping in to preach the gospel of Flames of War here. I just went to my first tournament this last weekend and it was a blast. The format was 1750 points Late War and I ran "Task Force A" which was a composite unit of tank destroyers, cavalry recon and engineers. My force had decent anti-tank capability, great anti-infantry, and was extremely maneuverable but had basically no ability to survive return fire. I went 2 and 1 and all of my opponents were great guys. I post up details and the few pics I took if people are interested. I'm working on getting a small group of FoW players started at the local game store so I'm trying to get two armies together so I can demo the game for people but I'm not quite half way there yet. I'd be happy to answer people's questions about FoW.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
Which nation is your army? I've got about 1750 worth of Soviets that I'm trying to get painted for their first game on the 12th. So many little men, so little time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 00:57
|
|
|
Wait a minute.... Aren't you one of the Belfast goons?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 04:03
|
|
|
CNN: Oops, yeah, I should probably point out that "Task Force A" is an American army. Lots of fun, very much a glass cannon type army. Arquinsiel: Nope, I'm in northern California.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 07:00
|
|
|
Awwww  I thought I recognised your name from a goonmeet years back, would have been nice to have a goon to ACTUALLY play tiny nazis with instead of the two I have who never bother to paint their poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 13:12
|
|
|
These FOW tournaments. Please don't tell me you can end up playing Russians V Brits or similar, don't break my brain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 15:48
|
|
|
Isn't that part of the appeal?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 16:07
|
|
|
CNN Sports Ticker posted:Isn't that part of the appeal? Yea I figured half the fun was the main rule being 'ok obviously it has to be Allies vs Axis in the same timeframe but from that, whatever'?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 16:56
|
|
|
The game is actually balanced for hypotheticals like "training exercises" or the Americans teaming up with Germany to fight communism post-war etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 17:42
|
|
|
CNN Sports Ticker posted:Isn't that part of the appeal? gently caress no. Not for me when it comes to ww2 wargaming anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 18:19
|
|
|
Yeah unfortunately Blue on Blue does occasionally happen but its fairly rare. A lot of people have Axis and Allied armies and will play whatever is in short supply to get an even number. The tournament I went to was only off by one though I did end up playing against and American Ranger list. It wasn't pretty, I have tons of fast light vehicles with machine guns and his troops had to move to cover his objectives. There was a lot of open ground for him to cover on the way over. I was able to block him out of the objectives and hose his troops down with machine-gun fire before they got anywhere. Most of his infantry evaporated and I was able to set up a defensive gun line where his tanks came in from reserve and I basically camped his spawn. There is a new "doubles" tournament format where you register with an opposing partner and then play other teams, there is some averaging of scores but the main advantage is that is guarantees you never have blue on blue. Another tournament highlight was meeting Bill Wilcox and Eric Riha two of the best players in the world, they both had great armies and are very cool guys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
Is Flames of War ever going to cover the pacific? I'd finally get into it if they had marines to buy, but I suppose the extensive terrain, relative lack of armor, and importance of naval power wouldn't lend itself to fow (from what I understand).
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
I am not sure they will but you could probably adapt it into the pacific theater with relative ease, there are already rules for amphibious landings (Ie D-day). As for things like naval support it would be easy to use the rules for airstrikes/artillery and have it purchased as part of your army list. The only problem I see is quite a few of the games would be basically infantry based island hopping (although there is scope for "open" combinded arms land battles) and for me at least that isn't my favorite aspect of the pacific theatre. . Although it would be interesting to have rules for Japanese forces so you could do what ifs like an US invasion of the mainland or a Japanese invasion of the US or Australia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 00:56
|
|
|
uncle jimbo posted:Is Flames of War ever going to cover the pacific? I'd finally get into it if they had marines to buy, but I suppose the extensive terrain, relative lack of armor, and importance of naval power wouldn't lend itself to fow (from what I understand). Eventually they'll run out of Europe to cover, so yeah I'd assume they'd do something at some point. Hell, it'd just be their 'Nam game but without the choppers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 01:29
|
|
|
There seems to be a lot of pressure for Battlefront to do the Pacific theatre, I for one am not that interested. FoW is a game that rewards maneuver and positioning more than brute force assaulting. I can see games being really horrendous slugging matches between huge infantry mobs in dense terrain. The island hopping would be even worse with the Japanese player relegated to placing tons of bunkers and machine gun nests and then just seeing if they are able to roll enough hits to pin the Americans and beat back their assaults. I don't really know anything about the character of the fighting in southeast Asia though, maybe that would be more interesting. I get the feeling that the new "Infantry Aces" mini-game they're releasing with the Cassino book is an attempt to add another dimension to infantry fights. Given what Battlefront has already put out about their future releases, their current (decent) pace of releases and the conspicuous absence of certain campaigns (Battle of the Bulge, Market Garden, Crossing the Rhine, Berlin I'm looking at you) I don't think they'll run out of "Europe" for another 3+ years. Thats assuming they don't decide to double down and do some obscure stuff and hit the lesser known battles (I'm not even going to try here) I don't think anyone expected them to do a book on crossing the Vistula. On a different note, does anyone have a 15mm Vietnam manufacturer to go for NVA? I have the book and it looks like tons of fun but seriously the Battlefront NVA are garbage, total phone in job on them. A hug contrast to the new Cassino figures that look totally awesome and the new bases they released. Check this out
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
They did Market Garden last year in two books. Hell's Highway is worth picking up, Arnhem not so much but still interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 03:36
|
|
|
Oh yeah, forgot about that one, probably not going to see that one re-done any time soon (ala the D-Day books)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
Jinjin Bemar posted:gently caress no. Not for me when it comes to ww2 wargaming anyway. In late war, that's hard to avoid, since there's so few Axis armies left.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 16:16
|
|
|
Conan the Librarian posted:Oh yeah, forgot about that one, probably not going to see that one re-done any time soon (ala the D-Day books) The main reasons behind redoing books was to put the lists in the newer, easier format. Bagration and the books after that are all in that format already. And bullshit, there's plenty of axis armies left. It's just they're all waffen ss with a different dice set.  edit: holy gently caress those cassino bases. I'm so as gently caress doing a II Polish Corps force now using those. SO DOING IT. I don't care if they don't give them rules (which they won't). Holy poo poo gently caress battlefront forever for not having any lists for the II Polish Corps, the guys that loving took Cassino. loving figures. Good thing they put the Goumiers in. Best known for their rapes! edit2: 
Devlan Mud fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Jun 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 17:54
|
|
|
They've got a Cassino book now? gently caress, I just wrote my thesis on first Cassino. I guess I'll have to do fow after all. e: I'm bummed there's no 34th or 36th ID either, but I guess they were just regular old infantry outfits. Oh well. nuncle jimbo fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Jun 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
uncle jimbo posted:They've got a Cassino book now? gently caress, I just wrote my thesis on first Cassino. I guess I'll have to do fow after all. Yeah, you'd probably want Fortress Europe to represent the 34th, 36th, 1st Armoured, or any of the main american divisions in Italy. I know I won't actually be picking up the Cassino book since they'll be doing a pdf of the poles eventually, and the FoW sourcebooks are really lightweight on actual historical tidbits. Just be sure if you're starting FoW you're not actually treating it as a historical game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 21:18
|
|
|
The Poles are treated as British with a few different rules, because they largely were equipped by the British. There are rules for the 1st Independant Polish Parachute Brigade in Arnhem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
'hey man peter pig is supposed to make good 15mm stuff, I'll take a look at their site' http://www.peterpig.co.uk/ 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 06:29
|
|
|
uncle jimbo posted:'hey man peter pig is supposed to make good 15mm stuff, I'll take a look at their site' A historics site that's a historic relic from the 90's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 06:58
|
|
|
Meh, they do make good stuff. At least they have photos of most of their ranges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 08:40
|
|
|
Don't get me started. 90% of miniature companies have homepages that looks like their teenage nephews did for them during a summer vacation in '98. I might have the smallest company in the business, but at least my homepage doesn't make you weep blood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 10:15
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Don't get me started. 90% of miniature companies have homepages that looks like their teenage nephews did for them during a summer vacation in '98. I might have the smallest company in the business, but at least my homepage doesn't make you weep blood. But most companies probably did get their teenage nephews to do it. The majority of companies are small part time back room companies run by ageing fat men who fear the future (hence why they play historicals!), the fact they have web sites at all is a mini miracle. They are living in atime when here in the UK at least, the majoirty of people went in person to a wargames show to see what the goods looked like in the flesh or at best had a mail order catalogue with hand drawn images or badly photocopied photos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 12:02
|
|
|
Also a little late (I was probated for pointing out the obvious in another thread), but on the Napoleonics front let me wade in. Just got for it. Its a great period, with some fantastic looking uniforms, with some great battles and campaigns, and some wonderful models in all scales. Dont be put off by some of the grognards bleating on about lace colour and facings or whatever. In all honesty if your opponent is going to be sniffy because your Voltiguers have the wrong shako braid colour for the date you are playing or whatever, I suggest not playing him, as its unlikely he will be much fun to play against. Asa far as my gaming group is concerned Brits are red, French dark blue and thats all you need worry about on a gaming table from arms length. We play Napoleonics with Black Powder, both in 6mm (my preferred) and 28mm and its a great fun game. A very easy rule set to play with reasonably realsitic outcomes. We also play skirmish level games using Too Fat Lardies Sharpe Practice which again is simple and fun and leads more to a lsightly pulpy/Cornwellian style of game. Major Dick Fondler anyone? If you do want more info, TMP is worth a look, although just ignore the few twats. Book wise I was recommended the following and have been glad I bought them. The Waterloo Companion by Mark Adkin. Huge and pricey and only the one battle obviously, but beautifully done with more info than you will ever need. An Illustrated Encycliopedia of Uniforms of the Napoleonic Wars by Digby Smith. Lovely book with masses of illsutrations and info.. Napoleons Military Machine and Wellingtons Miliatary Machine by the marvellosuly named P Haythornethwaite. Can be picked up cheap on Amazon or ebay second hand. Not as pretty as the first 2 books recommended but gives a good overview of how both armies were structured etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 12:14
|
|
|
Yeah, Peter Pig's website is a bit of an antique, but I think his product looks pretty good. Though his WWII stuff I believe is some of his older work and doesn't quite match up to some of his more recent stuff (like the modern USMC stuff in the AK-47 Republic range). One of these days when I get the excess money for getting into Force-on-Force/Ambush alley I'll probably be getting most of my infantry from him. Speaking of FoF, anyone seen the new book from Osprey? That thing is beautiful, and full of osprey style artwork along side historical photos and mini pictures that just looks great. Seems jammed full of stuff too, compared to Ambush Alley and what I remember of a peek through the original edition of Force on Force.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Yeah, Peter Pig's website is a bit of an antique, but I think his product looks pretty good. Though his WWII stuff I believe is some of his older work and doesn't quite match up to some of his more recent stuff (like the modern USMC stuff in the AK-47 Republic range). Also give me an hour and I will stick up some lovely pics (digital camera is dead, have to use phone cam) of some of my gladiators and the arena gaming board. Jinjin Bemar fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Jun 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 18:09
|
|