|
Count Thrashula posted:Looks-wise, how different would the Hundred Years War be from the Wars of the Roses? The tail end of the Hundred Years War would look similar to the Wars of the Roses due to there only being a few years between the (generally assumed) "end" of the HYW and the first battles of the Wars of the Roses. That said, most HYW figures I'm aware of are from either the early period, which would just straight up me inappropriate since there's over 100 years difference, or based on the Battle of Agincourt, where the infantry equipment is passable for WotR, but the Knights look considerably different. Between 1415 and 1455 there was a renaissance (dohoho) in plate armour. While at Agincourt, Knights wore armour that was stiffer, less manoeuvrable and topped with the Great Bascinet helmet:  Whereas by the time of the Wars of the Roses, Knights (and other men-at-arms) were equipped with (usually) either Milanese or Gothic plate, which was much more articulated and has a considerably different look, particularly to the helmet regarding Gothic plate: 
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
Awesome, that's the kind of stuff I was interested in, the real material changes. I can paint stuff to cover up different banners etc but completely wrong armor just doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 02:06
|
|
|
Anyone have any experience with Gangs of Rome? They're doing a Kickstarter for a new edition next week and street-level ancients skirmish gaming with an ongoing campaign sounds right up my alley.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 02:17
|
|
|
edit: whoops
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 03:10
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:
I really like the blocks for board games, but even the 2mm stuff is nicer looking than blocks imo. However, I'm biased as I spend way more time painting and building units than playing with them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 03:24
|
|
|
So I'm sure I'm going to regret asking this (but, Tricornes) - how would SYW warfare differ from Napoleonic in a meaningful sense (in the same spirit as the question of material difference between HYW and WOTR) ? lilljonas posted:If Pikeman's Lament has the same unit system as Lion Rampant, an infantry unit is like 12 minis right? I tried it with my 28mm multi-bases and simply had two bases of six dudes being a unit. Using two bases for a unit and using counters for casualties is probably the cleanest solutions, if PL has the same "your unit fight as normal until it takes 50% casualties" thing that Lion Rampant has. Yes, seems all units are 6 or 12 miniatures and 4-8pts each. I'm not sure how happy I am that Pike units and Shot units are separate and there are no formations, but not all that different to the OHW rules and it has some interesting quirks of leadership, command, etc. I think there's potentially scope for evaluating the rulesets similarly to how I've tried to do with the Napoleonic Period, i.e. fighting a similar battle with: - Pikeman's Lament - My rewrite and interpratation of One Hour Wargames Pike & Shot Rules - DBA 3.0-RRR - Victory Without Quarter Would that be interesting to document in this thread or shall I manage offline? Virtual Russian posted:I really like the blocks for board games, but even the 2mm stuff is nicer looking than blocks imo. However, I'm biased as I spend way more time painting and building units than playing with them. Yeah for sure, I didn't mean this to start a big tangent, rather to highlight that (Count Thrashula's prints aside) I so much prefer 10mm to 2/3mm that I think I'd prefer to use blocks in a situation where I would be using 2mm figures. Speaking of 2mm, I've managed to get my reinforced Corps on the table for a re-play of Lasalle 2's introductory scenario - it certainly looks more substantial, though the terrain needs filling in:  The Russians under Blyat have an infantry brigade, a guards cavalry brigade, and some militia units - each with artillery backing. The French under Baguette with two infantry brigades and a light cav brigade with their foot/horse batteries. Hopefully this should play to the strengths of the Lasalle system and I can get a better feel for it, because I was rather whelmed with the experience last time. There is a recommendation that the battlefield for these kind of pickup games is 36x24 BW - which given my 1" square bases is appropriate for my playing area of 3x3' but presumably we're starting to butt up against the hard limits of the space I have available. Given the number of bases in this shot and the amount of 10mm figures I'd need to paint to replace these like for like however, I'm not altogether worried about hitting that limit any time soon - infact the extra 22 bases seem like quite something to overcome in 10mm, compared to the complete non-issue in 2mm... Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Mar 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 09:25
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Would that be interesting to document in this thread or shall I manage offline? :Just Post:
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
Crossposting from the painting threadSpringfield Fatts posted:I had some failed prints laying around so I figured I would use them to show some of the Xpress Colors I picked up. These were all Xpress Color straight out of the pot. No washes, glazes, or highlights added. More historical notes: Pretty happy with the feildgrau I half-assed, just a 50/50 and Black Lotus and Troll Green. Really happy with the US guy, webbing came off too bright but I think everything else is respectable. Not liking the IJA / Soviet colors. One feels too yellow and the other not quite pure khaki enough, just looks like a leather trench coat. Again, limitations of the small pallete available on release. The yellow on the Nappys were a joy to use, one coat and you're done. God I wish I had this when I was doing my full armies a few months back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
Lumbermouth posted:Anyone have any experience with Gangs of Rome? They're doing a Kickstarter for a new edition next week and street-level ancients skirmish gaming with an ongoing campaign sounds right up my alley.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Would that be interesting to document in this thread or shall I manage offline? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
Cessna posted::Just Post: Well OK, still, it's been a long time since I've used a forum and the lack of direct and obvious feedback to contributions is making me unsure if I'm just polluting the thread, particularly when I'm going off on a tangent. I'll take it as writ that it's all good unless someone explicitly tells me to stop. I'm excited to see how Lasalle 2 plays out with the higher base count. I've thought about videoing the game, as it seems that Lasalle particularly has a real dearth of content on YouTube - but I'm generally doing these battles over multiple evenings while the other half is in the adjoining living-room, so I think for now it'll have to be pictures-only, in true grog fashion. My main drive for looking at the 7YW as mentioned earlier was that I quite fancy some British, and I'd quite like more variety in opponents than differently themed French armies. I had considered backdating Lasalle/DBN/OHW rules and it seems on the face of it to be quite simple: - Artillery centralised per force as regimental guns. - Infantry fight only in line formation, and with proportionally less effective cavalry they are considered 'in square' if supported on both flanks. - Light Cavalry and Dragoons only? - No elites/conscripts, since armies are generally professional/mercenary. That said, I think I quite like the double-edged sword of forming square, of artillery varieties and I think I would prefer my cossacks and lancers to get stuck in amongst jägers and Old Guard, rather than identical units firing at each other. I'm still no closer as to whether I want to go Peninsular or central Europe, though! Springfield Fatts posted:Crossposting from the painting thread Really lovely stuff - certainly the WW2 figures look the part. I've tried both zenithal and grey-with-white-drybrush options and found the figures looking good en masse really don't stand up to close inspection like you've got here. I may pinch your idea for Feldgrau for my 20mm Germans, albeit using Speedpaints.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:So I'm sure I'm going to regret asking this (but, Tricornes) - how would SYW warfare differ from Napoleonic in a meaningful sense (in the same spirit as the question of material difference between HYW and WOTR) ? In VERY VERY VERY tl;dr terms, on a tactical level: SYW battles are more "linear." Attacking in column wasn't as much of a thing in SYW. It took longer to deploy from a march column to a firing line (the drill of the day was different) so it generally was done earlier. Armies (usually) formed lines then closed, generally looking to turn or push a flank to collapse. In contrast, Napoleonic tactics involved finding and/or creating a weak point in the enemy's line, then smashing it open with concentrated artillery and pushing infantry in columns or cavalry into the gap. (There are exceptions to all of these, of course, I'm talking broad trends here.) SYW artillery was more static and spread out. "Battalion guns" were also more of a thing, they're light artillery directly attached to an infantry formation. This gives them a bit more firepower, but slows them down. In comparison, Napoleonic artillery was more mobile (and horse artillery was more common) and concentrated into batteries, allowing them to mass fire at decisive points. In the SYW, the armies carried out their maneuvers and defenses as armies, not as smaller units. There was far less tactical control or room for initiative at the battalion - regiment - brigade level, just passing along orders from above. So where Frederick's entire army would attack obliquely (like at the battle of Rossbach), individual divisions would attack obliquely (like at Jena). Also, SYW infantry didn't have anywhere near the number of skirmishers. Infantry ended to be more homogeneous in quality. There wasn't the levee en mass conscription of the Napoleonic era so the soldiers tended to be more professional. There were "elite" units like grenadiers, but these tended to be spread out more. There (generally) weren't uber- elites like the Imperial Guard. Cavalry often didn't get involved in the middle of the main battle. They'd scout and skirmish beforehand and secure flanks, but there (generally) weren't charges into enemy lines; because the infantry was more likely to be in a solid line (with secure flanks) it was much riskier to try a cavalry charge. Keep in mind that I'm talking about "continental" fights in Europe; if you want to talk about how things went in North America (in what is called the French & Indian War) that's a whole different subject entirely. And, crucially, the uniforms were different. Tricorns for SYW, shakos for Napoleonics:  vs. 
Cessna fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Mar 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 20:30
|
|
|
First two units of my Mollwitz project are done, a couple Prussian infantry regiments. Under a decent light I'm realizing that the basing paste really needs a wash and drybrush to not looks like... well, paste. But these Henry Turner minis are fun to paint up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2023 11:45
|
|
|
Count Thrashula posted:First two units of my Mollwitz project are done, a couple Prussian infantry regiments. Under a decent light I'm realizing that the basing paste really needs a wash and drybrush to not looks like... well, paste. But these Henry Turner minis are fun to paint up. Yay, Tricorns. I really enjoy using Vallejo European Earth, it's darker with bits in it - and seems to take light flock fairly well? Then again, I'm going for an impressionistic approach Cessna posted:In VERY VERY VERY tl;dr terms, on a tactical level...And, crucially, the uniforms were different. Tricorns for SYW, shakos for Napoleonics: Thank you, after looking at the defining characteristics of that earlier era both in your response and elsewhere, it seems that a war-game the 7YW in comparison with the Napoleonic era is characterised by limitations: less troop variety in both type and effectiveness, less effective cavalry, less tactical nuance. After stating earlier that the infinitesimal differences between certain types of light cavalry or troop experience was superfluous - I do like having the option of including that additional spice in my game, and it seems that the earlier period is simply going to make that more challenging and offer less. Without a strong tie to the period (other than tricorns and uniqueness) - it seems that the Napoleonic period is a better shout.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2023 12:43
|
|
|
Spent my birthday watching Band of Brothers and painting some GIs.  I swear the helmets aren't turquoise in person, my white balance is just screwy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
EDIT: post in progress
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2023 23:54
|
|
|
Count Thrashula posted:Spent my birthday watching Band of Brothers and painting some GIs. Well hey, looks great to me! No complaints about helmets or otherwise - it's a very nice job (Speaking of BoB, you should definitely do that guy who shot himself in the leg with a luger he pocketed, IMO! haha  )
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
The Battle of Подставка The scenario is a simple pitched battle over a small town, in this case the hamlet of Подставка/Podstavka. The French army deploys two infantry brigades either side of a concentrated artillery battery, and a light cavalry brigade of Hussars pointing eastward, parallel with the rest of the battle line. The French battle plan is to anchor the line on the West with their superior Infantry, and swing their cavalry around, turning the flank of the Russians. The Russian general attempts to stymie this by deploying most of their infantry in mutually supportive columns on the Eastern Flank, holding the centre with militia and gun batteries, and sending the Guards Cavalry on the Western flank. It's a situation ripe for a turn in the battle line - but what will happen? As dawn breaks, the Armies draw up in column towards the site of the battle...  Early Morning: Corner-to-Corner, the French and Russian advance into the town of Podstavka. Both armies roll forward, but the Russians keep a regiment of infantry in reserve. They deploy into line early, nervous of the French guns and cavalry. They are well to have done so, for the French artillery fire is devastating, taking out the Russian heavy battery almost immediately (double 6 on a 'to hit' roll for bounce-through, and then a double 6 to resolve that to two disruption - routing the unit in the first turn). The Russian plan is to tie up the French anchor with the Guards Cavalry, and push through the centre. The French are planning the same, but have already won a strategic coup - two units of hussars are en route to pin down three quarters of the Russian line infantry on that flank, as opposed to an equal trade in the west. The French also manage to move into and garrison Podstavka town itself, forcing the Russians to split their forces or permit frequent interruptions - with only the opolchenie in the centre there is little chance of shifting the French from their strongpoint.  Mid Morning: Russia forces blink first, and deploy into Line In the West, the French hold their position by forming square against the Russian Guards Cavalry, and their guns thunder out again, routing half of the Russian militia rabble. In the Russian centre, the infantry reserve is pushed forward to plug the new gap in the line between Podstavka and the rough ground. In the east the French Hussars threaten the Russian infantry who also form square, but jammed between the town and board-edge they are only able to force an impassé. As the engagement in the West goes on, the conscript musketeers manage to repulse the Hussars time and again despite their poor formation and limited resolve. As the day wears on however, the French infantry form into Attack column along the line, and the drumroll of the pas de charge turns the Russian blood cold...  Late Morning: The armies clash, both flanks pinned by infantry squares and the centre bowing in for the Russians As the sun reaches it Zenith, the undoing of the Russian army is apparent: though the Guards Cavalry has pushed past the eastern flank towards the rear of the French lines, resistance in the centre and west has crumbled: In order to break the Eastern stalemate and flank charge one unit of Hussars, the outermost Russian musketeer battalion changed formation to line, but this permitted the French to interrupt. They committed their fresh Hussar unit, heretofore held further back in the field, and routed the conscripts in the final coup de grâce.  Mid Day: A Russian Defeat With the Heavy Battery decimated, the Infantry brigade in complete disarray and the line broken, the Russians concede defeat. The Day After Though I never saw additional momentum from the Skirmish phase (despite the 18 Skirmish points the French had), the French rolled well for General-generated momentum points, and were able to set terms of engagement. They were able to force an unequal trade with the Guards Cavalry while pounding the Russians with their gun batteries. I think most significant of the early stages of the battle was the the French battalion garrisoning Podstavka. It indirectly forced the Russians to split their army - a direct attack and capture of the town would simply have created an indefensible salient in the French lines, and moving too close would have permitted the higher-momentum French to pick and choose when to interrupt. The Russians were on the back foot from the start, i didn't want to send the Opolchenie out on a flank by themselves and risk it being crushed so they needed to be sat in the middle of the line, which then split the command of the infantry brigade. The crushing loss of both militia units and the heavy battery so early on meant the game was all but decided by the end of Turn 2 - but I decided that the gamble for the Eastern flank by taking the musketeers out of square was worth it - if they had survived the fresh French hussar's flank charge they could have in turn charged the flank of their original Hussar opponents and potentially started to roll-up the line. It didn't pay off, but honestly I spent about 5-10 minutes just looking at the game board with 2 momentum left in the tank (versus 1 for the French, which they ultimately used via interrupt for that final charge) , trying to figure out if there was any option at all to salvage the game. Incidentally this is the first time out of the 10+ napoleonic games I've played across three rulesets that the French have won. Vive l'Empereur! Further Thoughts on Lasalle
To Do - Either take a poo poo or get off the toilet when it comes to the figures - bolster the existing 2mm armies with another dozen bases and get some properly scaled 2mm scenery done, or migrate to 10mm. I think I've decided to avoid the British for now - French/Austria/Russia/Prussia seem to provide for a variety of combinations. Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Mar 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 08:13
|
|
|
Cross-post from the Terrain thread, a WIP of some 10mm scenery that I'm quite pleased with: I think it definitely anchors the miniatures wonderfully to time and place, so I'm going to get the other terrain pieces in the queue as well. My ECW Parliamentarians have finally shipped also! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 09:47
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Cross-post from the Terrain thread, a WIP of some 10mm scenery that I'm quite pleased with: Are those some of the Battlescape models you can buy through Pendraken? I have some of those coming and I'm excited to paint them. Yours look great!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 11:09
|
|
|
That’s right, I ordered direct through eBay and substituted the tower building for more cottages, rather than through Pendraken though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 11:38
|
|
|
3dBreed launched it's March to Hell Nam line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 17:45
|
|
|
Does anyone have the Twilight of the Divine Right rules? Might be a long shot but I'm just trying to find a picture or scan of the Fleurus scenario from that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2023 18:13
|
|
|
Well, I finally took a (metaphorical) poo poo - I've ordered a set of 2mm farms, churches and village buildings from Brigade Models - not these exact ones, but you can see the quality you're getting. I figured while I was at it, I may as well finish up my 2mm armies so I've put another order in to Irregular. The French have. surprisingly little going on in their army list, so I simple bought a second 'Napoleonic French Army' for £14 - it should yield overall a force of around 20 units, each of 4 bases. I'm mostly surprised that the French do not appear to have separate listings for Jägers. The Russians are far more interesting from an army list perspective with militia, jägers, cossacks and a variety of artillery. Somehow I managed to spend £25 on 'finishing off' miniatures, yielding overall:
I have some generic napoleonic questions if anyone is able to help? - So far I've managed to field armies that are relatively homogenous - "all of the French ligne is elite", or "all the Russian cavalry are hussars" - so I think the biggest challenge to overcome is easy unit recognition. To that end I'm going to use wider blobs for more elite troops, and deeper blobs for more green troops. My only justification for this is the understanding that columnar formation was easier to keep in order, so more likely for conscripts and militia to use? - What the heck are the differences between "Guards and "Grenadiers"? Looking at Lasalle's army maker, the Guards are better than the Grenadiers. However, when I look up Grenadiers online I see that they are typically members of Guards regiments, the other units being Jagers/etc. I just don't understand! I don't think I'm going to be in a position where I'm fielding both at the same time in a game so identification between them is moot - but my gut feeling is to highlight their seniority with black hats. (ps. my ex- British Army wife got very upset when I asked 'why are the Guards better than other regiments?'  )I also took notes during my previous game and I figure here's a good place to ask some Lasalle questions that came up then: - Do army assets get attached to a brigade for the purposes of generating momentum, and receiving force orders? (I assume yes) - Is it possible to give a 'move' force order to a brigade and move half of it, then later in the turn give another 'move' order to the same brigade and move the other half? Same question for 'global' orders which only some units partake in? (I assume yes) - If an artillery firing lane bumps into terrain, but that terrain does not obscure the target in any way, does that target still count as in cover/have the bombard/bounce affected? (I assume no) - to clarify the rules around musket fire: a target must be directly ahead of one base in the firing unit, then other bases in the firing unit have a 45° arc to bring to bear. Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Mar 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 08:38
|
|
|
I’ll write a proper French nappy army primer for you tonight when the baby is asleep. But generally battalion integrated voltigeurs had the role that jägers had in other armies, and grenadiers are several different things (from battalion integrated veterans to guard battalions to guard cavalry) which is what causes your confusion. And until 1809 or so you’d sometimes see line grenadier companies pooled into grenadier-only battalions. So it’s a lot of nuance.
lilljonas fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Mar 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 12:46
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:(ps. my ex- British Army wife got very upset when I asked 'why are the Guards better than other regiments?' 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 13:40
|
|
|
Guest2553 posted:3dBreed launched it's March to Hell Nam line. I usually don't mind their chubby chic aesthetic but they seem to have taken it up to eleven on these.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 14:18
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:(ps. my ex- British Army wife got very upset when I asked 'why are the Guards better than other regiments?' So is your wife former Guards, or former not-Guards who gets really upset that people seem to think the Guards are any better than the rest? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 16:14
|
|
|
moths posted:I usually don't mind their chubby chic aesthetic but they seem to have taken it up to eleven on these. Yeah outside of having zero interest in playing that particular conflict something about the renders just seemed off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 16:26
|
|
|
They all look short and slightly soft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 17:13
|
|
|
moths posted:I usually don't mind their chubby chic aesthetic but they seem to have taken it up to eleven on these. I am not a fan of their legs that are just knees aesthetic to start with, but these new ones look egregiously bad to me. It is like they decided to make them as short but somehow more squat. They also seem to have made a lot of the ammo pouches the size of a loaf of bread. Also, if you are going to have African-American skin tone miniatures they probably shouldn't look like Zwarte Piet. If you can't do it right just don't do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Well, I finally took a (metaphorical) poo poo - I've ordered a set of 2mm farms, churches and village buildings from Brigade Models - not these exact ones, but you can see the quality you're getting. I figured while I was at it, I may as well finish up my 2mm armies so I've put another order in to Irregular. First of all I'm happy to see that you're getting better results with your second Lasalle 2 game. I think upping the armies in size made a lot of things more interesting. Getting a few more options than you need for your army is a good thing in the long run, as like you say it'll be fun for campaigns and to get different tactical challenges. As for the lack of variation in the French list, it's basically down to a lot of different troop types being listed as one option. So your "veterans" could be ligne, they could be legere, they could be Swiss, they could be Vistula Legion, they could be Croats, and so on. The French were trained (at least until 1812 or so) so that everyone could skimish, at least so some extent. This was a very radical idea for the time, and I could make a whole post about it. But short story is that they didn't need jäger battalions, since everyone could (at least in theory) skirmish, so in Lasalle 2 you instead have the French units given a higher skirmish value to represent the battalion level skirmish competence. But it’s not completely wrong to think of the French infantry battalion as more of a multi-tool, where other European armies were more into raising specialist battalions/regiments ti go along more basic line infantry. quote:I have some generic napoleonic questions if anyone is able to help? Technically the depth of the unit would not change. For example, the standard French deployment was three ranks no matter what when deployed in line. You'd only switch to two ranks if you had taken so many losses that you really needed to stretch your battalion to cover more frontage. But units being differently big in size was common due to losses, difficulties to recruit, etc. So if you want a visual cue you can definitely have one type of units slightly bigger, and just handwave it that your good regiments are better at recruiting, or opposite that your veterans are smaller because they've taken more losses. quote:- What the heck are the differences between "Guards and "Grenadiers"? Looking at Lasalle's army maker, the Guards are better than the Grenadiers. However, when I look up Grenadiers online I see that they are typically members of Guards regiments, the other units being Jagers/etc. I just don't understand! I don't think I'm going to be in a position where I'm fielding both at the same time in a game so identification between them is moot - but my gut feeling is to highlight their seniority with black hats. (ps. my ex- British Army wife got very upset when I asked 'why are the Guards better than other regiments?' Typically most armies would have grenadiers, that were formed by the tallest/fittest recruits and/or from veterans from the line units. Some armies, like the French, had grenadiers form veteran companies that are a part of the unit. Most other armies, like the Austrians, Spanish, Russians etc, either pooled grenadiers from several regiments or directly formed grenadier regiments that were supposed to be an elite unit (France did this too 1805-09 in Oudinot’s grenadier division but that’s another story). Think of them as guards, quality wise, but not necessarily with as much experience and a very different battlefield role. Guards were generally kept as a last resort, a reserve for the reserve, used very sparingly. Grenadier regiments, meanwhile, were battering rams that were expected to sweep aside regular enemy units facing them and breaking holes in the enemy line. So grenadier regiments typically saw much more combat. With the Grenadier title being connected to elite status, Guards might be named "grenadiers". And they would often be recruited from grenadier regiments. So the french old guard infantry was called "régiment de grenadiers-à-pied de la Garde impériale" and the heaviest of the guard cavalry was called "régiment de grenadiers à cheval de la Garde impériale", even though there was definitely not a single grenade involved anywhere. They did wear the grenadier bearskin hats though. But the gist of it is that by 1800, the term ”grenadier” is mostly just equivalent to ”cool buff dude” and has no relation to the original meaning of the term, and different armies had their take on them, just as ”guards” was different in Brittain and France (and absent in some armies completely). quote:
Army assets can either be added to a brigade, and receive orders together with it, or form additional brigades. From the Army List: "Army Assets Each major power has a list of army assets. You may purchase any/all of the units, sapeurs and other things like ADCs on the list, within certain limitations: • Army asset units and sapeurs may be attached to your brigades. For example, you might buy a unit of reserve artillery from your army assets and attach it to an infantry brigade. The number in the brown bar is the maximum number of army assets you may attach to any one brigade. For example, if the number reads “1” it means: you may attach a maximum of one army asset to each of your brigades. • Instead of attaching them to other brigades, army asset units may be combined to create any number of new brigades, as long as each brigade thus created has at least two units. You may do this even if also attaching other army assets to other brigades. For example, you might buy three artillery units from your army assets and combine them into an all-artillery brigade of their own, or you might combine two of them as a brigade, while attaching the third to an infantry brigade, and so on." quote:- Is it possible to give a 'move' force order to a brigade and move half of it, then later in the turn give another 'move' order to the same brigade and move the other half? Same question for 'global' orders which only some units partake in? (I assume yes) Yes. This has been covered on the facebook group, and goes for other orders as well. If you have the momentum for it, you can wait and just fire/rally/move part of your army/brigade, and give the same order later again. You just can't shoot/move etc twice with the same unit. This is sometimes useful for universal orders. quote:- If an artillery firing lane bumps into terrain, but that terrain does not obscure the target in any way, does that target still count as in cover/have the bombard/bounce affected? (I assume no) I need to check my rulebook for these, be back later. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Mar 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 19:57
|
|
|
Wow, liljonas - thank you. The integrated nature of skirmishing into the French ligne/legere makes more sense now. Your distinction of Grenadiers vs Guards makes alot more sense, thank you for that too. I guess I shouldn't get hung up on the Army Maker rules for army creation, when I could in theory just be looking up a historical OOB too. I figure for a strategic campaign I should be looking at brigades as the smallest unit on a map, unless I'm really zooming in. I have ordered Tony Bath's "Setting up a Wargames Campaign" and Donald Featherstone's "Wargame Campaigns" (and his Solo-Wargaming book too for good measure) - hopefully that should give me enough context - but as always, I would really appreciate any tips on running a Napoleonic-era hexmap-based campaign from a wargaming perspective! Before getting started on that I am going to play a One Hour Wargames scenario and see if that works. I get the feeling that some games work well with unique scenarios and others are going to get bogged down. For example, a breakthrough using OHW is pretty doable since there's no Zone of Control/Reduced Movement - but would be pretty challenging in DBN. I really appreciate the clarification of army asset usage and orders, that too makes sense. I think I'm at a point now where I can include some of the advanced rules - particularly the interventions. I do wish there was a more elegant way of handling temporary/permanent disruption than a roster, honestly. I had thought about using 10mm dice, but needing a pair (yellow/red) for each unit plus a marker to show shaken feels like I'm adding even more admin ontop of a game which already has a fair amount of cognitive load. Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Mar 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2023 10:52
|
|
|
I played my first game of Field of Glory Napoleonic 3rd (February draft) battle. I predictably lost again, but I did win one wing of the battle before the battle fell apart. My Anglo-Portuguese 1811 (with lots of Rifle skirmishers) vs his Russian Infantry Corps 1812 (with max 10(!!) artillery). He made some mistakes (which lengthened the battle and DID allow me to destroy one of his divisions, so it was not a complete disaster) and my rolling was very bad right when I needed it (8 shots at an infantry square at 5+ to hit...which all missed) but my mistakes were worse and my reserves ran out before his did (otherwise known as the classic way to lose a Napoleonic battle). I did learn to appreciate how good skirmishes are now, but I don't think there was much I could do once I placed my light division on the flank and then had my reserve division slog through a marsh towards a enemy heavy artillery line - re-fighting the Battle of New Orleans was a stupid idea, and I failed for the same reason- my left wing flanking attack across the stream came too late for my main attack to get close enough to the enemy gun line, and my right wing could not hold them off for long enough. Also, my last reserve unit should have forced march (Force March is a new option to do a 3rd or more moves) to be in a position to be rear support for my right flank, instead of trying to get past it to hold fill the gap in my far right flank. My men of the match are the Spanish Guerrillas, who held off 3 brigades (by holding the southern end of the swap) until the right wing collapsed. I do miss being able to use an extended line of infantry to withstand an enemy artillery gun line (as if there is no handy hill to hide behind, there does not seem to be anything you can do about it), but I should have put my light infantry into the difficult swamp terrain and my reserve division on the right wing to hold the town and LOC. I need to remember- when on the defence, get a 2nd road to use as my LOC behind my main body. Don't put my infantry to be flanked by heavy artillery, put my light troops into the hard to move through terrain and the large line infantry unit into the town next time. I very much like the new bombard and skirmish phases. I really need to finish painting the army, and paint the rear of the units to match which division they are in, or something...but considering I'm always tinkering my army list, that would mean having to repaint the back of the base every battle!). I should do a proper battle report later as my mistakes were many and far reaching, and the rules changes of 3rd edition FOGN are very large and impactful. Pictures without comments can be found on my blog. Comstar fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Mar 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2023 14:19
|
|
|
Comstar posted:I played my first game of Field of Glory Napoleonic 3rd (February draft) battle. I predictably lost again, but I did win one wing of the battle before the battle fell apart. As an aside, are those Scenics.co.uk hills and rough ground? Have you found a way to stop bases sliding off the hills? It sounds like a fun battle - do you have any comment on the mechanics of FOG:N? It's not a ruleset I've come across before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 08:12
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:As an aside, are those Scenics.co.uk hills and rough ground? Have you found a way to stop bases sliding off the hills? It sounds like a fun battle - do you have any comment on the mechanics of FOG:N? It's not a ruleset I've come across before. I think so, I didn't provide them. The hills didn't cause a problem, but the only troops on them didn't move either, we're only using 15mm. This was played with the 3rd edition draft rules - I expect the rules will be out later this year. The 1st edition was based I believe on the FOG: Ancient rules. The 2nd ed was converted by a few lawyers so it was very precise but had some flaws - skirmishers weren't their own thing which has now been fixed, so combat now goes much more smoothly but also more Napoleonic, and a lot of the edge case rules have been removed as have a lot of the "dodgying out of arc of fire" that makes sense at the company or battalion level but are stupid at the brigade level. I've been told the 3rd ed will get an index that the 2nd ed really needed and did not have. The 3rd ed is much improved over the (current) 2nd ed. The game is written for club and tournament play so games typically only got for 2-3 hours (this game took about 3.5, and it was my first one). The army lists are flavorful and cover everyone from the French Royalist rebel's in the Verdee to the War of 1812. You have 2-6 divisions of a corps, each div and corps commander based on their skill has ADC's you can use for complex movement (like double move, form square when charged, or limber up artillery) and units are based on weapon and size/ability/elan/training/guard at the brigade scale (so one unit is 4-6 battalions moved as a brigade- each stand represents a battalion). Some armies can attach brilliant battalion commanders (Sharpe for example), artillery batteries, extra skirmisher companies or a cavalry squadron. 2-4 people can play a historical battle (we did 3 a side for Taravala), each with 1-4 divisions under their control. It's designed for a 6x4 foot table and 15mm armies, but you could play with bigger or smaller. Both players get to choose some terrain but the dice roll (and if your army won the dice roll for what part of the world you're fighting in) works out where on the table it is, with some placement based on the mission each player chooses. There's 6 missions: Positional defence/Mobile defence/Probe/Flank attack/Deliberate attack/Frontal attack and if you're got a good corps commander you can prevent your opponent taking some of them. Once you choose it dictates who deploys what where and you You Go-I Go movement but both sides shoot each turn, but the active player gets to go first and assault too. Each turn the active player allocates ADC command points, and you'll want to save some for counter chargers and if you need to form square unexpectedly. Then both players fire their artillery (corps level artillery brigades have to limber/unlimber but brigade attached guns don't) and try and degrade the enemy (or force them to flee if you can do enough hits to a wavering unit). Then both sides do a skirmish phase and try to win the skirmish battle -if you do you get a point of skirmishes on the enemy that also degrades their firing and end of turn morale. Finally if you're at close range you do a round of volley fire and try and break the enemy. You then go to the assault/movement phase, declare and move into charges and move your units. If you're outside skirmish range you can do double moves or even a 3rd or 4th forced march, but if you fail a command test the unit gets disrupted. This makes the early maneuvers relativity fast before the battle slows down to gunfire range which is good. The non-active player can make counter chargers and form square if they pass a command test. Then the non-active player gets some defensive fire first (I hope you degraded them first with bombards or skirmishers first!) and then both sides fight at the same time. The attacker might bounce, fall back, keep fighting or break and purse the enemy. Assaulting an enemy line that has not been disrupted by bombarding it, or winning the skirmish battle or hitting already degraded units will mean you probably won't be able to charge home, but high elan/large units/Guards have a better chance. Heavy cav will win vs lighter cav, but the light cav will probably have better flank and rear support. Finally you move commanders, take a morale test if you're still under skirmish fire and use your corps and division commander to rally a single unit from their division (corps do one in the army). Units go from Fine->Disrupted->Wavering and then break, with drops in combat ability at each level. Once a unit breaks it will make other friendly units make a test which of course can cause a cascade route of an army. Army's can break at 50% or less if they haven't done a comparable amount of damage to the enemy. So the battle starts with both commanders trying to pick the terrain they prefer to fight on but not being able to ensure it's going to work. Then you choose a mission based on the terrain and you're army (which you've chosen via point buy in an excel spreadsheet) and go each turn, moving brigades and divisions into position. if you can get the better position or ground you then maneuver in closer to first bombard the enemy and/or try and win the skirmish fight and then go in close for a volley and if needed then charge in. Weaken the enemy first and if done across a front you can cause a chain route of weary troops, but a better general will have reserves to throw in at the right time and place. If you can break the enemies Line of Control you still have to cause damage but it becomes much harder for them to rally. I have the rules for Grande Army/Grande Brigade/Black Powder that I have yet to play, and I'm now much more familiar with FOG:N after a dozen games or so, but reading the rules now it's much clearer than the other books. It IS more complicated than the old rules I have from the '70's that removed figures but I think the rules have much improved in both a readability and Napoleonic feel compared to the 2nd edition too. The game will need some YouTube video's later I think to better explain some of the rules (like 2nd ed has), but the firing and combat is easier to work through now, and I still have trouble working out where to put my ADC"s - much like a real battle, a good general will be 1-3 moves ahead. Pursuit after combat still uses a flow chart to work out though. The amount of things you can do that count as a "complex move" that needs a ADC command point is also...a lot. Not many per phase, but the table takes up an entire page of things you can do you might need a command point for. Also, it's the most popular game in the gaming clubs in AUS and NZ (where the authors live)...and getting a chance to play against lots of different players and armies is the key thing. The disadvantage of that is that a lot of the guys have years of experience and can pull you into a trap that Napoleon would approve of. I should make an Austrian army for the the full Napoleonic experience of that.... Comstar fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Mar 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 10:26
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Typically most armies would have grenadiers, that were formed by the tallest/fittest recruits and/or from veterans from the line units. Some armies, like the French, had grenadiers form veteran companies that are a part of the unit. Most other armies, like the Austrians, Spanish, Russians etc, either pooled grenadiers from several regiments or directly formed grenadier regiments that were supposed to be an elite unit (France did this too 1805-09 in Oudinot’s grenadier division but that’s another story). Think of them as guards, quality wise, but not necessarily with as much experience and a very different battlefield role. Guards were generally kept as a last resort, a reserve for the reserve, used very sparingly. Grenadier regiments, meanwhile, were battering rams that were expected to sweep aside regular enemy units facing them and breaking holes in the enemy line. So grenadier regiments typically saw much more combat. To add to your points, the genesis of grenadiers as assault troops, in the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic periods and onward being companies or whole regiments of picked men, was that from I think around the late 17th/early 18th century, they actually were routinely equipped with hand grenades. Spherical hollow iron balls filled with gunpowder, and a fuse to light by hand before chucking at the enemy. Clearly, very useful in assaulting fortifications etc, but also bloody dangerous to use. By the period we're talking about these had fallen out of fashion, I suppose they might still be issued to any troops (sappers, grenadiers, regular infantry, whoever) detailed to assault fixed positions, but the military science of the time held massed musketry and the largely psychological impact of formed bayonet charges to be more effective, so faffing about with grenades was right out. Guards literally referred to regiments (or more rarely companies) raised to serve as household troops to the monarch. So yes, a certain amount of prestige was involved, and there was often a height requirement, as used to be the case in the British Army 's regiments of Guards even in this generation. The latter was more a case of looking impressive on parade than recruiting shock troops, but it can't have hurt, and realistically there may have been a stronger sense of elan or esprit de corps in many units designated as Guards. Different countries formed their Guards from different sources and in different ways. In Britain in the Napoleonic period, while their discipline and commitment were at least as good as the line regiments', they didn't actually tend to have any combat experience, because a lot of their battalions were just on ceremonial duties in England rather than on campaign for much of the wars. Whereas Napoleon's Guards were selected from veteran units. The Guards tradition persevered in an interesting way in Red Army in the 20th century, formations were designated 'Guards' as a whole after doing well in some battle or campaign. So you could have an 8th Guards Tank Brigade or a Guards Army! All this covers a basic truth that armies, then as now, used the recruits they could find and the officers inflicted on them by their social hierarchy. While Britain might have preferred big, well turned out men for the Foot Guards, they would take the (taller) normal jail sweepings if they had to. You could definitely see units across all armies designated Guards that might be inexperienced, poorly officered and/or in a state of ill-discipline. The Napoleonic guard was probably very consistently professional, but that doesn't mean they invariably won against other troops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 22:06
|
|
|
Yes one thing that survived long past the actual grenade-chucking was the headdresses. As you can imagine, doing an overhand toss with a very heavy object is mighty difficult if you’re wearing a tricorn or a bicorn. You’d send your hat flying. So grenadiers were typically given mitres or bearskin hats, which both further added height and made them look even scarier, but didn’t fall off when throwing stuff. So there was a further connection there with grenadiers = tall buff dudes = tall hats, which survived into modern day parade uniforms in many countries. As for the napoleonic wars, grenades were still a thing in sieges, especially for defenders, but not field battles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 23:46
|
|
|
Thank you all for the advice, much appreciated. I am now getting the pen and paper out and starting my next campaign, and in true Tony Bath fashion this is a bit of speculative historical fiction, rather than a purely historical simulation - Towns, Cities, Generals and Regiments that have hitherto had no time in the limelight of History will stride forth onto the stage and take their place among the greats. Ostania Campaign - The Winter of 1806/7- Prelude Napoleon has ordered his troops to Winter quarters in December 1806 after a successful months campaigning. The decisive conflicts in the War of the Fourth Coalition will ultimately occur at Eyland late February and Friedlau in June, but numerous smaller actions were undertaken in East Ostania between both armies in the intervening months. It is to these little-regarded actions that we will now turn, and chart the successes and failures of the Russian and French forces as they fight their way around the old dukedom. Initially, the French seek to punch through the Russians and put them to flight, securing supply lines for the forthcoming culmination at Eyland - The Russians aim to stand strong, and maybe even go onto the offensive and upset the plans of that man. Were you to look at an old map of the area times less troubled, it might look something like this:  East Ostania circa 1790 quote:Bad König and Wiesen are the two principal cities of the west, Vrees slightly smaller, and various towns and hamlets scattered on that side of the mountain ranges: Jülich, Jever, Iselburg and Zemitz. Astride the country is Hetzer, the capital in the North, and the hamlets of Iven and Züsch in the south. Further east towards the Russian border are the eastern fortress towns of Aurich and Amberg, and the villages of Zeiskam, Zinnowitz, Inzig, Vohrenbach and Varel. The Baltic coast intrudes into the map on the north and the two principal rivers: Wölfin in the west, and Bärin in the east. If you're interested in playing along with me, I would like someone to distribute the French forces west of Hetzer and excluding Bad König, and someone else the Russian forces east of Hetzer. Cities may garrison two Infantry brigades each, other towns one, and each garrisoned infantry brigade can bring along a cavalry brigades for free. Any brigades not on the table must be placed in reserve and will arrive on a randomly defined entry point 2D6 days after commencement of hostilities. Please don't bunch everything up as I don't have enough miniatures to field everything simultaneously  Armies at the start of the conflict are as follows - more reinforcements may arrive in due course.French: - 6 veteran ligne infantry brigades - 3 Old Guard Infantry brigade - 4 light cavalry regiments - 3 heavy cavalry regiments Russian: - 10 infantry brigades (choose between: conscript, jäger and musketeer) - 2 imperial guard brigades - 2 imperial guard cavalry brigades - 3 light cavalry brigades After deployment, we will need three strategic proposals for French attack and Russian defence (remembering that we will need to mobilise and concentrate troops first), and then we'll get started on January 8th, 1807. ps. if you have thoughts or ideas on how to improve, balance or streamline please do let me know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
I think you could use some interwar tanks for flavour.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 00:41
|
|
