Only Napoleonic?

[Baltharsar]

Hi there everyone,

I just wondered, if the FOG:N starts in 1792, whats about Northern War, 7YW, Russo-Swedish War, ARW, Mysore and Maratha Wars and all the nice little conflicts in 18. century? Will this come with FOG:R or will there be room in FOG:N?

Any hints for me

greetz from germany

[wolfGuard]

the 1792-1815 could be an estimate and not an official restriction (the book list has not been released yet). But if they don't add any of the early/mid 18th century wars, Slitherine always adds the formula where you can build the army from whatever war using said points formula. It will just take time and wouldn't be tournament legal...I feel the same way.

[terrys]

As stated the period covered will be 1792-1815 Napoleonic wars in Earope (plus Egypt).
The points values and troop descriptions will give you all you need to create your own lists for other periods.
Whether or not we add other periods at a later stage is still being considered

[keltichrp]

so no awi

[terrys]

so no awi

Troops definitions and points values are included in the Napoleonic rules. They are certainly more compatible with the period than FOGR. I'd certainly consider a 7YW update to the rules. AWI may be better as an internet download though, since there's less different armies (and troops types).

[donm]

In my experience Napoleonic rules do not tend to work very well for SYW without major amendments.

SYW is more about professional armies fighting in lines, than massed conscripted troops fighting in colums.

I am sure the basic systems within FogN would form a very good starting point.

Don

[CutEmUp]

SYW is more about professional armies fighting in lines, than massed conscripted troops fighting in colums.

Like how the Brits fought or the Prussian at Jena, right?

[terrys]

SYW is more about professional armies fighting in lines, than massed conscripted troops fighting in colums.


Like how the Brits fought or the Prussian at Jena, right?

Or any of the continental armies until 1807 really.

The rules start at 1792 where most armies are still fighting in lines (apart from the French). After 1807, (certainly by 1810) most continental armies had switched to the French style. It wasn't until after the defeats of 1805 & 1807 that massed conscripts were called to arms, with the requirement to find a more suitable formation for their lack of training. You'll still be able to use your conscripts in lines, but they'll move slowly and are likely to run away as soon as the enemy approaches.

[Sarmaticus]

Or any of the continental armies until 1807 really.

Just finished re-reading Duffy's, Eagles Over the Alps, and it's noteable that Russian and Austrian infantry of all types are quite capable of fighting as skirmishers; whole musketeer regiments being deployed as such on occassion on the campaign of 1799. Suvorov had used column assaults previously but manouevred in platoon columns and then deployed into line against the French.

[ravenflight]

Hi there everyone,

I just wondered, if the FOG:N starts in 1792, whats about Northern War, 7YW, Russo-Swedish War, ARW, Mysore and Maratha Wars and all the nice little conflicts in 18. century? Will this come with FOG:R or will there be room in FOG:N?

Any hints for me

greetz from germany

One conflict that has always interested me (which I think is MOSTLY Napoleonic... but different) is the Crimean war.

[Lercio]

For a first post, I'll keep it short

Hmmm, both the French and the Brits. won.

Mike

[WarrenMcIntosh]

On the basis of my admittedly brief experience in my view the rules are very easily adapted to both 18th & 19th century non-napoleonic battles, in fact considerably more so than most other systems I am familiar with. I'm also surprised by some comments on the boards that they are not suitable for smaller scale conflicts like the war of 1812 - by simply changing the unit scale from regiment to battalion they seem to me to work very well indeed. I'll certainly be using them for my 7 years war battles.

[Lercio]

The first Peninsula battles were small. Vimeiro is my interest, havein a fairly large battlefield with a small number of troops.
As Warren says, changing scale will probably work, but as you move from Regiments (Brigades for the Brits.) to Battalions you will run into problems about Skirmisers.
At Battalion level they won't be invisible.

I,ve not seen any of the games played at Britcon, last year, so I have no Idea how the game will play. Worse still I have to wait three or four weeks to get my Rule Book.

Perhaps some of the players could comment or give oppinions and guidance.

[BrettPT]

Hi Lercio

In my opinion FoGN would work fine at a lower (battalion) level. Skirmishing is represented in the game, and if you simply called you infantry units battalions, the divisional commanders brigade commanders and your CinC a Divisional Commander, no problem.

Cheers
Brett

[WarrenMcIntosh]

Agreed. I guess cavalry attachments would be inappropriate, but skirmishers represent light companies, artillery represent battalion guns, and officers a particularly effective Battalion comander. Simples.

[MikeHorah]

Earlier 18th Century
Lists alone are not the issue for the earlier part (most) of the 18th century in my view. Including 1792-1802 in FOG(N) has been the most interesting and challenging part of this work as so few previous Napoleonic rule sets and game designs seem to have covered it - at least not successfully from my perspective. Hopefully the lists for that period in the second list book when used with the rule set will prove to be more successful.That may give us some learning for the earlier period.

But many FOG(N concepts and mechanisms will not be so applicable – if at all – eg the reformed/unreformed infantry distinction and the Corps/Division structure and the way troops were used. Then too there will be many more varieties of native troops and irregulars to model, in India and North America which will require much more nuanced approaches and potentially different rule mechanisms ( eg grenades and dismounted dragoons?). And finally can the wars of Marlborough really be subsumed within the same set? Or are they a FOG(R) stretch? All food for thought.

[shadowdragon]

Earlier 18th Century
Lists alone are not the issue for the earlier part (most) of the 18th century in my view. Including 1792-1802 in FOG(N) has been the most interesting and challenging part of this work as so few previous Napoleonic rule sets and game designs seem to have covered it - at least not successfully from my perspective. Hopefully the lists for that period in the second list book when used with the rule set will prove to be more successful.That may give us some learning for the earlier period.

But many FOG(N concepts and mechanisms will not be so applicable – if at all – eg the reformed/unreformed infantry distinction and the Corps/Division structure and the way troops were used. Then too there will be many more varieties of native troops and irregulars to model, in India and North America which will require much more nuanced approaches and potentially different rule mechanisms ( eg grenades and dismounted dragoons?). And finally can the wars of Marlborough really be subsumed within the same set? Or are they a FOG(R) stretch? All food for thought.

I don't have the FoG N book yet - next week if Amazon's prediction on my preorder is correct, but I've been playing the War of the Spanish Succession with a few minor modifications to the FoG R rules. I've been happy with the result.

[Sarmaticus]

Having received my copy yesterday, I'd say, at first glance, that the rules could be adapted fairly easily for earlier periods by restricting infantry to (extended) line, march column and square (the latter after a CMT).