Will there be a Swedish list?

[thecrazyswede]

G'day!
I am not sure if there will be a minor countries list but I would very much like to be able to field a Swedish force using FOG:N rules, not just as allies but as an actual independent list.

[ravenflight]

You may end up with something like the 'ally only' options in the current rules.

For example: the Mountain Indian Allies in "Immortal Fire". There isn't a Mountain Indian army list... just allies for some other lists. So, the Swedes may be allies for other nations.

Hopefully not though - they did do SOME stuff independently didn't they?

[vsolfronk]

A Swedish list would be neat to have for fictional Swedes vs Russian battles. Russian vs Swedes seems to happen a lot in my Empire and Arms games!

[shadowdragon]

A Swedish list would be neat to have for fictional Swedes vs Russian battles. Russian vs Swedes seems to happen a lot in my Empire and Arms games!

There was no fiction to a Russian-Swedish war at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_War

As a result of the war Russia took Finland from Sweden.

[shadowdragon]

G'day!
I am not sure if there will be a minor countries list but I would very much like to be able to field a Swedish force using FOG:N rules, not just as allies but as an actual independent list.

Since the scale of FoGN is supposed to be about 1 BG = 1 regiment, with 10-15 BG per side that probably means a FoG army would be a Corps. That means there were enough Swedish troops to justify a separate list if the the war between Russia and Sweden over Finland isn't enough. But, we will see what we get.

[ravenflight]

G'day!
I am not sure if there will be a minor countries list but I would very much like to be able to field a Swedish force using FOG:N rules, not just as allies but as an actual independent list.

Since the scale of FoGN is supposed to be about 1 BG = 1 regiment, with 10-15 BG per side that probably means a FoG army would be a Corps. That means there were enough Swedish troops to justify a separate list if the the war between Russia and Sweden over Finland isn't enough. But, we will see what we get.

Meh,
I didn't realise that the scale was so poor. I probably wont play the rules then. I see it as pretty pointless to write a set of rules where the major historical battles are impracticle to play out. At least with Napoleon's Battles you could even play Leipzig - I admit with a great deal of effort.

It sounds like it will go back to the WRG rules which means you get stupid army lists where you get French Old Guard in with Line Fusiliers in with Grenadiers a Cheval in with Allied Polish lancers in with Bavarians... It's just plain silly to write a set of riles here you're going to field only a corps.

I hope you're wrong

[marty]

you're a hard man to please.

I played WRG napoleonics for years and that was only a division.

A corps seems like kind of a lot.

Martin

[ravenflight]

you're a hard man to please.

I played WRG napoleonics for years and that was only a division.

A corps seems like kind of a lot.

Martin

No, not a hard man to please, just realistically a corps a side is the absolute smallest of Napoleonic battles. Consider my favourite battle - Auerstadt... which was a pretty small battle when it comes to Napoleonic battles... and it seems like you'd really be stretching the maximum of the playable FoG:N rules.

1 corps of french vs 1 - 2 Corps of Prussians!!!

Talavera, 2 corps vs 2 corps... Only playable with two armies a side.

Borodino - Sacre Bleu...
10 Corps vs 8 Corps.

All of these battles I played in Napoleon's Battles without a problem.

[marty]

you could always see it as playing part of a larger action?

Battles in ww2 were even larger but people still like playing FOW at company level.

Martin

[ravenflight]

you could always see it as playing part of a larger action?

Battles in ww2 were even larger but people still like playing FOW at company level.

Martin

Yes, and my massive FoW army is testament to my feelings of that.

I'm not being elitist - if people want to play that stuff fine, but it strikes me as fantasy. People play fantasy and that's great, but if I want to play fantasy then I'll do that.

This isn't QUITE as much fantasy, but on board artillery, and Old Guard Grenadiers in the same formation as Bavarian allies is pretty close.

I mean, if you're only fielding a corps you should basically have no choice in list and definitely no allies.

[vsolfronk]

Raven- seems like you are judging this game quite a bit and the rules/army lists aren't even out!

Yopu might not realize this, but FoG caters to a mainly "fantasy" match ups- Romans vs. kniggets...you get the point.

If you are expecting a rules set to refight Leipzig cleanly, or only historical match-ups, this rules set might not be for you. Of course you could probably still do it, just have to have multi players bringing multi Corps and play on multi tables. But to expect a tournament style set of rules to refight history is not what these rules are all about.

Hopefully not every French FoGN army will bring the Old Guard- if they do hopefully the rest of the army is conscript!

I would think that a Corps level army per player would be what you want.

Of course...you can't please everyone! Where are my Americans??!!

[ravenflight]

Raven- seems like you are judging this game quite a bit and the rules/army lists aren't even out!

I'm not judging anything. I seem to recall I said "probably wont play the rules then".

Hang on - let me check:

I probably wont play the rules then.

Yup, that's what I said.

If the rules are 'a corps a side' I probably wont play them. If that's 'judging them' well, I guess I'm as guilty as 'judging them' as I am about 'judging' naval rules, or vietnam rules, or sci-fi rules, or... the list goes on.

Playing Napoleonics at the regimental level doesn't attract me at all. To my way of thinking you might as well play it at the skirmish level. The commander that I want to play is Napoleon or Kutuzov, or Davout... not Gudin or Raevski. I'm sorry if that somehow makes me seem judgemental.

Yopu might not realize this, but FoG caters to a mainly "fantasy" match ups- Romans vs. kniggets...you get the point.

Yes, but I don't think you get my point. My point is that in the Ancient rules you can play a historical game fairly easily, if you choose to. I can ring up my mates and say "you've got Romans, I've got Carthaginians let's re-fight Cannae", and you could probably work out the forces with an 800 point army. The BG size isn't fixed, so you can play around with it.

IF you're limited to regimental level BG's in FoG:N (and I've only got one person's view on this) then you would be unlikely to have a buddy you could call up and say "I've got French, you've got Russians, lets re-fight Eylau".

If you are expecting a rules set to refight Leipzig cleanly, or only historical match-ups, this rules set might not be for you. Of course you could probably still do it, just have to have multi players bringing multi Corps and play on multi tables. But to expect a tournament style set of rules to refight history is not what these rules are all about.

I wasn't aware that FoG was intended as a 'tournament style set of rules'. Doesn't RBS consistently say that the rules are best used on historical match-ups? If the rules are being written with 'tournament' in mind, then I'll definitely not be playing them. If, however, a set of rules with an expectation of historical outcomes in mind - and they happen to be useful as a tournament set of rules... well, that's totally different.

Hopefully not every French FoGN army will bring the Old Guard- if they do hopefully the rest of the army is conscript!

Oh brother - this is exactly what I don't want to happen. A corps with a Regiment of Old Guard with the rest of the corps made up of conscripts. Bloody hell, I'd might as well bring in the hippogriffs.

I would think that a Corps level army per player would be what you want.

I want to be able to manage (within competition if the rules allow it) an army the size that actually engaged in history (around 3-5 corps would be good - with the capacity to drop to 1 corps or elevate to 12 or more without the rules falling over) and I want a set of rules that allow that to happen.

Of course...you can't please everyone! Where are my Americans??!!

Who's to say you wont see Americans?

[vsolfronk]

Raven- I am not trying to pick a fight with you, I just cant see FoGN as a rules set where the player can command the Grande Armee.

NOTE- I have no clue how the authors, playtesters, etc... intentions are for FoGN, or the scale. I just have sort of stumbled into this group after FoGR.

I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around a single player commanding a multi-corp Napoleonic army, unless you reduce the troops and miniatures to small meaningless levels. From playing Napoleonics (using Empire), most players like playing on a corps level. The scale of the armies is just so large compared to earlier campaigns.

I hate to break it to you, but the FoG rules are for tournament play. The match ups work well with historical era enemies, but not strictly only historical enemies, and reflect the problems of unhistorical match-ups. Since the period of FoGN is even more tightly focused than the others, this wouldn't be a problem, but I would not be suprised when a player with an 1812 British army in Spain fights 1806 Prussians. Heck that even happened when we played Empire with Ottoman Turks vs. 1813 Prussians!

Again, I understand what you are looking for, and your disappointment. Hopefully something will be out there for you.

[ravenflight]

Raven- I am not trying to pick a fight with you, I just cant see FoGN as a rules set where the player can command the Grande Armee.

Fair enough, and I hope my tone didn't make you think I was 'fighting' - more just putting a viewpoint forward. It's probable that you're right about FoG:N not being used for commanding the Grande Armee, but other rules have managed it.

I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around a single player commanding a multi-corp Napoleonic army, unless you reduce the troops and miniatures to small meaningless levels. From playing Napoleonics (using Empire), most players like playing on a corps level. The scale of the armies is just so large compared to earlier campaigns.

Napoleon's Battles managed it. There were faults, but it was a good set of rules for handling multi-corps without much difficulty... just an increase in time. I quite like the times (goes back a while) when I could organise a game for a whole Saturday once every few months where we played a historical battle. My favourite was Borodino.

[Philip]

Some of us in the playtesting group used to play Napoleon's Battles, so it was easy for us to make the transition to FOG-N which has a similar concept of a unit representing several battalions. That may be a regiment, or brigade, or similar sized formation.

A small battle involving a corps can be easily played in 3 hours or so, but you can also play much larger games. It just needs more time and more figures!

Our club has done two refights of Waterloo using FOG-N, and Austerlitz will be our next large game.

http://nswc.org.nz/napoleonic.html

Philip

[ravenflight]

Some of us in the playtesting group used to play Napoleon's Battles, so it was easy for us to make the transition to FOG-N which has a similar concept of a unit representing several battalions. That may be a regiment, or brigade, or similar sized formation.

A small battle involving a corps can be easily played in 3 hours or so, but you can also play much larger games. It just needs more time and more figures!

Our club has done two refights of Waterloo using FOG-N, and Austerlitz will be our next large game.

http://members.multimania.co.uk/nswcnz/napoleonic.html

Philip

Hi Philip,

That's good to hear. I still think that a BG representing a Regiment is 'too small'. Napoleonic commanders used the Regiment as an organisational unit... that's about it.

From page 9 of the FoG book:

Subordinate to these was another layer of commanders who controlled the various tactical formations which generally consisted of a number of units grouped together. In Field of Glory we call these formations battle groups

The reason I quote this is because the design philosophy of FoG Ancients seems to be to give the overall commander the command and control of the bits he could command and control and expect the 'subordinate commanders' who are in charge of the 'units grouped together' to handle the other stuff that is below their need to concentrate on.

The C-in-C of an army is just that... below that is the sub-generals (in Napoleonic terms = Corps commanders). So really, the battle group should almost be a corps, but if you're going to want to go a level below that (and I can understand why - you've got corps cavalry and corps artillery etc - so you want to be able to write rules for that) you have to go to the Division. If you go beyond Brigade then you're micro-managing things that a Corps commander wouldn't be bothered with (except maybe Davout) but definitely beyond what an Army commander would be bothered with.

I'll reserve my judgement but I just don't like the idea of pushing around battalions, and Regiments are only slightly bigger!

[shadowdragon]

Napoleonic commanders used the Regiment as an organisational unit... that's about it.

That's a bit of a blanket statement since a "regiment" could mean purely administrative organisation (British army) or a contrary to your statement a field/operational organisation (Prussian post Jena / Auerstadt) army.

My original statement was specifically in the context of addressing the question of ,"why not a Swedish list?' Whether we get a Swedish list or not is up to the authors.

I did ask about troop scales in this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=24739

Since 1 infantry base in Napoleon's battles = 480 troops, that's in the same ball park as FoGN. However, I don't believe the FoG philosophy is to be able to be flexible in representation of scale. In any even, whether one uses FoGN or Napoleon's battles, due to the wide ranging troop strengths and even varying national organizations, one BG will end up representing a range of organisations.

Sorry to have caused too much anxiety over a simple statement meant to answer a completely different question.

[marshalney2000]

Let's face it one persons favourite Napoleonic rules are hated by another. I generally dislike rules where a unit represents a brigade e.g. fire and Fury because if you want to represent units such as highlanders then you either have an artificial highland brigade or have part of the unit with highland figures and part without. Having said this if I want to fight Waterloo then I need to have a high men to figure ratio and am willing to compromise.
I am warming to FOGN but still find the scale a strange one particularly when representing attached artillery for example I cannot get the Brunswickers at Waterloo to fit my ideas.
In essence not everyone is going to jump to FOGN as some will go one way with Napoleons Battles while others prefer the scale of General De Brigade.
If I want to do War of 1812 then it looks more General De Brigade.
John

[terrys]

A Swedish list would be neat to have for fictional Swedes vs Russian battles. Russian vs Swedes seems to happen a lot in my Empire and Arms games!

There will be a seperate Swedish list in FOGN. We are representing all countries that have the capability of fielding a corps size army. With an overall strength of over 30,000 in 1808 the Swedes definitely qualify.
We have some odd armies represented as well. For example:
The British landing at Walcheren in 1809
The Tyrolean insurgency in 1809
The armies that Austria and Russia mobilised in 1815. i.e. We allow for the possibility that Napoleon had won at Waterloo.

[thecrazyswede]

A Swedish list would be neat to have for fictional Swedes vs Russian battles. Russian vs Swedes seems to happen a lot in my Empire and Arms games!

There will be a seperate Swedish list in FOGN. We are representing all countries that have the capability of fielding a corps size army. With an overall strength of over 30,000 in 1808 the Swedes definitely qualify.
We have some odd armies represented as well. For example:
The British landing at Walcheren in 1809
The Tyrolean insurgency in 1809
The armies that Austria and Russia mobilised in 1815. i.e. We allow for the possibility that Napoleon had won at Waterloo.

Thanks for the reply Terry! Now to start dusting off my Swedish army for the Russian - Swedish war