Board Sections??

[Blathergut]

Now that things are (hopefully) picking up on here, could the board maybe be set up something like the other tabletop boards with separate sections for rules, modelling, etc.??? It might make it easier to keep things sorted.

[Astronomican]

I agree - separate sections would be great.


Jimi

[KendallB]

Was thinking the very thought last night!

[nosher]

Fourthed!

[IainMcNeil]

Do we just want to copy the other FoG forums or are there any specific requests on how you'd like it structured?

[thefrenchjester]

Hi Iain,

it's up to you, it seems to be good if it will structured as the others, easiest way to find things in all periods I think;

Best regards

thefrenchjester " user but not builder, unable to do it "

[Blathergut]

Do we just want to copy the other FoG forums or are there any specific requests on how you'd like it structured?

I'm new to Napoleonics, so others (maybe authors?) might have better ideas, but some should probably include:

-rules questions
-historical OOBs (and maps maybe?)
-modelling
-army design??
-tournaments etc.
-AARs
-


Other ideas/suggestions from the Nappy souls out there??

The Army List generator should be stickied to the top.

[SirGarnet]

Do we just want to copy the other FoG forums or are there any specific requests on how you'd like it structured?

Well, since you are kind enough to ask, I beg consideration of my list of forum structure requests and their wherefores:

General Discussion

FOGN After Action Reports (AARs) ---------- [I think AARs give a feel for the game and are a good place to nudge new people first. Especially if there is a video playthrough sticky there.

Historical Scenarios, Maps and Orders of Battle (OOBs) -------- [A full scenario wil combine all of these, so I think they can go in one forum, although the wealth of detailed information for this period could support multiple forums.

Rules Questions

Army Design -------- [based on the published lists.]

Player Designed Lists and Adaptations -------- [With the wealth of material and the easy player extension to later and earlier decades and areas outside Europe, this deserves its own subforum and will keep the non-canon stuff clear of the Army Design section]

Strategy and Tactics -------- [I've suggested such a forum before, but admittedly the wide variety of troop types in FOGAM and FOGR meant a lot of tactical considerations were tied uip with specific army designs. In the Napoleonic era, however, a lot more is common and a froum is desirable for such discussions as well as training and tutorial and relevant tactical/mechanical FAQs.]

Tournaments {and Demos?}

Opponent Finder/Club FOGN Info --------

{Player} Campaigns

Modelling

FOGN Suggestions for the Future -------- [A home for the complaints, comments, and constructive suggestions that this period will spawn with a density greater than any other - you know how fractious and picky the Napoleonics purists can be]

French Speaking Forum etc.

Private forums listed last

The Napoleonic era does raise the question of whether there should be forums dedicated to discussion of at least the major powers and their armies, history, etc., but I think topics can handle that naturally except maybe a breakdown of OOB information by country in the OOB forum above.

[ColinB1957]

Hi All,
Yes just copy the FOG am forum set up please

[Blathergut]

Maybe authors have suggestions?

[SirGarnet]

Another cut at things instead of just topical forums: given that there is that wealth of data in existence and only 7 major powers, have country subforums like "All Things Austria" to include all country-specific oobs, historical research posts, army design and doctrine, modelling, tactics etc. Portugal could be grouped with Spain, Northern European Minors could be grouped together (i.e., German states but Netherlands and Scandinavia as well) or break out the Confederation separately, Southern European Minors could be grouped together, and the rest of the world could be tossed into a final basket.

However I still think a general strategy/tactics forum and a general scenarios w/oobs forum are desirable.

[pptheos]

The Napoleonic period has the most beautifull uniforms and colorful armies.
I would like to see a sub forum named for example "Gallery" where people can show their paint jobs.

[Astronomican]

Another cut at things instead of just topical forums: given that there is that wealth of data in existence and only 7 major powers, have country subforums like "All Things Austria" to include all country-specific oobs, historical research posts, army design and doctrine, modelling, tactics etc. Portugal could be grouped with Spain, Northern European Minors could be grouped together (i.e., German states but Netherlands and Scandinavia as well) or break out the Confederation separately, Southern European Minors could be grouped together, and the rest of the world could be tossed into a final basket.

Would it not be better to group things by period rather than by country/countries? If I wanted to know about French 1809 info, would it be better to find such things in the "1809" sub-forum rather than the generic "French" sub-forum?


Jimi

[SirGarnet]

Would it not be better to group things by period rather than by country or countries? If I wanted to know about French 1809 info, would it be better to find such things in the "1809" sub-forum rather than the generic "French" sub-forum? Jimi

I think not. Even in an ideal world, a post covering 1808-9 would break the system. In reality, it is more manageable to ask people to associate it with a country or with a subject area forum such as putting multi-country posts in OOB or Strategy. As a last resort, General Discussion is the catch-all for miscellany.

[MikeHorah]

Maybe authors have suggestions?

1. Re lists I can see the value in sections about particular list groups eg 1792-1803 which is comparatively new territory for most Napoleonic sets. I would paticularly value people's thoughts on that and how the lists for that period work with the ruleset when they come out. It was for me one of the attractions and challenges of ths project and to test the hypothesis that a set designed for the main era could also work equally well for the earlier part.

Also whether we have viewed that era right particularly before 1798 . It is very much our view.

2. Then there's I call the "out of Western europe" lists like the Balkans and Scandinavia. Does the Corps based model really work?

3. Asymmetrical games.

The other question for me is whether within an era where the basic troop types are pretty much the same how vaild or valuable is an equal points system? I can see in earlier much broader eras where there is much greater variety , the "scissors - paper-stone" element and the huge variations in army shape that equal points is rather less of an issue.

But it can produce stalemate or very defensive games in more uniform periods (no-one dares to attack as it always fails). The extra units for the player with the initative in FOG(N) goes some way to offset that of course. Does that work? Does it go far enough or too far?

One could ( and Terry and I have for ACW many years past ) devised scenario cards which assign generalised objectives (valid for a range of terrains )with one side in an offensive mode operationally and the other defensive with (say) three randomly selected force levels for each randomly selected card . Force levels can be points based with a different casualty limit ( read attrition or victory points)for each level which if breached means that player has lost regardless of their objective . It becomes possible for both to win or both to lose of course. You can also have situations where the defensive player has a superior force to the attacker(even if they don't know it)

This worked very well for Corps and below level ACW games as the shape of the Union and Condederate forces were broadly similar. Designing and trialling such standardised scenario cards as an alternative to equal points games might be something to have a go at. Anyone up for that?

[SirGarnet]

Perhaps a special French Revolutionary Wars subforum open to early period affairs including all armies then break down by country/region (with France as French Empire) from the the Consulate onward, but don't exclude early period posts in applicable country forum?

Small wars: For small forces I was pondering allowing Army Commander (who might really be at more of a divisional level) to control Brigadiers rather than through a DC (as well as allowing DCs for greater efficiency) , while possibly also allowing Brigadiers to use Brigade formation to use their CP (and assigned CPs) for either or both units of their brigade (if 2 units).
This would I think have to be priced differently from simple Officer Attachments. There is also the question whether the Army Commander, if he has not DCs, should be able to move like a DC. Just speculation at this point, of course.



Asymmetrical Games: The extra unit mechanism is a nice touch.

Your suggestion reminds me of Grant's and others books on solo and programmed games. One thought that adds some fog of war is to vary the points based on the side's (secret? semi-secret?) mission details (whether chosen or assigned), meaning that even counting what is visible on the table won't provide a complete picture of the enemy forces. E.g., I might know that you have an offensive mission, but not whether it is probe, flank, hasty attack, etc. I might have an offensive mission as well - but both sides with defensive missions would be dull, unless there was a battle of wits around one side converting that to an opportunity such as surprise assault.

A sub-game of this kind could be fun, or it could be terrible.

[Blathergut]

Keeping this together with the Sub-forums one to keep ideas together.

[MikeHorah]

Perhaps a special French Revolutionary Wars subforum open to early period affairs including all armies then break down by country/region (with France as French Empire) from the the Consulate onward, but don't exclude early period posts in applicable country forum?



Asymmetrical Games: The extra unit mechanism is a nice touch.

Your suggestion reminds me of Grant's and others books on solo and programmed games. One thought that adds some fog of war is to vary the points based on the side's (secret? semi-secret?) mission details (whether chosen or assigned), meaning that even counting what is visible on the table won't provide a complete picture of the enemy forces. E.g., I might know that you have an offensive mission, but not whether it is probe, flank, hasty attack, etc. I might have an offensive mission as well - but both sides with defensive missions would be dull, unless there was a battle of wits around one side converting that to an opportunity such as surprise assault.

A sub-game of this kind could be fun, or it could be terrible.

Indeed the "old masters" like dear old Charles Grant snr were influential on us. They had/have passion imagination and humanity.

Dual defensive missions can work eg if one is a mobile defense like a recce in strength or "hold with an LOC for a given period of time" and the attrition/casualty limit option enables the defender to attack to trigger that in his opponent. It was much influenced by the evolution of the strategic offence/ tactical defence mode of operations that emerged in the the middle of ACW driven by the dominance and lethality of the rifle musket and minie ball.

For Napoleonic there are situations too eg Auerstadt and Asspern Esseling ( and indeed Austerlitz) which you can only model by some kind of hidden approach even maybe using "hidden scenarios" which are an engagement from one era fought in another without the players knowing. Do they make the same mistakes when confronted by a similar situation ? I have done Mars Le Tour ( FP war 1870-71) in an ACW setting. And there was game by Jim Wallman modelling Force Z ( Prince of Wales and Repulse 1941 )but with Italian ships off East Africa in the 1930's. Key is players not knowing its a hidden scenario!

But wargamers are more naturally agressive than real generals and tend to assume they are there to fight so are seldom cautious or hesitant!

[IainMcNeil]

Hi guys

when you have agreed what you want can Mike/Terry send a mail listing how you want the forums broken down and we'll get it set up. I don't visit the forum that often so will miss out if you reply here.

Thanks!

[terrys]

OK - Will do