800 or 1000

[edb1815]

One additional point for tournaments would be the time factor. FOG-AM or FOG-R 800 pt games are allocated 3 to 3 1/2 hours for each round. What would be a realistic time frame for a 1000pt FOG-N game?

I think this is very evolutionary. Right now a lot of people are learning mechanisms.

Good point. I will prepare a number of lists for games at Fall-In!

[CutEmUp]

One additional point for tournaments would be the time factor. FOG-AM or FOG-R 800 pt games are allocated 3 to 3 1/2 hours for each round. What would be a realistic time frame for a 1000pt FOG-N game?

Agreed........3 hours a game for a tournament is even too much. Especially if you have a lot of people. 2 hours is better and and hour to an hour and a half is optimum. My flames of war games last 30-45 minutes, granted I go pedal to the metal with a tank company, but I find if I have a plan of attack and execute it, games go quickly.

That's why I'm looking forward to those Early lists, especially Italy. I'm hoping there's some hard charging relentless infantry in there I can just attack like crazy with and either succeed or fail rapidly. Not much for slogging matches

[AndyClaxton]

My personal opinion, having played in competitions for 25 years is that 3-3.5 hours is the right amount of time to get a result in a competition game, and I'm a reasonably quick and agressive player. I don't want lots of draws when people play slowly, as they sometimes do, I want to get results which just won't happen in a shorter game.

My personal preference in terms of points would be 1,000, the more troops the merrier, but I need more practice with these rules before deciding whether you can get sufficient results at 1,000 points after 3-3.5 hours.

Andy

[dvorkin]

I join 100% Andy's opinion.
I'm a player of FOG AM and also customed to tournament and it's the right time to obtain clear results and avoid to be frustrated.

Concerning point 1000pts allow you to get reasonable troops and not to be again frustated because with 800 pts your can't have real difference between two corps of infantry of the same army for instance.

[CutEmUp]

What makes it fun and challenging is you have to make sacrifices. At 1000 points, you just get whatever you want

[dvorkin]

not really but at least you can use different unit not only as gadjet but for a combo
And beleave with 1000 pts with a French Infantry corps you don't do miracle and I don't speak about Guard

[deadtorius]

not really sure but isn't 600 points almost the cost of an army lists minimums? Not much choice if you can only ever build the minimum army for every tournament, then every army comes in looking very much the same.
We have been doing 1000 pt games ourselves and enjoying it a lot so far. Started around 800 then 900 now at 1000.

[CutEmUp]

@ deadtorious, quite the opposite. Barely having anything left after the minima ensures armies will look different. Otherwise everybody would gravitate to the same basic army composition (the cheesiest) no matter what nation.
It also serves to create more variety at tournaments because if you were thinking French and the French don't have IT, then maybe Bavarians or Westphalians do.

@dvornik, that's my point, you gotta either do without that combo or pick a nation that does. Otherwise every tourney is going to have 10 games of Blue on Blue Imperial Guard and it will fizzle out. At a 1000 pts, a not very good general could plop Napoleon down in front of the old guard, supported by heavy guns and steamroll most anything.

[CutEmUp]

650 is optimal to grow the hobby, maybe 1000 pt doubles is ok

[CutEmUp]

I want to stay away from Napoleon Total War syndrome

[dvorkin]

@dvornik, that's my point, you gotta either do without that combo or pick a nation that does. Otherwise every tourney is going to have 10 games of Blue on Blue Imperial Guard and it will fizzle out. At a 1000 pts, a not very good general could plop Napoleon down in front of the old guard, supported by heavy guns and steamroll most anything.

Not really because even with 1000 pts you will ot have a very competitive Blue imperial guard army in front of 1000pts of russian or Prussian and I don't talk about austrian.
But as you I wouldn't see on tournament with blue on blue imperial but in my first approach it seems that the cost of units and the army list balance very well this risk.
Try to build a imperial guard corp in 800 pts and tell me if it is so impressive or may be I'm wrong in my building .

[CutEmUp]

Yes really, and see my other points.....1000 points gives too much room for cheese

[CutEmUp]

Yes really, and see my other points.....1000 points gives too much room for cheese

An imperial guard at 800 is impressive against other 800 point armies, it might be a little thin, but that's my point

[hazelbark]

I think once you learn how to throw out napoleonic terrain and not FOG ancient terrain, then 1000 points on a 4x6 table may be a bit of density.

I am looking forward to larger scale game but you need to bust out of 4x6 at some point.

I don't find 850 a problem in FOG N in either density nor still making hard choices. When our players master the game then we will test 900.

We are talking Napoloenics here right?

[CutEmUp]

Now we are talking, but 650 is still better. I want to see people make do with what is handed to them.....how many corps commanders get to hand pick what they throw in the field?

[quackstheking]

I'm with CutEmUp here. The game is about choices, Command and manoeuvre.

At 800pts you have some really tough choices. What troops do you go for and what level of commanders do you deploy. If I hear I'm facing 3 or 4 Competant commanders I know I'm halfway to winning! This tells me they'll have really strong troops with no aggressive leadership and unless I'm a dodo, they'll never get into contact or within 2" and therefore rout me.

The best thing is manoeuvre. At 800pts you can't cover the whole frontage and therefore there is a premium on manoeuvre. At 1000pts on a 6x4 (in 15mm), you can go wall to wall troops and replicate Waterloo's frontal assaults and prove that Napoleon was nothing more than "a mere pounder"!

In summary (cos I've waffled) My preference is for 800pts on a 6x4 because it gives me some difficult troop choices (I can't take loads of superior vets and wall to wall the table), some difficult leadership choices (yes we would all love 5 Skilled leader to make sure we can always do what we want) and I need to have a plan (which may even involve a flank march, how do I defend or how and where do I attack). I love the manoeuvre/leadership dynamic.

There - my longest post ever and a passioned plea for moderation in all things!

Don

[CutEmUp]

Yay for you, but 650 makes it even better!

[deadtorius]

Perhaps just for the fun of it I will try my hand at 650 Austrian points, see if Monsieur blathergut would be willing to try a downsize game and see how it works out for us. Even in FOGR we tended to go for 900 to 1000 points, we both found those really fun games.

[Blathergut]

The 1809 minimums bring me in at:

Corps + 2 Div Commanders (all competent) = 90

-4 vet. line = 52
-4 ave line = 40
-6 ave line = 60
-4 cons line = 28
-6 cons line = 42
-4 ave light inf = 48
-3 ave arty = 60
-4 ave vet hussars = 40
-4 ave vet hussars = 40

Total: 500 points. With the extra 100 I'll barely manage two divisions. This isn't worth putting on a table like this. I suppose it partly depends on the type of game you like to play. If you want to manooever around and play positioning, then fine. I'd much prefer some depth to the line (at least in places) and no wild dancing around for positioning of individual units. This is, after all, Napoleonic corps actions, not individual divisions fighting. But each to their own, really. That's just my preference. (Has scarred memories of digital FoG games where the entire battlefield rotated 360 degrees during the battles. Aiiieeee!! )

[CutEmUp]

The 1809 minimums bring me in at:

Corps + 2 Div Commanders (all competent) = 90

-4 vet. line = 52
-4 ave line = 40
-6 ave line = 60
-4 cons line = 28
-6 cons line = 42
-4 ave light inf = 48
-3 ave arty = 60
-4 ave vet hussars = 40
-4 ave vet hussars = 40

Total: 500 points. With the extra 100 I'll barely manage two divisions. This isn't worth putting on a table like this. I suppose it partly depends on the type of game you like to play. If you want to manooever around and play positioning, then fine. I'd much prefer some depth to the line (at least in places) and no wild dancing around for positioning of individual units. This is, after all, Napoleonic corps actions, not individual divisions fighting. But each to their own, really. That's just my preference. (Has scarred memories of digital FoG games where the entire battlefield rotated 360 degrees during the battles. Aiiieeee!! )

With the extra 150 points you'll just have to make some hard choices, do you take a whole mess of conscript infantry or grab a brigade of cuirassiers? And if you prefer depth then take a shit load of poor troops and do it that way. Sounds to me like you're just scared to be a general unless you get everything you want and it is rare in history that anybody ever had this. More points is for non aggressive people and favors sitting back and waiting for artillery to do the job. Even with 1000 points you'd be a fool to go charging in against 1000 points of anything head on.

Have you not ever read Lidell Hart or Sun Tzu????

Besides, if you want massive amounts of horribly painted or unpainted troops on the
Table, then why even have this hobby, just play it on the computer.

Just because you aren't aggressive and don't understand active defense and maneuver, don't ruin the game for newcomers whom you are asking to buy masses of figures, just so they can sit there and have a two hour artillery duel, before anything happens. 1000 points = a bunch of old fat guys sitting around a table full of poorly painted miniatures with zero energy. I see this at every convention I go to, which is why napoleonics has always failed to get off the ground. Flames of War and ancients gaming is just the opposite