Basing?

[chubooga]

4 infantry to a base, 2 figures by 2 figures........ Nap battles style, this still allows GdeB to be played.........
2 cavalry to a base
1 gun to a base

looks nice on the table too!

jon

[madcam2us]

hehe.. I havn't played Naps in 20 years.. But we played with Guard du Corps and Empire II.. Those where fun.. We would have 2-4 corps a side at battlion lvl. I have been wanting to get back into this period or 7 years war.. I am looking forward to this! Once i get my 25mm Later Republican Romans and my 15mm Gauls done.. I'm gonna start on Naps.. I'm leaning towards Russians, but i can do Brits also. I can't see this with 9-15 BGS per side.. This is a total different kettle of fish, IMO. Nor can i see how you would do a tourney style game for this... But i maybe pleasantly surprised however. I'll wait and see what delvelops.. Hopefully my friends signup for Beta.. They have troops.. I don't!

don't worry Andy, if need be you can always bring Jeff and the boys down to Cincy for games...

Madcam

[Ninthplain]

Hello there,

Andy, I signed up for the beta also - so we shall see. If you would like to get in a game we have ALOT of figs based for a few rulesets. French, Austrian, Russian, British, Prussian

Let me know on the C.O.W.S. what your availability is. I am always looking for more things to write about in The Herald.

Ninthplain
(Brian S Woolard - Neighborhood Wars)

[Andy1972]

Look at the C.O.W.S board.. We have been discussing this.. as well as Madcam.

[terrys]

There's an lot of speculation about these new rules - and not without reason.

There are 2 main questions that need to be answered up front:

1) Scale of game.
We had many a discussion (read argument) about this at an early stage - since the decision was critical to the design.
I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to say prior to Beta but I can say that the smallest 'unit' on the table will be of regiment or demi-brigade 'size'. I used the term 'size' because there are many instances when a brigade either had only a single regiment, or was so understrength as to be no more than regimental size - so in many cases a 'unit' may also be a brigade. Larger formations will be the Division and the Corps.

2) Basing.
Many people want to know - Will I be able to use my existing figures without rebasing?
One of our important criteria was to allow players to try the rules using their existing figures without the need to rebase.
What we've tried to do is to allow players to use any basing scheme they wish, within the confines of the unit 'shape'
We don't use 'bases' to calculate firing or combat - so the number of bases used to represent a unit is irrelevent.
I have to say, it would have been much easier to design the rules to use a single basing system, but I think the end result is a pretty good compromise. I myself have armies with infantry 6 to a base (3x2) and 8 to a base (4x2). I also have cavalry 2, 3 & 4 to a base. Each of these armies can be used on the same table in the same battle because individual bases are not important.

[marshalney2000]

Thanks for that update Terry which was very useful. I think the flexibility on basing will help adoption significantly. On eof the main bonuses of FOG Ancients was that the basing was almost identical to anothe rwidely accepted set.
John

[BrettPT]

Glad to hear basing will be flexable. Napoleonics in NZ is splintered (like everywhere it seems). Our club spent years playing Napoleon's Battles and then Principals of War, then Naps faded. I see that a Napoleon's Battles III has been released which has raised some nostalgic interest, but i think that there is definately a vacuum here waiting to be filled.

Have registered as a playtester, I'm keen to give constructive feedback and there is a highly erudite chap at the club who I'm sure will help me put the rules through their paces. If the rules are any good, I think we can push them as a standard in NZ.

Cheers

Brett

[Ranimiro]

So fire and combat would be calculated by individual? Interesting, maybe there would be more "work" to do than in FoG but i guess is the best way to manage the combat of brigades composed of different quality batallions.

I wonder if the shoot range would be extended from 6" to 12"

[spike]

There's an lot of speculation about these new rules - and not without reason.

There are 2 main questions that need to be answered up front:

1) Scale of game.
We had many a discussion (read argument) about this at an early stage - since the decision was critical to the design.
I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to say prior to Beta but I can say that the smallest 'unit' on the table will be of regiment or demi-brigade 'size'. I used the term 'size' because there are many instances when a brigade either had only a single regiment, or was so understrength as to be no more than regimental size - so in many cases a 'unit' may also be a brigade. Larger formations will be the Division and the Corps.
.

Thanks Terry, that has answered my question, and I be happy to join the beta test again, and have registered my interest.

2) Basing.
Many people want to know - Will I be able to use my existing figures without rebasing?
One of our important criteria was to allow players to try the rules using their existing figures without the need to rebase.
What we've tried to do is to allow players to use any basing scheme they wish, within the confines of the unit 'shape'
We don't use 'bases' to calculate firing or combat - so the number of bases used to represent a unit is irrelevent.
I have to say, it would have been much easier to design the rules to use a single basing system, but I think the end result is a pretty good compromise. I myself have armies with infantry 6 to a base (3x2) and 8 to a base (4x2). I also have cavalry 2, 3 & 4 to a base. Each of these armies can be used on the same table in the same battle because individual bases are not important.

So almost the same practical solution as with FoG ancients then.

[terrys]

So fire and combat would be calculated by individual?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, or what you read into my previous comments.
Individual what?

Firing will be by unit against unit, rather than base against base, so should be easier than FOG. There may be cases where a single unit has to split it's fire, but you don't have dice-per-base.

[Ranimiro]

I meant individual figure... I understood that from your pprevious post as you say that there would be no bases, but it was the other way around, fire by entire units. So much easier to handle.

[Rudy_Nelson]

Thanks Andy1972 for mentioning my rules. I enjoyed designing the gold edition of 'Guard du Corp' in 1979-81. Unfortunately the publisher butchered the red box tournament edition. His edits and misprints made it almost impossible to follow.

I will follow this Beta design phase with interest and contribute when possible and asked to do so. Being a little late to the show, I am trying to get my feet under me. So a battle group will be a battalion or regiment with six or eight bases (companies) per BG? Sounds reasonable. Easy to relate to both FoG ancients and current Napoleonic.

Seems to me that may be about a 1:20 or 1:35 troop scale?

Do not worry about current basing being used by other rules. it is easier for players to expand their units into proper battalions with a little painting than it is to try to conform your rules to an already existing rules system. The FoG-Ancients did not face that problem as armies were stand oriented rather than multiple stand unit oriented. Current rules are multi-base unit oriented so there is the problem trying to conform to that basing system.

[dfmbrown]

HI there,

Terry said,


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><snip>
1) Scale of game.
We had many a discussion (read argument) about this at an early stage - since the decision was critical to the design.
I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to say prior to Beta but I can say that the smallest 'unit' on the table will be of regiment or demi-brigade 'size'. <snip>


2) Basing.
One of our important criteria was to allow players to try the rules using their existing figures without the need to rebase.
What we've tried to do is to allow players to use any basing scheme they wish, within the confines of the unit 'shape'
We don't use 'bases' to calculate firing or combat - so the number of bases used to represent a unit is irrelevent. <snip>


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is all good news.

Choosing the scale quoted (and the glimpse at a conflict mechanism) is an excellent call, it should give a game with the feel of higher level command, which for me is a key to the period. That and nice uniforms.

Well I should say it sets up the possibility of such things, we'll wait to see the actual command and control rules.

Terry's use of 'unit shape' is interesting. Without knowing what's intended here, I'd run with units having a standard 'shape', that may actually be a cardboard cut out, upon which stands, however based, sit.

I'm guessing that you need some common area for units, or have the table somehow divided, to regulate play. Either is a neat way to allow play by armies based for the diversity of existing rules. You just have to ensure the area is not smaller than the largest base prescribed by any major existing rules.

Enthusiatic and interested regards

David B

[sergiomonteleone]

2) Basing.
One of our important criteria was to allow players to try the rules using their existing figures without the need to rebase.
What we've tried to do is to allow players to use any basing scheme they wish, within the confines of the unit 'shape'
We don't use 'bases' to calculate firing or combat - so the number of bases used to represent a unit is irrelevent. <snip>


I completely agree.
Considering Ancient and Medieval FoG, most of the players come from DBM so they are used to the same basing.
Unfortunately all the kinds of rules (for example Shako, POW, Grande Armee, Empire) have different basing.
I guess that all the players, if possible, don't like to rebase all the figure.

Sergio

[Chasseur]

Hi,
One of the great difficulties of Napoleonic wargames is the question of representing formations on the tabletop. The main unit of maneouvre was the battalion (for infantry) and squadron (for cavalry).
Representing the formations at this level is easy as you can set the bases up for line, attack column, square or march column very easily. The formation can easily be seen by the players. The space taken up on the table by the bases are a reasonable representation of ground occupied.
There is always a distortion of frontage versus base depth due to the actual size of the figures, but this cannot be avoided. Part of it can be rationalised as some of the area taken up by skirmishers in front of infantry formations or room for caissons at the rear of artillery formations, etc. In most games this does not have a great impact and is an acceptable compromise.
But not everyone wants to play a battalion level game. I like to command the whole army, so that I can have reserves, flank marches, militia, line troops, guard and the great variety of uniforms (A good excuse to collect more figures).
The difficulty for rules comes when trying to represent regiments or brigades. Many rule sets, such as Napoleon's Battles, Age of Eagles, etc. are really battalion level games pretending to be brigade level games. The battalions in a brigade would often be set in depth, not side-by-side, even if each battalion within the brigade was in line. So just placing the bases side-by-side in a single rank means that the frontage occupied by the figures is 2, 3 or 4 times greater than it should be.
In most instances a brigade wuld occupy a similar area, whether the individual units were in line, column or some combination. So that could be represented by the same block of figures. But how would you tell the formations apart? And many players like the look if their figures are clearly in line, column or square formation. An interesting dilemma.
In the end, there must be playable compromise that also looks good. After all, tabletop wargaming is very much about the look, particularly in a period with colourful uniforms like Napoleonic.
I would be interested in other views,
Cheers,
John Shaw
www.nwa.org.au

[DaiSho]

Well, I'm definitely interested in this one; but there is no chance of rebasing all the troops. So that will be make or break for me.


All mine are based for Age of Eagles.

John

I wouldn't say that it would be a 'make or break' for me, but I do tend to agree with you. I'm based for Napoleon's Battles, which is fine because Age of Eagles is the same (I think - naps bats Brits are 1"x1").

I do hope they keep to that size bases...

Ian

[SirGarnet]

I am rather hoping the scale would not be lower than a base approximating a battalion, battery or double squadron so the actual independent maneuver element would be somewhere around demi-brigade/brigade/division in order to allow a large battle feel. There are lots of low level sets and the lower you go, the more vicious the arguments and the more tragic the attempts to overload them by scaling them up to a big battle.

The main question I am eager to have answered is not base size (mine are same as FOG) but span of control in the design philosophy. In FOG it's about 10-20 independent maneuver elements which are brigaded ad hoc in battle lines and groups working in concert. For a Napoleonic army with 3 Corps on the field plus army assets is it going to mean a dozen or so division/cav brigades as maneuver elements which involve some configuration of sub-divisional sub-units, or 30 or more sub-divisional maneuver elements, each of which would have some number of bases to represent the area covered or perhaps strength?

In any event, I'm interested to see how it goes since I loved Napoleonics but not the rules factions, so moved on to ancients & pike and shot.

Mike

[recharge]

Well, I'm definitely interested in this one; but there is no chance of rebasing all the troops. So that will be make or break for me.


All mine are based for Age of Eagles.

John

I wouldn't say that it would be a 'make or break' for me, but I do tend to agree with you. I'm based for Napoleon's Battles, which is fine because Age of Eagles is the same (I think - naps bats Brits are 1"x1").

I do hope they keep to that size bases...

Ian

Well, you are not aware of the quantity involved

Besides, I like Age of Eagles and will not give that up even when FOG/N becomes available.

John

[MadJoeB]

Hi I've recently been testing club set o rules. Decided to go with the 40mm frontages for bases using the DBx 40 30 Cav and 40 15 for infantry. 3 for Cav and 4 for Infantry. This was for 15mm. Reason being it looked right on the table. In terms of how many bases each nationality had to each of it's units is still being debated. Still this is academic at the moment, though I do think the 'look' is important otherwise use coloured blocks!!
Just a thought
Joe

[KaBar]

I'm not surprised that the basing/re-basing issue is such a hot button.

The Napoleonic era is probably the most fragmented one out there, and basing plays a large role in that. Leaving the matter of preferred figure scale aside, there are a variety of man:figure ratios available in the different commercial sets out there, and that can pay a large role in how your figures are based. Going to an element basing scheme will probably annoy or turn off many Napoleonic aficianados, but it's a smart play for a new rules set that will have to build up market share from the ground up.

If I read Terry's note right, each 'unit' will be somewhere between a regiment and a brigade. I am taking that to mean each base will be somewhere between 1/2 and a whole battalion...

I for one will be interested in any set of Napoleonics rules that will at least partially unite Napoleonic gamers. I'll even build a new army or two for it assuming the army sizes (in terms of number of figures required) will be in the same general ballpark as the ancients armies.