Slitherine

Maybe this is the correct time to get in a plea on base sizes. Some of us based up armies for Horse Foot and Guns the Phil Barker experiment that never came to publication. I believe there are several players out there using the test sets though.

I worote some rules for this period a while ago. A fifty yards to the inch scale worked. A couple of stands on 40x20 mm bases gives a battalion for most armies and three of these together become a brigade which would fit a battle group type playing set up in the FoG style. This would allow the painting enthusiasts to represent regimental historical units and play with game units of a practical size.

The Napoleonic problem has always been how to deal with artillery. It has to be significant but not totally dominating. The FoG attrition system may just be the answer to this. In ancients FoG shooting can be a back and forth disrupt, bolster, disrupt, bolster. With Napoleonic artillery this might just be a parallel. Lots of action, but only rarely totally devastating.

A look a the numbers in some battles shows an amount of artillery more common that some wargamers use as well.

fwiw; I've always liked the idea that Napoleonics can be played with an economy of figures so that it 'feels big' without necessarily 'being big'.

nikgaukroger wrote:BTW I'd also throw out the idea that if there were such a thing as a FoG branded set of Nappy rules there is no reason why the mechanisms would have to be similar to those of the ancients set.

Agreed, although a Napoleonic game with a literal FoG brand may be confused as "oh, it's just the same rules with Napoleonic stuff tacked on". I propose the clever path is to retain the Osprey branding but develop your Napoleonic game as somewhat distinct from it's FoG parentage (close enough to draw on the quality but distant enough to appear fresh).

It's true that one main rules-set is needed for the Napoleonics scene. Genreal de Brigade and Grand Armee seem to be the current favourites, but I'm sure you could sweep into the arena!

MikeK wrote:Making WW1 popular and interesting, though - now there's a reasonable challenge.

Each side waits in their trench until one player gets bored, tries to advance and is destroyed by machineguns. No thanks.

It seems to me that there are almost as many different sets of Napoleonic rules as there are clubs. As a result the once thriving Napoleonic tournament wargaming scene is no more

Of course the question is do you really want everyone playing the same Napoleonic rules? There are definite advantages to a degree of rules standardisation and the domination of Ancients for years by DBM meant I could travel all over the world and play the same game with different scenery and beer On the other hand I am sure that a lot of groups swear by their pet set of rules and to make things more complex there is little if anything in the way of standardised basing in Napoleonics as far as I can tell.

Producing a Napoleonic set to complement FoG could be a challenge.

hammy wrote:Of course the question is do you really want everyone playing the same Napoleonic rules? There are definite advantages to a degree of rules standardisation and the domination of Ancients for years by DBM meant I could travel all over the world and play the same game with different scenery and beer On the other hand I am sure that a lot of groups swear by their pet set of rules and to make things more complex there is little if anything in the way of standardised basing in Napoleonics as far as I can tell.

I'm keen to see one set of rules push forward and get a major market share. I really liked how Flames of War became this 'big thing' for WW2 gaming where there were lots of players in town and all the shops had a range of figures on the shelf that kept turning over ~ but the other titles were still there in the background for the grognards who rejected desktop publishing and blister packs. Projecting that experience onto Napoleonics I'm keen to see the same level of presentation and coordination with a safety net of older titles to catch those that reject popularity

Having an endorsed and mutually branded figure-range (re FoW/Battlefront) helps build things up for those who are a bit confused by the hobby. Wargames Factory looked promising for FoG but they seem to have become distracted by other projects (Zulu). Sadly I didn't by a plastic injector when my currency peaked a few months ago!

Malidor wrote: Having an endorsed and mutually branded figure-range (re FoW/Battlefront) helps build things up for those who are a bit confused by the hobby. Wargames Factory looked promising for FoG but they seem to have become distracted by other projects (Zulu). Sadly I didn't by a plastic injector when my currency peaked a few months ago!

I agree, but there is still time for Wargames Factory to get themselves back on track.

I have to admit I was looking at doing something along the lines of cheap boxed plastic starter armies for FoG but was trumped by WF. Hopefully it will be worth it.

carlos wrote:Let's have a Renaissance version of FoG first. Much more similar to FoG as it is right now and some of the troop types we already have like bow/sword heavy cavalry, knights and pikemen.

I second that request.

mellis1644 wrote:

carlos wrote:Let's have a Renaissance version of FoG first. Much more similar to FoG as it is right now and some of the troop types we already have like bow/sword heavy cavalry, knights and pikemen.

I second that request.

I third it, once all the FoG army list books are out

Cheers,

Dale

this is great news! does it have to be just napoleonics though? why not a big overarching set of rules with books for period adaptations similar to the FOG army books.

Napoleonics book, AWI book, ACW book, i would love something decent for the Mexican-American War, SYW book, etc