Slitherine

DaveHollins wrote:I was interested to see Bob Coggins'post on TMP - he was the designer of Napoleon's Battles and it seems there may be some copyright violations involved here, which is in itself potentially not great. Likewise, he notes that NB was the only system using unit ratings - now also adopted by FoG. While there is no copyright in an idea, one can only wonder how accurate theor unit ratings are going to be, if they cannot get basic uniform details right from theor own output?

As I said, if you do not attempt to get reasonably close to historical accuracy, you might as well play fantasy wargames.

More clap trap. Among which to imply copyright issues without seeing anything demonstrates idiocy. And the basis of his statement would be teh same as saying NB violated Empire copyright. It didn't.

It is really pathetic that people seem determined to try to shrink the hobby rather than grow it. Hopefully the rules will be a sucess. I have yet to see them and will with hold judgement until then.

But keep stoking fires of insanity.

Have you misaid your medication?

I cannot imagine that the hobby is enhanced in any way by abusive language, stupid accusations and an apparent indifference to a reasonable historical accuracy.

You might be better off playing Fantaasy games.

Likewise, he notes that NB was the only system using unit ratings - now also adopted by FoG.

Having been both a long time fan of NB and a play tester of FoGN, I can confidently say that the 'unit ratings' of the two systems (and most other aspects of the games) are completely different - no need for Bob to worry on this account.

Cheers
Brett

DaveHollins wrote:I cannot imagine that the hobby is enhanced in any way by ... stupid accusations ..."

You mean stupid accusations like: the cuffs on some cover art are the wrong shape, therefore the army lists are flawed,
or perhaps you were referring to stupid accusations like an insinuation that copyright has been breached without having read the material in question?



Cheers
Brett

Gentlemen, please. Let's keep the forum civil.

Whatever the value of the TMP, I much prefer the friendliness of the Slitherine forum and would like it remain that way.

We all have our own preferences. Choice in gaming is definitely not one of right versus wrong but merely of preference. For me, war gaming is about having fun with strategy games with some historical flavour. That can fit chess or the ponderous and meticulous "simulation" depending on one's own philosophy and how you balance these. For some chess has that balance and for others the more detail the better, but it's about personal preference and not about right and wrong.

It would make only a couple of other points:

1) If you try FoG:Napoleonic and don't like it, move on to what you do like. It is uncharitable and perhaps even rude to stick around and bully others who might like it. Although, it's a bit premature since the book has not yet been published.

2) Don't we have a saying.....don't judge a book by its cover?

DaveHollins wrote:I was interested to see Bob Coggins'post on TMP - he was the designer of Napoleon's Battles and it seems there may be some copyright violations involved here, which is in itself potentially not great. Likewise, he notes that NB was the only system using unit ratings - now also adopted by FoG. While there is no copyright in an idea....

A peculiar statement since the "rating" of units has been around since the beginning of war gaming, which, of course, only makes sense since real armies "rated" their troops as guards, conscripts, etc.

Bob's comment was actually, "Up till now NBs was and is the only set that rates over 300 units from 1792 – 1815, so it will be interesting to see what units are rated and in what categories."

So what is the unique idea here?

Rating units? No. I have rules / army lists much older than NB that rate units.

Is that NB rates over 300 units? I do have before me a book published in 1986 (NB was published in 1989), "Napoleonic Army Lists" by R.M. Evans, that provides a comprehensive rating of units for the WRG rules for the period 1805-1815. At only 299 units rates, it misses the magic number of "over 300" unless I miscounted. I leave it to the reader to decide of one can copyright rating "over 300 units". Perhaps Evans should have copyrights the idea of rating "over 298 units".

Is it the dates 1792-1815? Hmm...Empire has a comprehensive rating of units from 1791-1815, perhaps they should have copyrighted "17910-1815 and all other years in between". Is choosing the date "1792" something that can be copyrighted? How about the day and month? "Your honour, the plaintiff's ratings are from 3 July, 1792 but the defendant's are 30 June, 1792. I move the case dismissed?"

Would it be the actual ratings? Having both NB and Field of Glory (Ancients and Renaissance) rules, I cannot possibly see how NB ratings would be of any value for FoG: Napoleonic since it will based on the same core mechanism used by the previous FoG rules. FoG rates according to troop type, weapon capability class and quality. NB rates according to a set of combat modifiers (specific pluses and minuses that are used by the NB combat system), these would be useless for FoG. So, yes, using the actual ratings, applicable only to the NB core combat mechanism, would be copyright infringement since they'd have to replicate the NB rules as well, but then it would be NB and not FoG which uses a different core mechanism.

By all means use innuendo to imply impropriety. Why wait for actual evidence since that evidence might not support one's prejudicial conclusions?

DaveHollins wrote: I didn't actually look too closely - the cuffs are wrong too. If you are not bothered about being reasonably accurate, you might as well play fantasy games.

I understand that there will be four separate books covering Flintloque and Slaughterloo Armies.

DaveHollins wrote:Have you misaid your medication?

I cannot imagine that the hobby is enhanced in any way by abusive language, stupid accusations and an apparent indifference to a reasonable historical accuracy.

You might be better off playing Fantaasy games.

Dave, you have to realize you are coming across as a real douchebag here. So what is your agenda? Copyright violations? Really?