Slitherine

I read the following statement in Wargames, Soldiers & Strategy 57:
"The concept behind FoG Napoleon is an interesting one - instead of having a main rulebook and several supplements, everything that is required for the Napoleonic period will be housed in three simple books. The stunning cover artwork for the three books has been done by Peter Dennis. The first features infantry. The second and third (logically) will feature cavalry and artillery. "

Does it really means that I have to collect the rule books for one year before I can have the first game?

Not at all , the rules are published as in the other FOG rulesetS, all in one book, including a number of army lists,the other two companions referred to are devoted to a host of other army list covering armies and nations of the Napoleonic wars


Regards
JDM

This will give some peace for my soul.

Yep you guessed it...

so any update on when will it be released?

We have scheduled March 2012

Regards
JDM

Not at all , the rules are published as in the other FOG rulesetS, all in one book, including a number of army lists,the other two companions referred to are devoted to a host of other army list covering armies and nations of the Napoleonic wars

The army lists provided in the rulebook and 'generic' lists covering 1812-183 for the major 7 nations. (which includes Spain and turkey). They've been provided in the rulebook so that players can get straight into playing (once they've read the rules). The lists in the 2 later books are much more detailed and will supersede the ones in the rulebook.
The 2 list books are:
1809-1815 (excluding the Peninsular)
1792-1808 (including the Peninsular)

I guess you did it the wrong way around..

1792 - 1808 excl. peninsular
1809 - 1815 incl. peninsular

Peninsular campaigns startet 1807... as anyone here knows , so...

I guess you did it the wrong way around..

1792 - 1808 excl. peninsular
1809 - 1815 incl. peninsular

We deliberately chose to release the later period lists first - because they are the most popular.
The decision to include the Peninsular was for 3 reasons:
> It started during the period of the eearlier book and we wanted all lists of the same campaign to be in the same book.
> There are less lists in the early period, so it made sense to move that campaign to the earlier book for balance.
> Many players do no play the early period, but do play the Peninsular. In the intersts of widening the appeal of the early period it was felt that including the whole of the Peninsular campaign in the early book would introduce more players to the revolutionary period, and raise its profile.

terrys wrote:> Many players do no play the early period,

Which is a shame really as its a great period with great battles. And while the French are on a roll the allies are dangerous.

Marengo, Austerlitz, Auerstadt and possibly Eylau are all quite interesting as the well as the campaigns they were part of.

I read this the other day, to me it inferred that the cover Artwork would feature Cavalry and then Arty not the content of the books.

hazelbark wrote:

terrys wrote:> Many players do no play the early period,

Which is a shame really as its a great period with great battles. And while the French are on a roll the allies are dangerous.

Marengo, Austerlitz, Auerstadt and possibly Eylau are all quite interesting as the well as the campaigns they were part of.

Rather more constructive than your responses on the other thread - maybe you should consider who has the work to popularise the early campaigns, while Osprey have refused to publish it, preferring books on the Irish rebbellion. Indeed, 1809 was viewed as a rollover for the french twenty years ago and it has only been work by a small group of people, which has put the campaign where it is now - rather than simply slagging them off. If you slag them off, they tend to stop doing the research, which many gamers find of some value.

The danger with this divide is that it does reinforce the "Reaction" mythology - the Allied armies were in a state of continuous change and reform from the end of the 7YW. I am getting concerned about these army lists and the mythology they might reinforce.

I didn´t mean, that the books come in the wrong order. You confounded the the years with the incl. of the peninsular.

terrys wrote: 1809-1815 (excluding the Peninsular)
1792-1808 (including the Peninsular)

@hazelbark: i definitly agree with you.

DaveHollins wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

terrys wrote:> Many players do no play the early period,

Which is a shame really as its a great period with great battles. And while the French are on a roll the allies are dangerous.

Marengo, Austerlitz, Auerstadt and possibly Eylau are all quite interesting as the well as the campaigns they were part of.

Rather more constructive than your responses on the other thread - maybe you should consider who has the work to popularise the early campaigns, while Osprey have refused to publish it, preferring books on the Irish rebbellion. Indeed, 1809 was viewed as a rollover for the french twenty years ago and it has only been work by a small group of people, which has put the campaign where it is now - rather than simply slagging them off. If you slag them off, they tend to stop doing the research, which many gamers find of some value.

The danger with this divide is that it does reinforce the "Reaction" mythology - the Allied armies were in a state of continuous change and reform from the end of the 7YW. I am getting concerned about these army lists and the mythology they might reinforce.

And Slitherine/Osprey are now going to be putting out army lists for the early period, bound in with the Peninsular War specifically to help evelop interest in it. No one is slagging off anyone - except you have gone off on one from a perfectly proper observation that the cover-art shows German grenadiers with hungarian rather than jampot cuffs, to a tirade against lists and rules not yet finished, not yet published, which, it seems seems you have neither read nor played.
It's very nice that enthusiasts advance and enhance understanding of history among wargamers but I don't think it classes as a major act of philanthropy nor do I think the style of military cuffs - though it's best to get it right - is one of those pieces of knowledge that is new.
Get a grip.

Sarmaticus wrote:Get a grip.

Hollins is incapable of getting a grip. He is a tool and troll.

DaveHollins wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

terrys wrote:> Many players do no play the early period,

Which is a shame really as its a great period with great battles. And while the French are on a roll the allies are dangerous.

Marengo, Austerlitz, Auerstadt and possibly Eylau are all quite interesting as the well as the campaigns they were part of.

Rather more constructive than your responses on the other thread - maybe you should consider who has the work to popularise the early campaigns, while Osprey have refused to publish it, preferring books on the Irish rebbellion. Indeed, 1809 was viewed as a rollover for the french twenty years ago and it has only been work by a small group of people, which has put the campaign where it is now - rather than simply slagging them off. If you slag them off, they tend to stop doing the research, which many gamers find of some value.

The danger with this divide is that it does reinforce the "Reaction" mythology - the Allied armies were in a state of continuous change and reform from the end of the 7YW. I am getting concerned about these army lists and the mythology they might reinforce.

If you had spent any amount of time on the Slitherine fora, you would realize that hazelbark has been a great contributor. On the other hand, from my perspective, your sole contribution has been to point out some errors in the cover art of the rule book, but this has been more the counter-balanced out by the negativity associated with your speculations about what might or might not be in the rule book and army lists. This is nothing more than gossip, which, as we have been warned from ancient times, poisons a community.

The slitherine fora are one of the better communities on the internet. I would like it to remain as such. Without necessarily condoning the language in hazelbark's posts I fully support his sentiment in wanting to protect the slitherine community from people who appear to be internet "trolls'; and since you are concerned with first impressions I should let you know that is indeed the impression I perceive from your posts.

I don't know if your above comment about Osprey refusing to publishing material is a factor or not, but it is entirely irrelevant to the slitherine community. The "community" belongs not to Osprey but the individuals who constitute the community. I welcome anyone who wishes to join the community but, please, refrain from repeating negative speculations. In less than three months the rules will be published than we can discuss fact.

We could refer to them as 'Campaign Lists', but I suppose thats wrong really as there more 'army lists of the campaigns'.
I Would probably refer to the 'Jena Campaign' , knowing which book it was in.

hazelbark wrote:

Sarmaticus wrote:Get a grip.

Hollins is incapable of getting a grip. He is a tool and troll.

Don't mince words Hazelbark... just come out and say how you really feel .

shadowdragon wrote:

DaveHollins wrote:
The danger with this divide is that it does reinforce the "Reaction" mythology - the Allied armies were in a state of continuous change and reform from the end of the 7YW. I am getting concerned about these army lists and the mythology they might reinforce.

If you had spent any amount of time on the Slitherine fora, you would realize that hazelbark has been a great contributor. On the other hand, from my perspective, your sole contribution has been to point out some errors in the cover art of the rule book, but this has been more the counter-balanced out by the negativity associated with your speculations about what might or might not be in the rule book and army lists. This is nothing more than gossip, which, as we have been warned from ancient times, poisons a community.

The slitherine fora are one of the better communities on the internet. I would like it to remain as such. Without necessarily condoning the language in hazelbark's posts I fully support his sentiment in wanting to protect the slitherine community from people who appear to be internet "trolls'; and since you are concerned with first impressions I should let you know that is indeed the impression I perceive from your posts.

I don't know if your above comment about Osprey refusing to publishing material is a factor or not, but it is entirely irrelevant to the slitherine community. The "community" belongs not to Osprey but the individuals who constitute the community. I welcome anyone who wishes to join the community but, please, refrain from repeating negative speculations. In less than three months the rules will be published than we can discuss fact.

Well, then I look forward to Hazelbark's extensive response to this question from one of your forum members:

viewtopic.php?f=200&t=36769&p=345706&hi ... fs#p345706

I could of course give him chapter and verse on the regs and point him to a contemporary painting to answer it, but I am obviously an ignorant troll, so I won't bother. Hazelbark and his mini-me can do it all, given their already enormous contribution to the subject. If you are also so dismissive of the massive amount of work that went into 1809 and is increasingly going into the Rev period, then maybe it will not get done. After all, the behaviour of trolls like those two already means there will be no Osprey Elite on Austrian tactics nor contribution to the Cavalry tactics books. It is perhaps doubly unfortunate as Osprey says this is a successful series and would no doubt have offset the losses they made in the last financial year.

I merely raised the point on the lists split that it could (and I emphasise "could") reinforce a piece of popular mythology - and consequently, it may have effects in your rule writing. That was all. Indeed, I saw one comment, which said the Austrians couldn't use the tactics of other nations! While all games must be playable and it would be impossible to simulate all the realities of any battlefield, it strikes that many in this hobby (esp Napoleonics) are quite happy to tolerate sloppy work and thus, you may as well make it up.

On the subject of uniforms, as your member raised the question above, the artwork on the first Nap book is not just about the pointed cuffs with gold snot. I do not blame Peter Dennis as someone appears to have told him to use a bad plate in Haythornthwaite's MAA on the infantry, but at least that author has the excuse that he was writing more than 25 years ago. In fact, the bearskins are wrong, the packs are wrong, the muskets are wrong and the cuffs are wrong. The tunic, albeit badly drawn is at least white. And you know what? It is a scene from 1809 - here we are again: you take from the work of others and then praise hazelbark and his mini-me for slagging of those, who do it.

I would be ashamed of such poor artwork, as it gives a poor impression of the book. however, if the hobby is prepared to accept it, then fine, but don't tell us that "quality" work is being produced and don't expect anyone else to produce the information, which you then take.

Since this and the other thread, I have had a few requests for information, which would have required a lot of digging around and my time, let alone writing it all up. But you know, I thought of you lot, especially Hazelbark, who tell me it doesn't matter. So, I just didn't answer - that is what your stupid comments result in.

Incidentally, there won't be an Austrian tactics book in the Osprey Elite series for the immediate future as someone else will have to do it. Also, the new heavy cavalry one might appeal to you lot as it is clearly written by someone, who has no grasp of the Austrian cavalry. Still, carry on with your gaming - it doesn't reflect the reality!

Is there any game that does reflect reality?