Slitherine

I have seen very few photos of a corps level action, using the FoG-N ruleset. There also appear to be no photos of games in the rulebook. I decided to take the Placenoit scenario from the book and lay it out on a 8x5' terrain. I used the 28mm figure recommendation for basing and unit size and well you can see what I got.

I have had some remarks on my blog in response to my previous post on the play test that the game still looks battalion level when played and not grand tactical. I was curious what others thought. Does it look like 32,000 Prussians attacking 14,000 French?

John

http://fuentesdeonoro.blogspot.com/2012 ... es-it.html

I've always been pleasantly surprised how the table ends up looking like the maps of battles you get in reference books. The rules reward using supports which means using the multiple lines of historical deployments.

So in reply, yes I think it does look like a corps level action.

"Does it look like 32,000 Prussians attacking 14,000 French?"

That depends on your criteria for "look(s) like", but is the question relevant? More relevant to me is, "does it play like a corps level action?" I think it does. As for the "look" you have to first decide how many miniatures (and game table space) are practical. In this case, the scenario requires about 1,000 miniature figures. If that's not enough, then how many would be enough? 10,000? Perhaps 46,000 miniatures is what's really required for it to "look" like 32,000 attacking 14,000. But that hardly practical. So, if you are going with 1,000 figures, what do you do? Have a mob of 30-50 figures (aka "unit") represent multiple battalion groups as FoG does or do you represent each individual battalion with 8-12 figures (as Empire does) so that you get the look of lots of battalions but each looks like a patrol. Choices, choices, choices....or preferences, preferences, preferences.

One solution would be to use 15mm (or even 28mm) bases with 6mm figures with each base showing a "battalion" in column or line as appropriate for each nation.

But one way or another there can be no correct "look"...well, unless you go for the 46,000 figures, but that's likely more a diorama and not a game.

Looks pretty good to me!
How have you based your 28mm figs?

Thanks, I suppose it does not really. Unfortunately rebasing or starting another scale are not real options for me. I must say some of the the 6 and 10 mm figures look quite nice, but I enjoy painting so I do not think it much fun, I am also approaching 2000 28mm figures, so I believe I am pretty well stuck into this scale.

But I do think it looks ok and more to the point I was able to fit a couple of corps on an 8x5' terrain and it looks like there is room to maneuver, I probably should of asked the question a little more clearly.

I still do not know whether the rules will give be an accurate outcome, my level of sophistication with war gaming is really not at that point to answer the question. On all my other decision points though the rules appear good: flexible basing, simple mechanism, quick play, and "looks good".

Trailape: 6x28mm figures on a 40x40mm base for close order and 4x28mm figures in open order. I have used 6 bases for a small unit and 9 for a large unit. As discussed in my blog post this gives me almost exactly what is recommended in the rulebook for 28mm figures (the depth is slightly less, which is good).

Thanks,

John

I saw a 1:1 (5mm) ECW historic battle game once at Salute and oddly enough it did not look right either! Wargamers are used now to seeing a given small set of figures being a "unit" regardless of date, geography and army size.

I have been using Grand Manner in 25/28mm for years . Btns range from 30- 48 figures ( 32/36 most common) but cavalry figures are twice as numerous as in FOG(N) as are gun models( more like 3x) . Basing is similar to FOG(N) recommendations but then the size of 28mm figures makes that pretty inevitable. But a Corps needs something like 20 Btns plus and 12- 16 gun models and even on my 12x6 foot table can be pretty unwieldy and does not resemble a Corps with Divisions and brigades with proper intervals. I almost feel with Btns as the base that I want to go down a level to at least double Btn sizes (to really model a column of divisions) and then create Brigade and regimental level tactics. So Grand Manner does not look or feel like a corps game and to be fair it was probably not designed to be.


In a sense the infantry units in FOG(N) are the same size as GM but what they represent is different. Key as someone says is how they are handled by the rules. For me it has been about representing " Grand Tactics" and for which the command control and handling of all arms formations are key. I hope we have managed that.

What I observe after 40 years gaming is that land based games in almost any period are at their most enjoyable/successful when the number of separate individual units (however defined) controlled by a single player is in the 9-15 range regardless of the scale of operations being modelled. Beyond that is usually slow unwieldy and often inconclusive. In Napoleonic (and later 19th century) Corps works in those terms if you use regiments not Btns as the base for infantry. But it's also historically valid.

Mike,

You are exactly right, what "looks right" depends mostly on how we've been conditioned.

With respect to the number of units a player can manage, it's interesting to note that the accepted "command span" is about 3-6 units. There's also the notion of give direction to the next subordinate command level but be aware of the command level just below that one. This means give direction to 3-6 but be aware of 9-36. Commanding in a wargame I would assume is between these two which is about the figure you suggest.

One further thing that "meglomanical" wargamers overlook is that commanding a large force (e.g., either army at Borodino, Leipzig, etc.) with individual battalions (or even companies) is not only tedious but very unrealistic in that it allows a commander an unrealistic ability to control his forces.

I think you have it about right with FoG(N).

Ditto! I think the scale and how the game feels is quite excellent.