Slitherine

I think that FoG has the potencial to be the base of Napoleonic Wars set of rules, What do you think?

Napoleonic FOG is in progress yet, but I don´t know how advanced it is.


David

Please keep me informed.

Interested !

I was thinking up to Pike and Shot, maybe the linear area, with modifications, but with the greater fluidity and larger scale of the Napoleonic Wars I have some doubts. As a top-down game, it would need to be about overall battles - what level of formation would the roughly 10-15 BGs each represent? The DBx Napoleonics variant had bases representing roughly battalions or a couple squadrons, but that granular an approach is in contrast to the FOG level.

If it worked, though, it would give me more interest in playing some horse and musket battles again - although I like the greater complexity of interactions in the Ancient period a great deal.

Mike

MikeK wrote: If it worked, though, it would give me more interest in playing some horse and musket battles again - although I like the greater complexity of interactions in the Ancient period a great deal.

I've always enjoyed Napoleonics as a diversion, it's about as far into the modern world I want to
go wargaming. Although in competition I think the Sheffield Triples was the only time I played.
("Suppressive fire on the wood! Who wrote these orders? Oh, the WWII players..." )

One slight problem in Napoleonics is one man's simulation of the effects of musket bore on shooting
rates is another's tedious headache, although there has been a move away from the over-technical
simulations. Sound of Guns was the first clearer set I remember, NPoW is another.

Like you say though, at the end of the day it's infantry with shooty things, artillery with bigger
shooty things, and cavalry running around being vaguely ineffective. Not so much variety.

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. Also, no competition from any other ruleset for the Renaissance crown at the moment while there are lots of people w/ period armies who are not playing them.

I would suggest General de Brigade to anyone that wants a nice historical Napoleanics set with similar basing conventions to FoG.

The first time I played FOG, I thought it would lend itself well to later periods. I, for one, would LOVE to see a Napoleonic version of the rules set.

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. Also, no competition from any other ruleset for the Renaissance crown at the moment while there are lots of people w/ period armies who are not playing them.

I have to go with Carlos on this one. In fact I would like to see the FOG creep up the history timeline rather than just right up to the top.

And PLEASE PLEASE don't ever try to do a WWII game like Piquet tried. It tried and failed miserably. It was like playing English Civil War with tanks. I think FOG excels at what it does and should not be watered down to play periods it was not meant to.

Brian

Probert suggested General de Brigade - but that's a very 'low level' set with a 1:20 figure ratio.
FoG is supposed to be a big battle set.

I'd think Shako is closer in spirit to FoG than GdB

There's a ton of good Napoleonic rules, from the high level (Grand Armee, Horse Foot & Guns, Volley & Bayonet, through the Grand Tactical - Shako, Age of Eagles, Napoleon's Battles, to the Tactical - Gen de Brigade). Surely it's much easier to use one of those than to try and shoehorn FoG's mechanisms into Horse & Musket?

I suspect a couple of reasons to go for a Napoleonic set would eb that there are massive amount of Nappy players out there - it is usually cited as the single largest period played - and thus there is a large potential market (Ren by comparison is a marginal period) - and the idea of a single competition set in widespread use is something of a wargaming holy grail.

I also understand that JD has a very large and now unused collection of Nappy figures

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.

Eh, Eh,
It looks like I will have to build pages for Napoleonic period on my site in a few months.

I have an Austrian army based for NPOW, I like this rules set a lot of, but I´m waiting to read the napoleonic version of FOG.

Nick do you know if the playtesting is has begun?


David

robertthebruce wrote:I have an Austrian army based for NPOW, I like this rules set a lot of, but I´m waiting to read the napoleonic version of FOG.

Nick do you know if the playtesting is has begun?


David

I hope; there is still a lot of work left to do on FoG. I want my Chinese army lists!

Marc

I hope; there is still a lot of work left to do on FoG. I want my Chinese army lists!

Marc

I know, Richard and his "boys" are working very hard, I think that the wait will be rewarded .


David

robertthebruce wrote:I have an Austrian army based for NPOW, I like this rules set a lot of, but I´m waiting to read the napoleonic version of FOG.

Nick do you know if the playtesting is has begun?


David

I have no idea about it at all.

Well I am sure a massive enterprise like Slitherine can multi-task and do two things at once.

The question on the Napoleonic front is what scale do you to simulate, meaning is the player a regimental, divisional, Corps or Army commander? That alone impacts the game hugely.

A lot of people want to worry about forming line, column, square and manuver a couple Corps and that quickly becomes troublesome.

In the mean time I am in favor of quickly pushing out the lists for FoG pre-1500 AD.

I have no idea about it at all.

It must be an Ultraconfidential zone in the Area 51 , I guess that JD will notified us when the security level were lower


David

nikgaukroger wrote:I suspect a couple of reasons to go for a Napoleonic set would eb that there are massive amount of Nappy players out there - it is usually cited as the single largest period played - and thus there is a large potential market (Ren by comparison is a marginal period) - and the idea of a single competition set in widespread use is something of a wargaming holy grail.

If ancient/medieval wargaming was like Napoleonics then the only known and played armies would be Alexander's successors, there would be ample conflicting and incomplete source materials from all sides for players to argue over, and they would, resulting in multiple rules sets.

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

hazelbark wrote:
In the mean time I am in favor of quickly pushing out the lists for FoG pre-1500 AD.

That continues apace.