Scale

Joined: 04 May 2006 Posts: 3 Location: Philadelphia, PA USA

Hi, I just discovered this forum. I've been looking around and reading some of the posts. It sounds like quite a bit of thought has already been given to this. I must say, however, that I'm a little surprised at the scale that seems to have been accepted by everyone.

Flames of War (WWII) has the basic unit as the platoon with each stand of figures (or vehicles) as a part of that platoon. Games generally consist of a company plus support. This puts the scale of the game at the tactical level, one step above the skirmish level. We are looking at a game portraying a very small segment of a larger battle.

Now this scale is not really appropriate for a Napoleonic game. For the most part troops maneuvered and fought as part of a battalion or regiment. Individual companies and platoons rarely did anything on their own. So, a larger scale would be appropriate for FoW Napoleonic.

But the proposed rules seem to have jumped all the way to the other end of the scale. Each stand is a battalion, units of maneuver are brigades and players will be commanding corps-sized armies or larger. Now there's nothing wrong with that if that's what you want to do, but has anyone considered doing the game at a slightly smaller scale?

I'm an afficianado of smaller scale tactics and I've done quite a bit of research on the subject (wrote my master's thesis on 19th century tactics) and I'd like to see a game where the tactical details play a role, just as they do in FoW (WWII).

So, how about a game where each stand is a company and the basic unit of maneuver is a battalion? For example, a French battlion (post 1805) would have six stands: four fusiliers, one voltiguer and one grenadier. The battalion would act like a platoon in FoW (WWII). Formations and manuevers would be important. A player's army would typically be one or two brigades plus supporting artillery and cavalry.

I'm not saying this is a better way of doing things, just a different way. What do people think?

Site Admin Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 174

Hey, Scott. Good to have your input.

I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions/guidance/insight of this sort. The whole point (for me at least) of this forum is specifically for that kind of discussion. I would never claim to be an expert in this area and am only going on what I've read and have experience with myself.

Now, I have understood that companies and battalions didn't operate on their own, so I'd love to hear more about it (always been a fan of skirmishes myself and even have a good collection of 28mm's to play out little Sharpe's type scenarios for my own enjoyment). I'm a very visual learner, so would you mind explaining further how you see this working on the table top and possibly examples of it in history? Smile

As you have time, of course. Once I think I grasp what you're explaining I can try to put together a diagram of what an army might look like under this model.

Jason

Joined: 08 May 2006 Posts: 9

In my opinion, I honestly think that we as a forum should spend most of our time in ironing out some gaming rules first, and seeing what we can come up with that could be translated into a feasible rules-set. Afterwords, there would be plenty of time on cornering the actual gaming scale (Company, Battalion, Regiment etc) that would be agreeable to the vast gaming public.

Just an opinion.

Joined: 04 May 2006 Posts: 3 Location: Philadelphia, PA USA

I'm not sure I can entirely agree, Arice. Certainly some rules can be worked out irrespective of the final game scale, but other rules will have to be closely tied to the scale decided on. For example, if you did the one stand is a battalion scale then you don't need to worry much about formations or changing formations in the rules. But if one stand is a company, then formations and such will have a major impact on how the game is played. It will also have a major impact on the 'feel' of the game. Am I commanding a division or a whole army? Do I worry about how my battalions are deployed or is that all just built in? It seems to me that we ought to be trying to decide what sort of 'feel' we want and then try to build a set of rules that will deliver that. Just my opinion.

Joined: 08 May 2006 Posts: 9

Scott,

I read your first post on this thread and I must admit that I agree with your direction and application.

Dont know why but I generally felt that the best method to begin our brain-storming would be by attempting to follow the model setup by BattleFront, when it comes to tinkering with a Napoleonics rules-set.

Having said that, I still find it easier to conceptualize a Battalion level game that allows for differing formations, weapon differences and so on, which would give an "authentic feel" of what a Napoleonic game would look like on the gaming table.

This is why I think that we should work with 15mm in mind, and that more of our conceptualizing should be in working out the gaming mechanics and general rules before we finally nail down the level of gaming representation and its associated tweaks.

But please dont misunderstand me. I am mearly adding my suggestions at this stage. I am more than willing to help along and contribute as much as I can for the overall success of this forum. Wink

Site Admin Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 174

Not alot to contribute to this specifically right now (maybe after work) but I do think we have plenty of space on the forum to discuss many different angles and subjects in regards to our conversion of the basic rules. I'd like to stay as close to the FoW model as absolutely possible so as to maintain the playability I've found lacking in Napoleonics.

I am pleased to see the activity and discussion and contribution by new members, and certainly don't see any problem with launching ideas out into the forums in different threads and discuss them. Smile

Joined: 21 Jun 2006 Posts: 1

Hey everyone, new to the site, blah blah....*s*

My question is this- what elements of the FOW ruleset do you feel is 'essential' for the mythic beast of 'playability'? Personally, I'm not sure that it is FOW's RULES that make it playable- it's what it does.

FOW's key virtues are (imho)
1: Abstracted technical aspects but yet historical results. While the game doesn't go into the detail of HOW a 88mm round goes into the side of the T-34, it does give reasonable statistical results of the %chance of an individual T-34's ability to survive.

2: Balanced points lists. This allows easier 'pick up' games as oppossed to referee created scenarios- but not PREVENTING said type of gaming at the same time.

3: Consistent mechanics with a minimum of modifiers. For example, shooting in FOW is based upon variable "target number" (based upon experience), but only 3 modifers to that target number- range, concealment, greater concealment. Once you remember the target numbers, its easy to go through the fire phase- no charts!

4: A clear focus on the experience of the Company Commander in FOW. One thing I hated about Command Decision was that as a battallion level game, I had to keep track of ammo and decide the type of round my tanks were firing- decisions that a battallion or regimental commander would NOT be concerned about. FOW is good in its clear focus on fire and movement with combined arms- things that a company commander is primarily concerned with. Personally, I think that this is the key element of ANY game.

Given the above, I think that its a mistake to simply 'blindly' draw upon the FOW rulesset to make a mini game. I think that it would be much better to focus on scale #1- decide your focus of gaming. From that, start deciding what decisions are the most important to that scale. Then, start worrying about other chromy stuff.

Anyhoo- those are my $.02.

Darilian

Joined: 25 May 2006 Posts: 17 Location: Oslo, Norway

Good points Darilian, and I think you’re right in many ways. There is no point, to my mind, of using the FOW mechanics to make a “classic” Napoleonic large-scale simulation, and, speaking only for myself, it’s just all those tables and details I’m trying to get away from with this set in the first place.

Having said that, I can’t really see how the rules would work for anything smaller than battalion level with a FOW team being equal to a company. Further I agree that we need some kind of focus on what we want the game to do, and I certainly agree with your listing of the main virtues of FOW.

1. Yes, this is just what I want from NapoFoW (or whatever the game will be called) too, abstract mechanics but historical results, and I think we can all agree on that. The challenge is to find a workable balance between the two, and we welcome your help on that.

2. Couldn’t agree more.

3. I agree with not using any charts. The modifiers would have to be a little bit different, i.e., range, formation, and perhaps concealment?

4. Again, I personally don’t think Napoleonics work on a company level, for historical reasons, but I think that battalion level would achieve pretty much the same effect with you (the player) commanding a small brigade of 2-4 battalions with some cavalry and artillery in support.

You are right about the “chromy” stuff too, I think. We need to get the basic mechanics in place first, and the only way to do that is to play test. Hopefully we will get to that stage soon.

Welcome to the forum! Very Happy

Jonas

Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 7

Quote:

4. Again, I personally don’t think Napoleonics work on a company level, for historical reasons, but I think that battalion level would achieve pretty much the same effect with you (the player) commanding a small brigade of 2-4 battalions with some cavalry and artillery in support.

Well im more of the "command an army" kinda guy as opposed to a brigade...

What about a base = btn.............

cheers

Joined: 21 Jun 2006 Posts: 1 Location: Tucson AZ, USA

I'd prefer a company = one stand. Other good games (Napoleons Battles & Age of Eagles) cover the "army" level very well. I've played both and enjoy them very much, but I want a more tactical game. Our group tends to have more multi-olayer games than anything else, having a division of several player run brigades would be a lot of fun. Besides I like formations, part of the charm of the period.

Joined: 25 May 2006 Posts: 17 Location: Oslo, Norway

Hi BuckGordon,

That’s indeed the direction it seems we are heading. Check out the “play testing” thread under core rules. Perhaps you have some input?

Jonas