Ranges

Joined: 17 Apr 2006 Posts: 4 Location: SW Ohio USA

If I may....

What is the ground scale we are working with??

From a quick scan, it appears we are playing 2 medium bases = 1 regiment.

how long is a turn supposed to represent?

Both of these questions would assist us finding a common ground to base fire and movement on.

IGUG games like FoW/GW etc have always had a floating turn time which always stuck in the minds of "historical" gamers as being problematic to reason.

If each turn represents 15-20 minutes than we have to decide how much fire power a regiment would place down range. 30-50 rounds of ammo per man was the normal allotment. Unlike WWII this was a period when men wouldn't recon by fire or blow their wads prematurely. I'm not sure of the commissary skills of most nations, however, what I have read is most were poor at best. Meaning, extended fire fights were NOT to be entered into.

Has anyone read Nosworthy to gain some insight on this?

Madcam

Joined: 08 May 2006 Posts: 9

Here would be my input:

----- Each turn = 1 hour's worth of battle [thus, you can design scenarios with a given actual time/turn as to when reserve units would be arriving... as well as assigning a time/turn as to when both sides would break contact due to loss of visibility, as well as adding in 'night-fighting' rules/scenarios and so on....]

----- Each 'unit' = a single Battalion's worth of troops [maybe each medium stand with 3 - 6 figures representing a single Company???]

----- Each movement phase = Infantry - Normally up to 8" per Battalion, with French and British moving an additional 2" due to being 'Drilled' and Turkish/Russian Battalions moving up to 6" due to lackluster quality.... Heavy Artillery up to 10" when limbered, and can not be man-handeled, Medium Artillery up to 12" when limbered or otherwise up to 2" when 'man-hadeled'; Light Artillery up to 16" or 4" when man-handeled.... Cavalry in general would move up to 12" when gallopping, and up to 20" when charging....

----- Inf shooting = up to 12" for muskets, up to 16" for rifles. [of course, additional rules would up these ranges given the period, training and general quality of firearm in consideration...]

----- Cannon shooting = generally from 24" to 30" for the "medium" cannons, with light cannon shooting from 16" - 20" and so on. [this would be easier to compile after the parameters for Infantry are completed or the very least cared for]

----- Pistol shooting [mounted] = up to 4", with various modifiers applied to the shooting unit such as their movement and so on.

--- Cavalry would move at a gallop of 12" and charge at 20" or so....

Let me first see if I am within reason before I continue. Any thoughts on my post? Confused

Site Admin Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 174

I've been thinking since Scott's mention of playing at Divisional level instead of Corps; where each base would instead represent a company in a battalion; if the existing ranges in FoW would be more approrpiate.

If each base was a company, would 16" be a reasonable range for infantry small arms ... even if its only rifles (and muskets, carbines & pistols are shorter) ... if each base was a company instead of half a regiment?

Joined: 08 May 2006 Posts: 9

Good question Dillingham.

Well, what would be a plausible range given that (in my assumption) we are aiming at fielding our armies on a 6" X 4" table??

Site Admin Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 174

Well ... the shorter the ranges, the more maneuver space there is. I'm used to 2" Musket and 3" Rifle ranges, but I don't think that's the best idea for a FoW styled game. My thoughts for the time being are ...

Rifle = 16"
Musket = 12"
Carbine = 8"
Pistol = 4"

and

Heavy Canon = 32"
Medium Canon = 24"
Light Canon = 16"

Only Howitzers would get the artillery template, and canons would probably function more like AT guns in regular FoW with just a RoF to reflect their potential damage.

But then, I don't know whether that seems far too long a range for the small arms? I guess I could just as easily see ...

Rifle = 12"
Musket = 8"
Carbine & Pistol = 4"

and

Heavy Canon = 24"
Medium Canon = 16"
Light Canon = 12"

... which would give a little bit more maneuvering room without straying too far from the existing FoW model.

Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 5 Location: Oz

1 regiment is 4 small bases
1 Arty is mtd on a medium base(short width front) and represents a battery of guns
Musket range 3" ROF per base 2/ 3"+ to 6" ROF 1 per base.
Skirmishes 4" ROF per base 2/ 4"+ to 8" ROF 1 per base.
Horse Arty 4" ROF per base 4/ 4"+ to 16" ROF 2 per base
Heavy Arty 6" ROF per base 6/ 6"+ to 24" ROF 3 per base

Movement
Nothing can move and shoot
Inf and Cav can shoot and assault if close enough
Inf and cav can move and assault if close enough
Inf 4" Skirmishes must stay with 2" of parent unit
Heavy cav. 6"
Light cav. 8"
Horse Arty 10"
Heavy Arty 6"
Column for inf and cav. add 2"

Cas. are same as FOW if the target hits you have a saving throw if you fail remove a base.
Any way thats my rant Very Happy

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

I agree with Dillingham on this one too, but mainly because it seems that you are looking at brigade/corps level miccog, while I’m getting more and more into the idea of battalion level, where a medium base would equal a company. In that scale, 6” musket range might be a little bit short, and I think that the 8” range would fit a little bit better (but only play testing will show, I guess). Wink

When it comes to the movement rates, miccog, I think your ideas would fit well with battalion level too, though I do wonder a bit why horse artillery are faster than light cavalry. Is there something I have misunderstood perhaps?

I also like the elegant and simple mechanism of increasing movement by 2” when in column.

Jonas

Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 2 Location: Colorado Springs

New here, so sorry if this has been covered. I am catching up a bit. I do have a couple of comments that hopefully add somthing to the discussion.

So 1" is equal to what? 50 yards? I don't recall seeing that point. I think that may be in the ballpark for a 1 hour/turn game.

The small arms ranges seem a bit far for me on Mr. Dillingham's post, but I maybe framing them with the above range rule of 1"=50 yards or so in mind. If a shorter scale is being thought of then the artillery range may be a bit short.

That and I can't get it out of my head that Light artillery and Rifle ranges were equal in the American Civil War (so they abandoned lt art because they kept getting sniped to death before they had a chance to shoot at anyone), and I do not think that was the case in the Nap period. They just had not figured the benefit of lubricated patches at the time yet, or at least it was not widespread in European use just yet.

I remember reading some material on the Baker Rifle tests on firing at various ranges. Even though they could not hit something the size of a horses head at 100 yards (if I am remembering right) They still fired at longer ranges at formed units. For some reason 500 yard sticks in my mind for the Baker rifle and the Brit Rifle Co's for opening up firing on formed units. For the French it seemed they usually did not open up small arms fire with their muskets until 200 yards.

I had another thought on Mounted fire, specifically the carbines and pistols from horseback. It seemed used only in skirmishing (mainly the carbines if they had them) and in assault type situations (for the pistols anyway). I am not sure I remember reding about much mounted shooting otherwise; except one incident that comes to mind with formed firing from a Cav unit during a rainstorm. They walked up to an Infantry Reg that could not fire due to wet gunpowder and fired upon them. They could do so because their pistols were still dry from their sheepskin shabraques.

Anyway - I am excited about the possibility of FOW Napoleonics. I love the period, but have not gamed it using many rules systems. I think it could be a real fun rule system to use.

looking forward to it.

winterhorse

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

Hi Winterhorse, and welcome.

In my personal opinion, I don’t think we should define a particular groundscale at all, but rather go with the telescoping “what seems right” type of scale that FOW works with. There are a lot of Napoleonic rules that simulate relative ranges pretty well, but I think that what we are looking for here (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is a fast playing, small-scale game with the same basic philosophy that makes FOW so great. This is why I think that play testing at this point is crucial, since getting a grip on “what seems right” is kind of hard in the theoretical stage.

Again this is only my opinion, and we certainly don’t have to do it this way.

When it comes to the rifle ranges, I think again that we need to focus on what would make a good game rather than historical ranges, and giving the rifles over double the range of muskets would, I think, make them a little bit too good in the game. I’d love to be proven wrong though, as the British riflemen are some of my favorite troops of the Napoleonic war (must be the influence of a certain Richard Sharpe).

See you around,

Jonas

Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 2 Location: Colorado Springs

JonasB,

I think you are right on the scale piece and I think agree with you on what you are saying. Playtesting will be the most effective method to keep the game at a FOW pace and feel. I am excited about that.

I probably should have made a distinction of weapon extreme range vs effective range in my comment on the Baker Rifle. Even if there was an example of a person being killed at 500 yards, I am pretty certain it was not a regular occurance on the battlefield.

Take care and glad to see thte discussion group up and running.

winterhorse

Joined: 18 Sep 2006 Posts: 4 Location: Victoria, Australia

Hi all,

new here too.

My First impression on the rules is that they seem good. (I have been toying with the idea of a Napy version, but could never get the mechanics simple enough...so well done one and all.)

A comment on musket range.
I think the ranges are way to long, but I can live with that. ( I probably like the 6" range that was suggested earlier.)

The one bit I think that needs attention is the "long range" band. Muskets are VERY inaccurate weapons the Long range point should be reversed. ie Max range 12" long at anything over 4".

The way it is set at present for me seems to reflect ACW weapons where accuracy was preserved much further into the weapons max range.

Anyway,

thats my initial bit

Mike

Site Admin Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 174

A 12" long range band would certainly allow for a little more maneuver space on the limited tabletop area.

Joined: 21 May 2007 Posts: 117 Location: Cheltenham

that seems alright but why do the rule sets go for 16?? maybe do a split using that range

8/16 2/1 6+

Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 55 Location: Washington

I like the 12" max, and I think that anything from 6" and below would be considered accurate range if were using a base equals a company.

So, I think we have layed down that a base= a company..

Site Admin Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 174

Wellington wrote:

So, I think we have layed down that a base= a company..

I wouldn't say that's absolute. I don't think everyone's comfortable with that level. Not that I'm discouraging playing it that way and returning with feedback/reports at all though.