What makes it Napo'FOW'?

Joined: 13 Apr 2007 Posts: 89 Location: Naples, Fl

Well, I've been checking into this forum for a while now, and it seems to me that a lot of the members are waiting for the other shoe to fall. There has been much discussion about what rules and standards to adopt, but no one so far has stepped in and decreed, "This is the way it shall be." (Are we all waiting for Phil to deliver his epistle?) Don't worry, it won't be me either. But I think I can help get the discussion going again.

In the same way that the answer to "Life, the Universe, and Everything" is 42, do we understand the question of what puts the FOW in NapoFOW? In other words, what is attractive about FOW WWII that makes us think we can apply it to the Napoleonic era? The two periods are too technologically and organizationally opposite that the actual game mechanics probably won't transfer. But what is the spirit of FOW. It is a relatively fast-paced game, using the smallest practical organizational unit, employing simple rules, with a minimum of record keeping. So with that criteria in mind, here is what I would like to see. (This is just me, and I don't expect everyone---or anyone--- to agree with me. If YOU feel differently, please post.)

In FOW WWII, the smallest (practical) command unit is the platoon organized into companies. We fight small engagements with them, sometimes part of a larger battle, but we don't fight divisional, corps, army, or front battles (as much as we like to think we do). In the Napoleonic era, the comand units were companies formed into battalions. I know from the "basing" thread, there are many of you who want to use larger units as the minimum standard. But to me, one of the greater appeals of Napoleonics is the masses of colorful soldiers, standing shoulder to shoulder. Somehow having 4 figures on a stand and calling it a 'regiment' is not visually satisfying. This brings us to possibly our first major schism. "Are we married to the FOW bases?" ( It also seems to me that to some on the forum, the bases are what puts the FOW in NapoFOW.) Here are some pictures of some rough battalion examples I put together using the 3 FOW bases.

The first is a British battalion:

I know, I know, they're not painted. I'll get around to it (in a couple of years). The battalion consists of 10 under-strength companies--- each 4-man rank represents a company. The 8 center companies are on four medium bases, two rows of four on each, facing the long side. The remaining two light/grenadier companies are on four small bases, two figures to a base, also facing the long side, with two bases representing a company. The figures are facing the long edge to indicate the British use of the 'two-rank' system.

Here they are in line with skirmishers facing a Prussian 'three-rank' battalion:

As you can see, the British 'two-rank' line gives a wider front than the 'three-rank', allowing enfilade fire on the Prussians. The Prussian battalion is also under-strength, with 4 figures to a company. The 8 center companies are on two large bases, with two rows of eight figures on each, all facing the long side. The remaining 2 companies are on two small bases, two rows of two figs each, all facing the short side. Here is a frontal picture:

Here it is in column:

Which brings us to the French. While considered 'three-rank' troops, they attacked in column most of the time. I arranged them, again under-strength (in case anyone is wondering, I'm using 1 figure to 20 men), with 6 companies on two large bases, three rows of four, all facing the short side. the remaining 4 companies are on four small bases, two rows of two on each, all facing the short side.

Here they are attacking:

Another variation of the column could have the 4 small bases alongside the 2 large ones. (Sorry, didn't think to take that pic.)

Undoubtedly, many of you may have problems with my layouts. Let me be the first to say these are not my first preferences, either. I was merely trying to come up with solutions using the existing base sizes. If truth be told, I would rather see the British battalion look more like this:

That's not really the truth--- I would rather have the medium base halved lengthwise, so I could have all the companies in one row. Which brings us back to the question, "Are we married to the FOW bases?" Remember, the three sizes were designed for small-action combat between highly mobile troops in loose formation. It's ludicrous to think they will work seamlessly with Napoleonics. (Though the medium base will probably work well for cavalry and artillery.) We may need several other sizes to represent all the combatants. In any case, if we are to look for some sort of outside intervention, we can look to this post by Phil at Battlefront to Dillingham in the 'basing' thread. Phil wrote:

Quote:

We are looking at 6-12 bases as a "battalion" with 6-7 "battalions" of infantry and cavalry in a force

and

Quote:

... It looks like you are doing 15mm here? If so, 6 to a base seems very sparse we were thinging more like 8-10 figures in two ranks with a couple of sergeants.

... a force with 3 infantry regiments, a small cavalry unit and two artillery units sounds reasonable.

This at least gives us a scale upon which to continue the discussion. Hopefully this will help spark some interest and discussion on the forum.

Don

Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 55 Location: Washington

One thing that really needs to be incoperated into the rules is morale being important. During the napolianic ages morale could be very important to the victory or defeat of a battle. I based my men, 6 to a medium FOW base. I am using 20mm, and I have 5 bases so far of french grenaiders which are painted the basics, and based. It is around 40 figs, and to me would represent around 600 men. An average regiment, but cavalry I do 3 to a FOW base, and that works great as well. Maybe we should not do it by bases? By number of figures? For Example, 1 figure= 10 men. That is what I am using right now for a different game, and it works pretty nicely. That way due to the wide variety of men used for battalions, regiments and such may be WAY understrenght, or average. But then we may have to do combat by figures dying. I dont know, what do you think about the 1 figure = 10 men?

Thanks for discussion!!!

Joined: 13 Apr 2007 Posts: 89 Location: Naples, Fl

While a 1 to 10 ratio would certainly look more realistic (in 15mm), that many figures will prove cumbersome in play. Your 600-man battalion will require 60 figures, and many battalions had more than 600 men. Traditionally, wargames involving large forces were designed with a minimum 1 to 20 ratio, though some go as high as 1 to 50 (too high for my tastes). I think we need to examine the possibility of using 1 to 25 or 1 to 30 ratios.

Don

Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 55 Location: Washington

HobbyDr wrote:

While a 1 to 10 ratio would certainly look more realistic (in 15mm), that many figures will prove cumbersome in play. Your 600-man battalion will require 60 figures, and many battalions had more than 600 men. Traditionally, wargames involving large forces were designed with a minimum 1 to 20 ratio, though some go as high as 1 to 50 (too high for my tastes). I think we need to examine the possibility of using 1 to 25 or 1 to 30 ratios.

Don

I agree, this sounds much better, I really like the 1 to 25. I also agree with you, it is not appealing to me to see 50 men out there representing maybe a thousand. Might as well play a hexagonal war game...

Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 55 Location: Washington

4 Ratings

Green 6+
Average 5+
Crack 4+
Elite 3+

When firing you roll using YOUR units experience rating. Modifiers are as follows...

When rolling

+1 Resting Rifles
+1 Non Moving Line Fires
+1 Firing From High Ground
+2 VS Column or Flank
-1 VS open order
-1 VS Soft Cover
-2 VS Hard Cover
-2 VS Entrentchments

Another thing we can do...

Site Admin Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 174

I'm not sure what has derailed the discussion; be it a feeling that the other shoe will drop or something else; but it certainly hasn't progressed. I really hope its not a sign of the level of interest ... but I'm sure it gives that impression.

As for "what puts the FOW in NapoFOW; I don't think you could have asked a better question. This is, after all, at the core of what spawned this collection of wargamers.

As for me, I would define that answer in two words ... balance & accessibility.

Balance, in that the game has struck (for me) a nearly perfect balance between historical accuracy and playability. There is, of course, the factors of beautiful publications and standards-defining quality which have played a part; but its that balance which finally drew me completely into the historical genre. I have had more fun playing FoW than any other wargame - and I haven't had to sacrifice historically plausible results in order to do so.

I've played plenty of other historical wargames ... not as many as others around here, to be sure, but enough to know that if I want a simulation which captures all the minutiae then I already have Empire V. I've learned a great deal of respect and appreciation for that system, but even at our best it takes an hour of game time to represent an hour of battle time and that's not counting set up & tear down time. It just can't be done without a certain degree of laborious effort. Conversely, if I want something which makes broad sweeping generalizations with gameplay strongly overshadowing historicity; then I already have Shako. Its a good game, but for me it just doesn't capture many of the details which I'm not interested in sacrificing.

With a Napoleonic version of Flames of War, my hope is to realize a rapidity of play which allows for a building in-game excitement and dynamic tension uninterrupted by lengthy time-outs to reference charts & tables.

This is one of the things related to Accessibility. One of the things I appreciate about Flames of War is that it helped to cut through the obstacles preventing WW2 wargaming from becoming mainstream. There were always unresolved questions of scale and scope and rules systems and the like which kept it from ever going anywhere; and yet it seems that the Napoleonic period has even more obstacles to overcome. WW2 can be understood easily enough from a modern perspective, but that same modern perspective often scoffs at the ideas of brightly distinctive uniforms and huge blocks of men fighting in close proximity to each other.

I held many of those misconceptions for a long time, myself. Its only through a combination of long discussions with Grognard, the discovery of the Sharpe's and Hornblower series, some great reading like Nosworthy's "With Musket, Cannon and Sword" along with some really beautiful displays of multiple corps arrayed against each other on really great terrain that helped me over those obstacles into a place where I learned to appreciate and then to admire and be inspired by the period. Now I face a situation where I've invested large amounts of time and money into books and miniatures that sit dormant for want of opponents and a rules system which can bring us together. I'm looking for a system that can do for Napoleonics what Flames of War did for WW2 ... that is to strike a balance between enjoyable gameplay and historical accuracy as well as to open doors of accessibility to a larger pool of players and hobbyists who may not have discovered the period already.

As for the miniatures themselves and how they are arranged: I have a somewhat less specific hope for this system. I'm not locked into the desire to play battalions, divisions, corps or armies. I do certainly appreciate seeing huge battles involving multiple corps or even whole armies. On the other hand, I also really appreciate the 1:1 scale with miniatures where you can see realistic units on the table top. I'd also like to see the basic rules remain financially attainable to the casual hobbyist. I would probably consider playing at the corps and army level similarly to those who play at the battalion level in WW2 FoW ... enjoyable for big games, but not necessarily the mainstream.

I think something around 100-200 miniatures seems a reasonable expectation for purchasing & painting .. while sticking as close to the 1:1 ideal as possible (though I do happily admit that 1:1 is in no way attainable). Along with that, being able to see the distinctive uniforms of the diverse units available is definitely something to be preserved. I would lament seeing (or not seeing, as would be the case) the British Rifles disappear from the game because they are too small an element to be shown on the battlefield. I also would not like to see the formations - column, line & square - become abstractions which are not displayed on the tabletop ... and yet, I am not interested in moving all those little one and two man bases around that so terribly slows down Empire.

I would consider the Flames of War bases to be a pretty important part of making the game NapoFoW. We aren't using their miniatures, the least we could do is use the bases ... particularly since the rules system seems pretty closely tied to thos bases. After all, if this is ever going to be embraced in any degree by BattleFront, I would think that it would have to be financially beneficial to them to some reasonable degree.

I don't know where the balance is in force size resides, nor would I consider myself qualified to analyze and present the nuances of different scales or how they affect the various armies at different time periods, but the above is what I would prefer to see develop.

Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 55 Location: Washington

Nice way to put it!

Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 16

Your easy to satisfy aren't you Very Happy

Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 55 Location: Washington

Sometimes.... Very Happy

Joined: 13 Apr 2007 Posts: 89 Location: Naples, Fl

Thanks Dillingham. I really agree about the 'balance' and 'accessability'. I think one of the problems we face is our desire to devise a simple set of rules to simulate probably the most complex political and military epoch in history. If we are to succeed with an FOW concept, we must be prepared to discard many commonly held beliefs about what a Napoleonic game is. We will probably be held as heretics or fools by the 'purists' who've come before.

I think before we can continue, we need to hammer out some standards around which we can build. (Please pardon me if I've already put forth some of these arguments--- not that I'm arguing--- as the mind starts to go at my age.) First, we need to determine the scale of the game, or in other words, what is the smallest unit we can field. As FOW uses WWII's smallest practical unit, the platoon organized into companies, I feel the Napoleonic company organized into battalions would work the best. (Choosing the battalion as the smallest unit, while economizing the amount figures required, would make it more difficult to field Dillingham's Rifles, which would not suit me either.) This is because I don't want to fight the whole breadth of a major battle, but the smaller, key engagements that decided the major battle. To try and fight the whole battle of Waterloo at once would entail a huge table and more minis than most of us could ever hope to own, but refighting the action at Hougemont is well within reach. Please rebutt if you disagree.

Next we need to establish the ratio of figures to real men. As I am advocating the company structure, I feel a ratio of between 1-to-20 and 1-to-30 will give the density of figures I would like to see. On paper, a 10 company British battalion will need 50 figures at a 1-to-20 ratio. In the field, battalions were rarely full-strength, and could be represented by 24 to 36 figures. So in addition to picking the ratio, we also need to pick between 'paper strength' and 'typical campaign strength'.

In another thread, Grognard has pointed out the diversity of company composition, not only between competing armies, but between the same army during different campaigns. This may be one of the harder aspects to reconcile. Also, besides allocating the number of figs per company and the number of companies per battalion, we have to factor in the battle formation used---two-rank lines or three-rank lines. It is because of all these parameters that I am pessimistic about using the three FOW bases as is. (If Battlefront should commit to producing 15mm Napoleonics in the future, I don't think the production of new size bases will tax them greatly.) A set of rules from the '70s, Fire and Steel by GDW, used two frontages to differentiate between two and three-rank formations. Two-rank troops had a 6mm frontage per figure, while three-rank troops had 9mm per fig. Hmmmm...... are any of the existing bases 2/3rds the size of the next larger? I'll have to check. Actually, the only problem I have with the current bases is their depth. I would like to have, in addition, half depth bases. In other words, I think we need to take the medium and large bases, and cut them in half lengthwise. I think I'll play around with bases and frontages this weekend, and report back.

Well, that's only three or four points to debate, and just the beginning. Can we get some more forum members in on the discussion? The sooner we make some of these groundwork decisions, the sooner I'll have to actually finish painting my armies. Wink

(God help me.)

Don

Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 55 Location: Washington

HobbyDr wrote:

Thanks Dillingham. I really agree about the 'balance' and 'accessability'. I think one of the problems we face is our desire to devise a simple set of rules to simulate probably the most complex political and military epoch in history. If we are to succeed with an FOW concept, we must be prepared to discard many commonly held beliefs about what a Napoleonic game is. We will probably be held as heretics or fools by the 'purists' who've come before.

I think before we can continue, we need to hammer out some standards around which we can build. (Please pardon me if I've already put forth some of these arguments--- not that I'm arguing--- as the mind starts to go at my age.) First, we need to determine the scale of the game, or in other words, what is the smallest unit we can field. As FOW uses WWII's smallest practical unit, the platoon organized into companies, I feel the Napoleonic company organized into battalions would work the best. (Choosing the battalion as the smallest unit, while economizing the amount figures required, would make it more difficult to field Dillingham's Rifles, which would not suit me either.) This is because I don't want to fight the whole breadth of a major battle, but the smaller, key engagements that decided the major battle. To try and fight the whole battle of Waterloo at once would entail a huge table and more minis than most of us could ever hope to own, but refighting the action at Hougemont is well within reach. Please rebutt if you disagree.

Next we need to establish the ratio of figures to real men. As I am advocating the company structure, I feel a ratio of between 1-to-20 and 1-to-30 will give the density of figures I would like to see. On paper, a 10 company British battalion will need 50 figures at a 1-to-20 ratio. In the field, battalions were rarely full-strength, and could be represented by 24 to 36 figures. So in addition to picking the ratio, we also need to pick between 'paper strength' and 'typical campaign strength'.

In another thread, Grognard has pointed out the diversity of company composition, not only between competing armies, but between the same army during different campaigns. This may be one of the harder aspects to reconcile. Also, besides allocating the number of figs per company and the number of companies per battalion, we have to factor in the battle formation used---two-rank lines or three-rank lines. It is because of all these parameters that I am pessimistic about using the three FOW bases as is. (If Battlefront should commit to producing 15mm Napoleonics in the future, I don't think the production of new size bases will tax them greatly.) A set of rules from the '70s, Fire and Steel by GDW, used two frontages to differentiate between two and three-rank formations. Two-rank troops had a 6mm frontage per figure, while three-rank troops had 9mm per fig. Hmmmm...... are any of the existing bases 2/3rds the size of the next larger? I'll have to check. Actually, the only problem I have with the current bases is their depth. I would like to have, in addition, half depth bases. In other words, I think we need to take the medium and large bases, and cut them in half lengthwise. I think I'll play around with bases and frontages this weekend, and report back.

Well, that's only three or four points to debate, and just the beginning. Can we get some more forum members in on the discussion? The sooner we make some of these groundwork decisions, the sooner I'll have to actually finish painting my armies. Wink

(God help me.)

Don

I like the ratios you were suggesting. Now, the different Rank fighting could be listed in the army books on how to base your men? Also, we should make the # of men on a base vary a little. For example, one could have the same amount of figures representing a battalion paperwise, but he may have based his men with 6 figures to a base rather than 8.

Joined: 27 Apr 2007 Posts: 3

Dillingham wrote:

...
As for me, I would define that answer in two words ... balance & accessibility.
...

I would add two other things:
1. A single author: FOW is great because Phil is great, and he is the source for all rules. He is the Man in Charge of the rules, and actively involved. The best rules are created by individuals, not committees, and are actively supported by the author.
2. Original research: There are many original ideas in FOW, and they are supported by research and analysis. I don't always agree with Phil's conclusions, but I can't deny that he knows his subject very well and has worked hard to distill it down to FOW.

Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 55 Location: Washington

eblingus wrote:

Dillingham wrote:

...
As for me, I would define that answer in two words ... balance & accessibility.
...

I would add two other things:
1. A single author: FOW is great because Phil is great, and he is the source for all rules. He is the Man in Charge of the rules, and actively involved. The best rules are created by individuals, not committees, and are actively supported by the author.
2. Original research: There are many original ideas in FOW, and they are supported by research and analysis. I don't always agree with Phil's conclusions, but I can't deny that he knows his subject very well and has worked hard to distill it down to FOW.

Thoses are some good points. But no one has really wrote anything all together yet, and there are a lot of things that phill did not write.

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 6:14 pm

Very nice, I wait the continuation impatiently Wink

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:25 am

Quote:

1. I think before we can continue, we need to hammer out some standards around which we can build.
2. First, we need to determine the scale of the game, or in other words, what is the smallest unit we can field.
3.Next we need to establish the ratio of figures to real men. As I am advocating the company structure, I feel a ratio of between 1-to-20 and 1-to-30 will give the density of figures I would like to see. On paper, a 10 company British battalion will need 50 figures at a 1-to-20 ratio. In the field, battalions were rarely full-strength, and could be represented by 24 to 36 figures. So in addition to picking the ratio, we also need to pick between 'paper strength' and 'typical campaign strength'.

Don

1. If people could put what they want/expect out for all to see then everyone can start thinking about the inevitable compromises.
2. For scale I would like to see a stand of infantry = a platoon. 3 plattoons a coy. 4 coys a battalion. + a HQ stand. around 13 stands which would enable BNs to march in line/column and form squares etc (visually appealing)
3. 8 dudes on a base for a platoon = 6 normal troops, sergeant and a LT. Which means we get a ratio of 1:4 but if an individual is happy using 1 figure for a platoon to save $ that would work too Wink

NFOW would almost have to be able to support BN level skirmishes as well as BN=1 stand corps level games. Just requires a layered set of rules with the first layer detailed at coy/BN level and then abstracting some while bringing in DIVisional level rules for fighting waterloo etc. Could keep everyone happy.

Chris