What makes it Napo'FOW'?

Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 55 Location: Washington

Very Well put chawks, Im happy someone agrees with me on more miniatures. Plus the ratio you came up with is very close to the BF ratio and what one of the BF guys was telling us what they were thinking.

Ok, For basing 6-8 guys per medium base would look appealing.
We also need to think about morale here to, in flames of war its not as important befcause it is WWII. If i correctly understand morale was huge part to napolianic battles. So instead of the 50% rule we should use something else...

Chawks I will get working with you more..

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:23 am

I have downloaded the rules here and from several other places so I will read them over the next few days and start thinking about what I like about them. NO minis for a couple of months as I just had to service my bike and put a new tyre on it to pass rego $$$$$$ which could of been spent on mini's

I will repost when I've had a read.

Chris

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

Earlier in this thread, I made some suggestions on basing to take into account the differences (superiority?) between the British 2-line formations and all the other's 3-line formations. I did this because several existing rulesets I was familiar with seemed to think it was important. Imagine my surprise when today I was thumbing through a recently acquired issue of "The Age of Napoleon" magazine, (dated 1999. I love e-Bay) and ran across this article titled "Debunking Wargame Myths" by David Brown. In it he described the normal British practice of firing one, or at most two, volleys and then charging the enemy. It was the charge that usually carried the day and not their reputed superiority in fire power. Rarely did they stand there exchanging volley fire, and when they did suffered greater losses. So it seems we needn't bother with basing based on 2-line or 3-line formations. That should help simplify our basing standards.

Don

Joined: 26 Jan 2008 Posts: 23

That is odd I was reading something similiar earlier today. Speaking of 2-line formation the Austrians would go into 2-lines to extend their frontage with the extras being made up of the 3rd line. If they stayed in 3-lines the back guys would load muskets and pass them forward similiar to how the Japanese did in the late 1500s.

Also it seems like and I may be mistaken about this but I would think that most of the casaulties came from assaults as the muskets were wildly inaccurate something like 200-400 rounds per 1 person shot, IIRC.

Joined: 10 May 2007 Posts: 34 Location: NZ

Quote:

but I would think that most of the casaulties came from assaults as the muskets were wildly inaccurate something like 200-400 rounds per 1 person shot, IIRC.

Except that very rarely would an assault actually make contact, usually the receiving side would break & run, or sometimes the assualting side, before contact was made. Most casualties came from artillery & small arms fire.
try Rory Muirs' book "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon"

or Nosworthy's book - I can't remember it's name & my copy is on loan!

cheers,

Evan

Joined: 26 Jan 2008 Posts: 23

Evan wrote:

Quote:

but I would think that most of the casaulties came from assaults as the muskets were wildly inaccurate something like 200-400 rounds per 1 person shot, IIRC.

Except that very rarely would an assault actually make contact, usually the receiving side would break & run, or sometimes the assualting side, before contact was made. Most casualties came from artillery & small arms fire.
try Rory Muirs' book "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon"

or Nosworthy's book - I can't remember it's name & my copy is on loan!

cheers,

Evan

True, massed batteries and canister shot did seem to do more than its fair share.

Site Admin Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 174

With Canon, Musket and Sword?

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:03 am

Evan wrote:

Nosworthy's book - I can't remember it's name & my copy is on loan!

Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies, maybe Wink

I agree with Evan. The battles were won with the moral. Confused

Joined: 10 May 2007 Posts: 34 Location: NZ

Quote:

Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies, maybe

thats the one!

Quote:

With Canon, Musket and Sword?

is an abridged version of the same book I believe?

cheers,

Evan

Site Admin Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 174

I'm not sure if it is or not, but its an impressive book.
It single-handedly shook loose my misguided modern misconceptions about the whole time period. it has done for my understanding of Napoleonic warfare what the Sharpe's series did for my enthusiasm for it.
Chapter 3 on the psychology of Napoleonic era warfare, I found particularly insightful and informative.

Joined: 10 May 2007 Posts: 34 Location: NZ

Quote:

It single-handedly shook loose my misguided modern misconceptions about the whole time period.

that and Rory Muirs' book as well did much the same for me! Stuff like Adkins' "Waterloo Companion" & Hourtoulles collection of eyecandy books were the icing on the cake & helped kick me back into the period.

cheers,

Evan

Site Admin Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 174

Evan wrote:

Stuff like Adkins' "Waterloo Companion"

LOL! Funny you should mention this one. I've been carrying it around for days as I've been rearranging my British army and recommitting mental space to this endeavor once again.
Smile