Scale?

Joined: 08 Jan 2008 Posts: 39 Location: Sydney, Australia

So, now we need to hone game mechanics?

This is Flames of War, so can we agree to perhaps call a standard base, a "Team", so that we have commonality? As Don said, it really doesn't matter if you are thinking of a Line Infantry Team as a Company or 200 men or whatever. It is a Line Infantry Team. Likewise for other Teams. Organisational matters can be left to TOE's and OOB's.

What standard teams do we need? I woluld suggest:
?? Guard Infantry ?? (Not sure if just Fearless Veteran Line would do?)
Line Infantry
Light Infantry
Light Cavalry
Cavalry
Shock Cavalry
Horse Artillery
Field Artillery
Heavy Artillery
Command
High Command

If we can figure out the attributes that we want these to have and the interplay under the FOW system, we will be most of the way there. Very Happy

I guess actual base sizes is only important between opponents, and then frontage means more than anything else?

I was thinking also about the FOW shooting mechanics. In the WW2 rules, you use the skill of the target to determine hits. Now, in that era, it models use of terrain, etc. It struck me that you could also use this in our era, but in the Napoleonic era, it is not about use of terrain, but more that Veteran troops will stand a greater volume of fire before becoming 'combat ineffective', (ie: slinking away with the wounded to the rear, etc.) than conscripts will. So the same amount of fire will have more effect on conscripts than veterans... or am I barking up a totally wrong tree?

Joined: 08 Jan 2008 Posts: 39 Location: Sydney, Australia

(Knew I meant to put in something else)

The more we are able to just insert Napoleonic Teams into the existing FOW rules, the better the accessability will be!

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 am

Maybe you can add sapper and "pontonnier". Maybe Landwehr/opolchenie ( it's very different than line infantry I think).

For command, you have many command possible for France: "bataillon", "regiment", "brigade", "Division", "corp d'armée", "armée" for exemple.

Confused

Joined: 08 Jan 2008 Posts: 39 Location: Sydney, Australia

Nicofig wrote:

Maybe you can add sapper and "pontonnier". Maybe Landwehr/opolchenie ( it's very different than line infantry I think).

For command, you have many command possible for France: "bataillon", "regiment", "brigade", "Division", "corp d'armée", "armée" for exemple.

Confused

Engineers are good... I had forgotten them. I would have thought that the functions of Landwehr were similar to other Infantry, and that by classification as Reluctant Conscript, you could cover them? But I know very little of the Prussians, being more interested in the Peninsula, so I am happy to be guided by the wiser! Smile

As to different levels of command, and the idea here would be to simplify things gamewise, surely they all conduct similar functions? In FOW terms, they really just serve as a focal point for their units, and as a morale boost / rallying point? Or do others think that they have a wider function?

Richard

Joined: 05 Jan 2008 Posts: 8

I have to agree with the Hobbydr dont get to hung up on FOW bases personly i feel they are the wrong scale for naps just because evans stuff looks awesome does not make them the correct standard evan has a talent for making anything he touches look good .

Now I feel you should play the game with brigades and try to use around five to six brigades a game and with battalions being the smallest manouverable unit if your battalions are two big [ie] two many bases to the battalion you will never fit your game on your standard table this is the first reason i feel FOW bases are wrong think also about other points like troops formation forming square forming line foming collumn another reason why i feel you need a different new base for the game it would after all be not to much bother for the chaps at BF to knock something more fitting up . I vote for smaller bases and smaller battalions and smaller brigades that way you can fit more in .

I mean how many of the lads here plays naps on a regular basis what other naps gaming systems do they play how are they based you can learn a lot from other rule systems what scale of command seems to work . these are just my personal opinions but you have stated you want the lurkers to speak up . I am but Smile

one lurker speaking up Smile

Joined: 08 Jan 2008 Posts: 39 Location: Sydney, Australia

I agree that actual base sizes, be they FOW or GW, are probably irrelevant, so long as both sides use the same conventions. So, let's stop getting to hung up on this at this EARLY stage, and try to bend the rules to work.

We can always rebase to BF's new standard later! LOL! ('Cos we all REALLY love rebasing)

I suppose any kind of heads up from the BF insiders who hang about here is out of the question? Who has Phil's ear?

Richard

Joined: 21 Mar 2008 Posts: 4 Location: Maroa, IL USA

If you will forgive me for offering my opinion I have to say that Evan's suggestions on the scale seems to work very well. The idea is to create the wonderful visual experience for the gamer during play as well as a fun easy to use rules set.

Useing the Regiment/Brigade as the core unit works very well as then you would allow optional add ons to these base units to give them the individual flavor that historically exsisted such as adding a light company or greniader company for x number of points.

Armies would wind up with say 3 to 5 core units and then 2 to 4 support units like Cavalary or Artillery or a specialist unit like rifles.

The individual players army would be a Division or Corps in the same way WWII FoW is a Company or Battalion. Warriors would often be higher command teams just as in WWII FoW, but in this case they would tend to be historical Corps commanders.

Enjoy
Rich

Joined: 13 Apr 2008 Posts: 4

Sharpe wrote:

As I mentioned in another thread, I think scale is a fundamental question. There are several different rules adaptations. The ones posted on the forum and envisioned by Phil are very different.

In my opinion (for what its worth,) the game should be scaled to fit on a 4'x6' table. While many people have much larger game tables, FOW and most tournaments are geared for this size.

Do you want to run a Brigade, a Division, or a Corps as a 1,500 point army? The smaller scale offers more detail but historically I don't know how often Brigades and Divisions operated alone.

With Phil pondering 6-12 bases = battalion, fielding a whole division (or Corps) is not realistic on a 4x6 table.

I actually posted a thread about this before I saw this one, but I'm thinking the same scale as 1:1 would suffice. FOW is a set of skirmish rules...why would they go over to Napoleonics and change it to grand tactical? WOuldn't that miss the point?

If you're worried about historically, there were more small engagements in the Napoleonic wars than I could count on my finbgers, that's for sure.