Some questions and statements which may or may not help...

Joined: 26 Jan 2008 Posts: 23

First off let me say that I appreciate the work that those people who are responsible for this put into it. I feel that not enough credit goes to those of us who create something like this out of the love of doing it because those who do not or haven't worked on such a project fail to understand almost universally the effort that goes into it.

Second, and this may be my own fault but I am somewhat confused as to what exactly the forum/site is all about. I understand that it is about a Napoleonics Flames of War hybrid system which I am all for. However, is the purpose to merely host rulesets that people have created or is it to attempt to standardize a ruleset that everyone is comfortable with?

For example I have some ideas I could throw out but I have limited knowledge of the period specifics such as unit sizes and formations and what they mean exactly. I am taking steps to correct that but in the time in between who is "heading up" the collection of ideas and rules and jotting them down for example?

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

Glad to have you join us, Templar. And no, you are not at fault for being confused. One of the paralyzing factors of this forum is we are not sure ourselves of our direction and purpose. I would venture that most of us came here from the FOW site, some already familiar with Napoleonics, while others completely new to the genre. Whatever the case, I think we are all looking for a rule-set that is the proper mix of authenticity and playability---- the mix that first attracted us to FOW. I also believe we are all hoping BF tackles Napoleonics as its new format, though we aren't sure when this might happen. (This is a no-brainer as we are, after all, NapoFOW.) Unfortunately, this uncertainty is another reason for our paralysis---- who wants to put in a lot of effort writing rules or basing figures to find they are incompatible with the BF product?

So this is where we are. My vision of this website is, while still hoping for intervention by the guys at BF, that we try to iron out what we all want from a Napoleonic game. We have started some good discussions on these subjects, and while many have petered out, there are a few that still attract comment. I have put one poll up already, and plan to create more in the near future. The more data we collect, the better we will know the direction we wish to take. And if BF should tackle Napoleonics, they will at least know what we expect in a game. If they do not, at least we will be in a better position to do the job ourselves.

So again Templar, I say welcome. Please contribute whatever you are comfortable with and do not worry that you are not a Napoleonic scholar. No one here will make fun of or ridicule you. (We are not TMP, after all. Wink

) If you have any friends you think might have an interest, please encourage them to join. The more activity here, the better. Enthusiasm begets enthusiasm.

Don

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:45 am

I totally agre with Dion. Maybe a setrules could be writen in sometimes

Site Admin Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 174

Welcome, Templar.
I can certainly appreciate your comments above.

In my mind, this is kind of an open-source forum for drawing together that Napoleonic hybrid of Flames of War ... specifically to bring what FoW brought to the WWII realm also to the Napoleonic realm - which I think would be accessibility, playability and fun.

I personally wanted to encourage anyone who'd already designed anything in whole or in part to contribute so that we all might benefit from playtesting it. I personally think that the hurdle we've not gotten over is specifically the lack of playtesting results and feedback ... which, in part, I think is due to the concern about basing. I think everyone is hesitant to invest a chunk of time and figures to a basing schematic that may or may not be the direction that everyone else is going.

I would encourage you to contribute your thoughts and insights to the process as you are comfortable. I personally value novice and journeyman input as much as I do old grognard input ... specifically because of that mission of making this genre more accessible to a much wider audience. New and uninitiated (but sincerely interested) voices need to be heard from to help temper the voices of the old standards.