Scale?

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:01 pm

What is the scale of this game? Is it just like FoW WWII? A platoon is a platoon? Or is it a company is a "platoon"?

I am sorta confused. Question

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:44 am

I still havn't had time to read all the rules here but I think they scale they want is company/battalion level.

The game I wrote- which you can dled is based on the FOW System- but you buy Battalions not Platoons, 1 stand rather then representing a Team equals a platoon (so 30-50 guys) while 2 stands rather then representing a squad reps a company, and 6-8+ stands represents a Battalion. With a Command Stand or 'Colonel' per battalion.

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:21 pm

BenS wrote:

I still havn't had time to read all the rules here but I think they scale they want is company/battalion level.

Umm...where are the core rules? Embarassed

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:27 pm

DwarfMan1 wrote:

BenS wrote:

I still havn't had time to read all the rules here but I think they scale they want is company/battalion level.

Umm...where are the core rules? Embarassed

Ohh silly me - there they are at the top of the page. Idea

Joined: 16 Jul 2007 Posts: 16

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.

Site Admin Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 174

Personally, My desire would be to see a 1500 pt game as a Corps.

Larger games on larger tables could be at the Army level (2000-3000-etc.).

Similarly, smaller games (600-750 pt battles) for beginners & smaller armies/tables could be at the Divisional level.

Joined: 27 Apr 2007 Posts: 3

Sharpe wrote:

The smaller scale offers more detail but historically I don't know how often Brigades and Divisions operated alone.

Quite often, actually, usually as security forces (advanced guard, rear guard, flank security). Of course, the types of forces that typically did those missions would be limited more towards light infantry and cavalry.

The problem with trying to game Napoleonics at this scale is a lack of resources. There are very few accounts of combat at this level. Mostly, you just have accounts of the major battles.

Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 34 Location: Sylvania, OHIO

Perhaps we should go to the basics and have it as a company based game? This gets us into the realm of skirmishing at its basic level. Now having said that, it may also be good to have an expanding capability to bring it up to a higher level of game.

My thinking is that you have a certain amount of figures on the table and what you call them (Especially when they fail the morale test you so desperately need) is in line of what level of game you are working on...be it company, division, corps, or army.

Just my 2 nickels worth...

Steve

Site Admin Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 174

Company level isn't where I envisioned it going and always figured that'd be a good use of my 28mm Napoleonics, but I'm willing to give it a go ... especially after having spoken to you ... well, I guess I didn't actually speak much. It was more like listening to a sleep deprived caffine powered information download ... but it was a very well executed one and was chocked full of cool ideas. Smile

Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 34 Location: Sylvania, OHIO

Those moments are common for me, the caffine and sleep deprived condition that is, not the information with good ideas part. Rolling Eyes

Steve

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

It strikes me that the question of scale is a vital starting point. For myself, I got into Napoleonics on the back of Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe, as did a lot of others. Most of the stuff from the books or the films is at a skirmish level, usually with a climactic Big Battle.

Now, I just don't know that FOW is a great skirmish ruleset. Maybe I'm wrong, given that even for WW2, a reinforced Company is a skirmishing force. I feel that, for the Nappy Period, FOW would be better operating at a higher level. (Besides, as someone else said, I've got my 25mm Nappies for that ! Laughing

Thinking of using a converted set of LOTR rules for skirmish stuff.) (And my 6mm for when I do Waterloo, One Far Off Day!)

So where should NapoFOW sit? For my money, operating a Division would feel about right, with supporting Horse & Guns attatched. So in FOW terms, the Company Command becomes the Divisional General, the platoons are brigades/regiments(for French and others for whom a Regiment is a battlefield formation, not an administrative one.) and sections are battalions, made up of around 400-800 men (depending on Nation/period/losses etc.). To make life easy, make an element/team equal to 100 bayonets or sabres, so a weak battalion has 4 teams, and a strong one has 8. So a standard British Army Brigade would have 2 Battalions, each of 6 teams.(Give or take, depending on unit strength.) 2 or more Brigades to make up a division, and then attach a brigade or Regiment of Cavalry, and a Battery of guns, and you are good to go.

Skirmishers present more of a problem. I believe that they are too much of an important feature of Napoleonic warfare to merely brush over, and say "Oh, they are out there, doing stuff, and then just fading away again." That smacks of a cop out. The skirmishers integral to MOST battalions usually amount to only 40 to 120 men (dependant on nationality, company size, etc. A weak British company could be as low as 40, and a full strength French company was around 120), so having battalion level skirmish screen is probably unworkable. Having skirmishers attached to Brigade/Regimental level gives better numbers, and from a British player's standpoint, lets them have a Rifles team/element (Most Rifles companies were usually close to full strength of 100 men.) So, to our British Army Brigade, add 1 Rifles (95th or 5/60th) and 1 or 2 Light Infantry Teams (1 of the 10 companies making up a battalion was a Light Company, 40-100 men strong). For the Frogs, each Battalion has 6 Companies, with 1 Voltigeur (Light) Company of 80 - 120 men, so add 2-4 Light Infantry Teams to a Regiment, depending on the number of Battalions with the Regiment. No rifles though. Napoleon disliked rifles: "Mon-Deu, too slow!"

It would seem that by the end of the Napoleonic Wars, extra companies were being at least semi-trained, and told off to skirmishing duties. (This is at least the case in the British Army, which is kinda my forte!) Grenadier Companies seem to have been first, then Line Companies. Perhaps there is scope in army lists to increase the number of Light Infantry Teams in a Brigade, and decrease the number of Line Infantry stands?

By the by, I believe that it is better to have the battalion as the lowest level of command in this period. The term 'Company' varies wildly in size and strength from nation to nation, whereas Battalions are normally a SIMILAR size (around 600 men on campaign) and usually have a similar meaning from nation to nation.

What do people think?

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

First of all, Welcome, and thanks for participating.

Quote:

By the by, I believe that it is better to have the battalion as the lowest level of command in this period. The term 'Company' varies wildly in size and strength from nation to nation, whereas Battalions are normally a SIMILAR size (around 600 men on campaign) and usually have a similar meaning from nation to nation.

I also think the smallest command element should be the battalion. The trick will be to figure out how to break it up onto multiple stands that aren't companies that give us the flexibility to change formations.

Don

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

I agree completely. So, what formations do we have to represent, that actually have an impact on gameplay?

Remembering that I envisage the player as at least a Divisional General:
* Generals give orders to their Brigades/Regiments, not their battalions and companies. So such minutae as forming square should not need to be ordered, but should be ordered at the battalion level upon the appearence of Cav. Maybe a skill roll? And if it LOOKS like a square, it probably is... this is a game of toy soldiers, after all! Very Happy

*Individual companies don't really need to be modelled, apart from an aesthetic viewpoint. The Divisional General does not need to know that No.2 company of the 58th Foot has just lost 10 men. He wants to see if the 58th Foot is standing firm, or running like girls. The only companies that have a wider effect at this scale is the Light Bobs, 'cos they are operating outside of the normal line of battle. So amalgamate these guys at the Brigade/Regimental level, and treat them as a seperate unit. (and watch them run like girls when the Columns approach, the Eagles soaring above them, Pas du Charge beating on the drums and a thousand throats bullroaring "Vive L'Empourer".... opps, carried away again!)

*Generals would order attack and defence formations, such as columns of companies, mixed order, line, etc. But most troops would be able to do these formations with little impact.... but will they STAND? Will they push forward, or will they run like..... oh, you get the idea!

So, I would assume that an Attack column is at least 2x2 stands, or up to 4 wide x 2 deep, using the extra depth as support for morale and in melee. Line is one stand deep, regardless of nationality. (There has been a lot of talk lately that ascribes British victories not to weight of fire from a 2 rank line, versus a 3 rank line or deeper column, but more to the TIMING of 1 or 2 volleys, followed up by a counter-charge through the smoke at a disorganised & surprised enemy, Officers and NCO's hit through effective Light Infantry work, shaken by the volley(ies) and caught trying to redeploy into line to return fire...) Square is whatever looks like a square with the stands that you have left... even 2 stands back to back! One stand left in a unit would not be able to form square... to few guys! Also, only the front rank stand could fire to it's LOS, regardless of formation. (Of course squares can shoot... it's kinda part of the theory!)

Cavalry melee in Line, but could march in column.

So, 100 men/team, rounding up? And points for 4-8 teams in most battalions?

Joined: 10 May 2007 Posts: 34 Location: NZ

I think the regt. & brigade is the smallest size that should be used, that was the main tactical unit for most of the Napoleonic wars. Sure they varied in size and occasionally battalions & companies were hived off for specific purposes but the standard tactical formation was a collection of battalions & not individual battalions. From an aesthetic POV battalion sized games usually seem to end up with lots of small units on the table, & for me the mass spectacle is one of my desired outcomes. In my experience the players usually want to be corp commanders as they tend to be the best known characters from that period.....

cheers,

Evan

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

Hi Evan.

I totally get where you are coming from, and having seen the pics of your figures, I know you have the aesthetic stuff TOTALLY sorted!

Do you see a role for Light Infantry/Rifles at that level? I know that Shako , when it plays at that level, dispenses with skirmishers, and has a Divisional Skirmisher Ratio? or factors it in somehow. I just think that the Light Infantry battle is too important in the period to abstract away. If it was not so important, why did the number of skirmishers deployed in most if not all armies during the period just keep on rising?