Scale?

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

Evan wrote:

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

A few questions if you please, Evan. Referring back to your excellent figures in the Gallery(http://forumnapofow.free.fr/viewtopic.php?t=186), your base unit is the regiment, composed (in the case of the French) of 3 battalions for a total of 36 figures (or 6 medium bases). You describe the overstrength Austrian regiments needing maybe 10 medium bases. How do you handle British regiments, that in the field were typically comprised of single battalions? Would a regiment be 12 figures on two bases, or would you still group three "regiments" together as your Standard Unit?

I just got some AB Russians---- they are tremendous---- and I have a question about basing them using your standard. I have regular musketeers and grenadiers. Should I mix them on a single stand, maybe with the grenadiers to the rear, or should I place them separately on their own stands? And if I do it that way, what ratio of musketeers to grens should I use?

Thanks,
Don

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

I'd be guessing that Brits would be best done, at that scale, as a Brigade, but done in the colours of 1 battalion in that Brigade. Otherwise, you are right back with lots of Officers, standards, etc. But I am just guessing, and would love to hear from the man himself.........

Joined: 10 May 2007 Posts: 34 Location: NZ

The British just swap "Brigade" instead of "Regiment" - Brigades can be bigger again, for example two French regiments with the equivalent of two or three battalions (4-6 bases each) would be a Brigade command. Most British troops fought in a brigade structure of about 4 battalions.

My Russians (my other army under construction) follows the Russian organisation from Borodino where each infantry division had 4 regts (each regt. of two battalions for 4 bases each) of musketeers & two regiments of Jager, each pair of regiments formed a brigade - three brigades with two of Musketeers & one of Jager. So each brigade equals 8 bases, or you can use them as individual regiments at 4 bases each if you prefer. Grenadier divisions are the same but Guard Grenadier regiments have three battalion with 6 bases instead of 4.

At my club we include the British riflemen as an add on to a British brigade - about two bases worth. Sometimes they fought as a formed unit as at Waterloo. Light infantry/skirmishers we just consider as part of the tactics of the period so everybody uses them and therefore when the smallest units are regiments or brigades we don't bother to represent them.

My Russian musketeer regiments are done with 4 bases (two medium & one artillery base) with one base of 6 Grenadier figures - same for the jager regiments as they become Carabiniers then.

I just passed the 1000th painted figure mark...yay for me!

cheers,

Evan

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

Evan wrote:

Quote:

I just passed the 1000th painted figure mark...yay for me!

Is that 1000th Napoleonic figure, or all wargame figures? I, myself, have well over 1000 figures of all types, and when I finish painting the next one I will have passed the............one completed mark. Rolling Eyes

But hey, they are almost all primed. That should count for something. Wink

Anyway, CONGRATS on 1000!

Don

Joined: 10 May 2007 Posts: 34 Location: NZ

The 1000th Napoleonic figure Cool

.....if I counted all the others my head would implode Shocked

cheers,

Evan

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

Evan wrote:

The 1000th Napoleonic figure Cool

.....if I counted all the others my head would implode Shocked

cheers,

Evan

To quote that great philosopher, John Lennon: "I'm just a jealous guy...."

Ok, I have been doing some quick calculations, and some sketches on scraps of paper.....

Unit Scale

Here is somewhere where I think that consensus is essential. From my extensive poking around the forum, I suspect that 1:25 figure scale might be acceptable to MOST people. (Pleasing everyone is a pointless aim!) So for a 600 man Battalion on campaign (say!) that is 24 Little Lead Men. If put 8 to a Medium FOW base, that is 3 Bases to a Battalion, with each base being 200 men. (I'll use the Brits & French as examples, 'cos I know them best!) So each base represents around 3 British Companies or 2 French companies... ish! I feel that it is pointless trying to hone this scale down to individual companies too much, for that way lies madness!

Once we assume that each base = 200 men, it ceases to matter how many ACTUAL figures are on the base. So maybe 2 line doctrine armies are based 8 to a medium stand, two ranks, long edge forward. 3 line doctrine armies are 9 to a medium stand, three ranks, short edge forward. Mind you, having set 1 "team"(to use the FOW standard) = 200 men, if players amongst themselves want to put 3 figures on a small base... whatever, so long as the basing is consistant, it won't matter.

Now, taking Evans lead, if we then take the game up to the next level, and have our units as Brigades, then we have about 6-12 stands per Brigade... and if you feel like dressing up one of your 3 stands per battalion with flags and Officers, knock yourself out... the mounted officer and staff in the centre represent your Brigade General. The rest are just counted as soldiers. By the by, for this period I don't think we should assume the Brigade, Divisional or Corps commanders stands would be
doing a lot of actual fighting. Might get one's uniform grubby, and that just wouldn't do!

So, in FOW terms, we now have say:

1st (Guards) Brigade at Waterloo

1x Brigade Command Team
10 x Guards Infantry Teams (2 battalions of 1000-ish men (5 teams) each.)

Now, skirmishers... back to that 1:25 figure scale! We really don't want to make these guys too powerful, they should be more of a pain to attackers than anything else... the main point of skirmishers is to counter other skirmishers or to utilise rough ground. If based 2 figures to a small FOW base, and representing 50 men, that should make it flexible enough to cover most nations. Give musket armed skirmishers a shorter range & higher ROF, and rifle armed chaps a longer range, and ROF of 1, that should balance them out. To model their screening effect, they cannot be fired through by either side (Except maybe by cannon?), but will absorb musketry (A good volley should put a dent in them!). I would assume that they would not engage in melee, but would fade back to their parent units for the main fight, joining in the unit volley. (Except for those lazy riflemen... too busy taking Eagles, or nubile young women.... Laughing

) Maybe for gameplay, they are out the front skirmishing until the enemy gets within 1 move of contact, then they are taken off the board (absorbed back into their unit)? The loss of a skirmisher or two should not effect the morale of the parent unit... dying is what skirmishers get paid for! But if you can win the Light Infantry battle, you might get some sharpshooting in on the enemy's line. Skirmisher hits SHOULD be bad for morale, as they are trained to hit Officers/NCO's etc.

So, in what desperately needs a summary: the Guards Brigade get 4 x Light Company Teams (100 men per battalion).

Well enough of my rambles... what do we think?

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

Anybody had a chance to mull this over yet?

Or have Battlefront made a decision that will render all of our thoughts irrelevant.... 'cos that would be easier!

Evan, do you know what Phil Yates is thinking/planning. Or would you have to kill us if you told us?

Joined: 16 Jul 2007 Posts: 16

Evan,

A couple of British questions:

1) Are you using "full" size or average number of troops as the basis for number of bases in a regiment (or brigade?) ie. the theoretical size of a British battalion was 1,000 men but in the field they were normally 500.

2) Specifically. What would a British Brigade look like in this basing system?

3) Would British Riflemen and Lights be best represented as their own stand (you mentioned a stand or two) or spread out over the entire brigades stands?

4) Would British cavalry units be smaller in number of bases?

Thanks.

Joined: 10 May 2007 Posts: 34 Location: NZ

First off, "our" ruleset is being developed by some friends (& me) at my local club - these rules have no connection to Battlefront other than I work there- Napoleonics is my hobby & has been for many years at varying levels of interest Cool

1) We're using a sort of fudged scale that doesn't stick to an exact fixed size but two medium bases, a battalion, covers around 500- 700 troops in real life...loosely Cool

2) you have a choice, either a group of about 8 bases (4 battalions in a normal brigade) that look like one battalion with one command group, or you could break it up by putting in a couple of bases of say a Scots battalion & the rest normal line troops with the whole thing ending up with two command groups - in the end it's the number of bases that is important, not what they are.

3)AFAIK The light regiments were mostly brigaded together in one division in the Pennisular so a complete 8 base brigade would work....or if you liked you could do the same trick as the Scots example in the previous question. As for the riflemen that would defintaly go best IMHO as a two base battalion incorporated into a brigade sized unit.

4) Cavalry use a similar sliding scale based on the number of squadrons - forget what it was at the moment... Embarassed

hope that helps somewhat, when we've got a presentable set I'll try & get it posted up here for people to look at.

cheers,

Evan

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

Tadpoleon Blownapart wrote:

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

I have been doing some thinking, and beyond OOB's and scenarios, for the purposes of game development, Steve is exactly right. In FOW terms: We have Infantry teams, Skirmisher Teams, Artillery Teams, Cavalry Teams and Command Teams. They are all rated in the FOW Stat Style. The actual allocation of Teams to Commanders, and Artillery ratios can be left to another day, once the rest has been sorted. It would work better if both armies were thought of as playing at the same level of command, but it may even not need that.....

My head hurts.................

Site Admin Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 174

First off, I apologize for being somewhat absent from this discussion. There are a couple of reasons; one being that fending off spammers is taking up most of my forum time; the other being that I just wanted to let you guys chat amongst yourselves a bit (sometimes I worry that I dominate the discussions too much and I don't want to do that).

Anyway, not having a lot of time to go back and re-read many of these posts (or else I won't have time to write anything again), I did want to comment on a couple of things that I've been brewing around in my mind for awhile.

I have felt that aside from being weary of deleting spammer accounts that I had reached a point where I needed to either DO something or simply keep quiet. No point in rambling on and on when I've not put any of it into action. That being said, I spent all last weekend rebasing my entire British army into a new scheme (inspired by Evan's) and plan to have my French army rebased the same this week.

Once the flocking is on, I'll post some pictures so that you guys can see and discuss what I'm personally envisioning in this question of scale. Following the rebasing, I'll not be waiting for my usual Napoleonic opponents (who I've not been able to get any games in with at all) and will be dragging people in off the street and forcing them to play at musket point, if necessary. ... ok, that's an exageration, but its not far from off from how much I feel something needs to be DONE as opposed to talked about at this point.

--------------------

I have been very much impressed and inspired by what Evan has shown us with his own Napoleonics. Evan, I've not done a direct copy of what you guys are doing with your basing, but have instead gone with something between that and what I'd originally posted in diagrams awhile back. My collection just won't support 24 figures per brigade/regiment. I'd loose too many figures to partial units and would be lucky to pull off a small division.

24 figures per regiment/brigade seems like a cool ideal (and I like how its based visually as a battalion), but I'm not confident that the average hobbyist could manage it. For the record, I don't/can't paint 15mm Napoleonic figures. I do some 25's and I paint 15mm WWII, but I've tried and just don't seem to be able to enjoy painting turnbacks and cuffs at that scale. I also wonder at the number of figures that would be required to purchase in order to field a corps with 24 figures per regiment/brigade. My estimates make it a bit more than what is required for the standard Flames of War game and I worry about the accessibility question again.

So, as a result, I have brigades of 16 figures on four medium bases - based like your larger regiments. I didn't have any large bases (and didn't want to wait any longer), so rather than one large base and two medium bases, I just went with four mediums (and now I have to restock on bases in order to work on my Soviet Naval Infantry Battalion). It seems to work fine and I was able to use all of my figures. Once I acquire three more mounted officers to represent Division Command Bases, I think the Brits will be all set. I may need some more artillery though. I'm not sure yet.

The army shapes up as two divisions of four foot brigades (4 bases of 4 figures = 16 figures each) and a divsion of two brigades (I did a brigade of guards and a brigade of rifles) along with a division of two regiments of cavalry (8 figures on four bases) and two divisional batteries (two guns each on a medium base per division). I have more cavalry, but I'm out of guns and out of officers. To my eye, it looks like a manageable sized force to contend with on a table. It feels like a 1500 pt Flames of War army. I can see a single division with support as equivalent to a 600 pt game and an Army Wing of a couple of Corps as a larger 2000+ pt game equivalent.

--------------------

I also have been inspired by the Sharpe's series and appreciate the comments made in that regard too. I've also been wrestling with the idea of scale from a British players perspective and hoping to see skirmshers playing some role on the tabletop. I think this compromise between what I'd originally envisioned and what Evan and his friends are doing has resulted in an answer to that - possibly.

What I ended up with was four bases of rifles with four figures apiece that I can either concentrate into a brigade or can split up in single bases to represent individual brigades deploying their allotment of skirmishers in front of them. I also modeled four of my foot brigades with two riflemen on the left flank where the light companies would be. I was happy to be able to use all my riflemen where I normally just had too many of them.

--------------------

In particular I want to get the pictures of my two Highlander brigades up. I'm most proud of them as they're a little bit larger models than my normal foot, guards and rifle figures, so they fill the bases up more like AB figures do), and they've got painted tartans and lots of bagpipes & drums, etc. that make em look kind of cool.

Ultimately, I'm kind of feeling like - while I'm impressed by the achievement as well as the unquestioned talent & skill that went into it - that 1000 figures is on the high end of what most players would ever attain and admit that my mere 200 figures might be on the low end. I'd like to see our eventual product as something accessible to the beginner in the Napoleonic period without requiring a pile of figures that is utterly daunting.

I still do think that a Corps is a good place to go for a standard game size. I don't mind at all pushing around battalions, but I think companies are a bit small. I've never heard of any Napoleonic operations (aside from focusing in on pickets, skirmishers and the like - (which I enjoy with my 25mm figures) smaller than a division (and even that seems rare). I do like the idea of pushing around Brigades though, where they seem to be equivalent to A FoW section and Divisions as equivalent to a FoW Platoon and a Corps as equivalent to a FoW Company and an Army Wing as the larger Battalion sized FoW game equivalent. I see a place for Divisional level games as well as Army Wing level games; but the bread and butter, in my mind, would seem to focus around the Corps level ... hopefully without loosing the detail of skirmishers all together, if possible.

--------------------

I hope all of this makes sense and realize I've rambled on for quite some time now. I apologize if any of this incoherent, confusing or nothing more than "random thoughts from a really tired mind" (to borrow a line from Tadpoleon Blownapart - hope you don't mind, Steve). Feel free to pick it apart (just be kind, please) or comment piece-meal. I admit that I'm an island in a desert of Napoleonic wargaming and so my own perspective may very likely not be from wargamers in general, but wanted to run my banner up the flagpole, so to speak.

Joined: 26 Jan 2008 Posts: 23

I am in the midst of basing and painting some Austrians which I am putting together by copying Evan's style of basing.

The ACW game I was working on had basically the same type of basing system.

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

Dillingham wrote:

Quote:

I hope all of this makes sense and realize I've rambled on for quite some time now.

Not really rambled (have you been getting enough sleep?), but you did say a mouthfull. I read your post early this morning and it has taken me all day to digest it. I would like to make a few comments. First......

Quote:

First off, I apologize for being somewhat absent from this discussion. There are a couple of reasons; one being that fending off spammers is taking up most of my forum time; the other being that I just wanted to let you guys chat amongst yourselves a bit (sometimes I worry that I dominate the discussions too much and I don't want to do that).

......let me thank you on behalf of all the forum members for all your efforts and, dare I say it, Dilligence in dealing with the spammers. Their attacks have been relentless lately, and I know they are distracting to you. (Looks like you axed about 50 in one fell swoop.) Thanks, and know your attentions do not go unnoticed. And second, your input is always welcome. Don't ever think you are posting too much. (And that goes for the rest of you out there as well---- discussion breeds discussion. All you lurkers, start posting.) You've kept the interest up in this forum through some lean times, and it is because people value your opinion.

Then you wrote:

Quote:

.....but have instead gone with something between that and what I'd originally posted in diagrams awhile back. My collection just won't support 24 figures per brigade/regiment. I'd loose too many figures to partial units and would be lucky to pull off a small division.
So, as a result, I have brigades of 16 figures on four medium bases - based like your larger regiments. I didn't have any large bases (and didn't want to wait any longer), so rather than one large base and two medium bases, I just went with four mediums (and now I have to restock on bases in order to work on my Soviet Naval Infantry Battalion). It seems to work fine and I was able to use all of my figures.
The army shapes up as two divisions of four foot brigades (4 bases of 4 figures = 16 figures each) and a divsion of two brigades (I did a brigade of guards and a brigade of rifles) along with a division of two regiments of cavalry (8 figures on four bases) and two divisional batteries (two guns each on a medium base per division). I have more cavalry, but I'm out of guns and out of officers. To my eye, it looks like a manageable sized force to contend with on a table. It feels like a 1500 pt Flames of War army. I can see a single division with support as equivalent to a 600 pt game and an Army Wing of a couple of Corps as a larger 2000+ pt game equivalent.
What I ended up with was four bases of rifles with four figures apiece that I can either concentrate into a brigade or can split up in single bases to represent individual brigades deploying their allotment of skirmishers in front of them. I also modeled four of my foot brigades with two riflemen on the left flank where the light companies would be. I was happy to be able to use all my riflemen where I normally just had too many of them.

Ok, Ok, maybe you are rambling just a little. Wink

I've read through this a few times now, and comparing it to Evan's posts and the polls, it seems there are too many scale and basing formats that people want to use. Now I know I can't be the first person to have this epiphany, but it dawned on me that all we are really doing is playing bases against bases. It doesn't matter what the base is supposed to represent, be it company, battalion, or regiment, as long as you play company vs company, battalion vs battalion, or regiment vs regiment. The mechanics of the gameplay would be the same---- we are only dealing with musketry, cavalry charges, and artillery fire. You wouldn't even have to change movement allowance or ranges. In fact, the larger the scale you adopt, the more realistic the distances and ranges become. FOW has sliding distance rules, why not sliding scales. It would allow newcomers to the hobby to start off with a more manageable initial investment.

Quote:

I didn't have any large bases (and didn't want to wait any longer), so rather than one large base and two medium bases, I just went with four mediums (and now I have to restock on bases in order to work on my Soviet Naval Infantry Battalion).

Bases, bases, bases....... I can't get over how some of you are hung up on FOW bases. Rolling Eyes

They are just pieces of plastic. Do you know how many bases you can make from a single sheet of .040" styrene---- dozens! And if you want to make a base that is two large bases deep or three medium bases wide...... No problem! (I have some bases I made that are 1/3rd of a large base.)

Well, I've rambled on enough now. Let me know if I made any sense at all.

Don

Joined: 26 Jan 2008 Posts: 23

Quote:

Ok, Ok, maybe you are rambling just a little. I've read through this a few times now, and comparing it to Evan's posts and the polls, it seems there are too many scale and basing formats that people want to use. Now I know I can't be the first person to have this epiphany, but it dawned on me that all we are really doing is playing bases against bases. It doesn't matter what the base is supposed to represent, be it company, battalion, or regiment, as long as you play company vs company, battalion vs battalion, or regiment vs regiment. The mechanics of the gameplay would be the same---- we are only dealing with musketry, cavalry charges, and artillery fire. You wouldn't even have to change movement allowance or ranges. In fact, the larger the scale you adopt, the more realistic the distances and ranges become. FOW has sliding distance rules, why not sliding scales. It would allow newcomers to the hobby to start off with a more manageable initial investment.

I can't agree with that enough, it really doesn't matter what organization it is it all plays the same. That is why I will often refer to units while talking about the intricasies of game design not Platoons or Companies or so forth.

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

Like I said, I'm sure plenty of others have had this idea before me, but for some reason while reading Dillingham's post, it just clicked. It allows you to play more detailed small engagements as well as the huge battles. I gotta start making more bases.

Don