Why Does Everyone Hate Napoleonics?
Christopher TenWolde
interest - it was a fascination with this period that introduced me to
miniature wargaming, and I continue to believe that it has the
potential to be one of the most colorful and diverse periods available
for gaming. My convention games, for instance, are usually aimed at
drawing people into the period with big battles on beautiful terrain.
Also, like almost everyone, I am of course working on my own home
rules!
That being said... should we be thinking about why such a large
segment of the hobby views the period with an aversion akin to abject
horror? It was the results of the most recent The Miniatures Page
"Least Favorite Period" Poll that prompted this message, but I've
thought for years now that Napoleonics has somehow cast itself as the
paradoxical problem-child of wargaming: a period just too bothersome
to deal with, no matter how attractive it may appear at first glance.
Now, I know every period has its detractors; ancients have the WRG/DBA
debate, WWII has the tech-head issue, and so on, but I have never seen
so many people "just say no" to a period as to Napoleonics. The most
common complaints seem to be ones that are common to *all* periods:
the rules are too complicated, the gamers focused on the period are
too close-minded and pedantic. True enough, but as we know true of
other periods as well.
Is the real problem that the period simply has not inspired a "way of
gaming" that is popular and enjoyable? It is true that there is an
aversion to "popular" rules amongst the core of the period gamers that
seems oddly similar to an academic disdain of populist historical
analysis. What is your view of this? Have you stayed away from the
period because of the impression the typical rules sets have made on
you, or have you stayed away because there seems to be such a
bewildering array of detail to the period? The bottom line is - why
don't you think gaming in this period is any fun?
For instance, I have long thought that the most popular scale for
Napoleonic gaming, a "corp" sized game at 1:60 scale, is actually an
eminently ill-suited compromise for the period. It has just enough
abstraction to encourage endless debates over what representative
formations and maneuvers should be, and yet just enough detail to
inspire an often dismaying amount of lists and charts and trivia in
many rules. To top it off, most of the "big name" battles simply
can't be handled by such systems, so players are faced with compromise
right from the start, regardless of the fact that an enormous
investment in figures is required to game even at this level. Perhaps
rules should be aimed either at a lower level - say at the division or
brigade level - for those who want to delve into detailed maneuvers
and technical specifics, or at a higher "army" level, so that the
player is freed from most maneuver details and concentrates on command
and battle-fighting. These are just suggestions to hopefully start
the ball rolling on a civilized debate, but I'll be the first to admit
that I don't have an answer!
Regards,
Christopher TenWolde
Pockets
"Christopher TenWolde" <ca...@traverse.net> wrote in message
news:f27516c2.02112...@posting.google.com...
> Let me preface this by stating that Napoleonics are my main period of
> interest - it was a fascination with this period that introduced me to
> miniature wargaming, and I continue to believe that it has the
> potential to be one of the most colorful and diverse periods available
> for gaming. My convention games, for instance, are usually aimed at
> drawing people into the period with big battles on beautiful terrain.
> Also, like almost everyone, I am of course working on my own home
> rules!
I suppose its a serious lack of sexy epic action/adventures stories and
films as a kid. IIRC as a kid all we had was Hornblower! And Waterloo, and
it was Zulu that was on every Xmass. The American Civil War had a plethora
of films/books/etc comming over from the states. Earlier and later ages
covered in film/tv etc because small scale skirmishes are far less costly to
cover. Book readers amongst gamers i knew mainly had their heads burried in
Tolkein or Classic Sci-Fi (but i'm from a skewered demographic). Maybe the
new generation of players comming through with 'Sharpe' may be more
exposed/inspired by the period. But appart from Sharpe and the Hornblower TV
series, again things have come to a stop. 2-3 examples do not a movement
generate!
My example
I come from a role play background. Games wise i play, Its Sci-fi ground &
Fleet actions, WW2, American Civil War, are what i play and i have an
interest in dark ages/fantasy. I grew up on Star Trek, Star wars, Classic
Pulp Sci-Fi, British war movies, Dads army, Comando Comics, American Wild
west and civil war movies. Sword and Sandle classics and the Rosmary
Sutchcliff (sp?) dark ages novels.
NO Napolionics in there at all! Why not? Just not out there.
>
> That being said... should we be thinking about why such a large
> segment of the hobby views the period with an aversion akin to abject
> horror? It was the results of the most recent The Miniatures Page
> "Least Favorite Period" Poll that prompted this message, but I've
> thought for years now that Napoleonics has somehow cast itself as the
> paradoxical problem-child of wargaming: a period just too bothersome
> to deal with, no matter how attractive it may appear at first glance.
>
> Now, I know every period has its detractors; ancients have the WRG/DBA
> debate, WWII has the tech-head issue, and so on, but I have never seen
> so many people "just say no" to a period as to Napoleonics. The most
> common complaints seem to be ones that are common to *all* periods:
> the rules are too complicated, the gamers focused on the period are
> too close-minded and pedantic. True enough, but as we know true of
> other periods as well.
The plethora of uniforms specific to regiments, people to willing to pick a
person up on this or that very fussy/minor detail error. Yes it seems to be
something commonly associated with 'Nappie' gamers and the older order of
gamers associated with Napoleonics. Other Genres have this too, but their
rep is of more flippant and less fussy .
>
> Is the real problem that the period simply has not inspired a "way of
> gaming" that is popular and enjoyable? It is true that there is an
> aversion to "popular" rules amongst the core of the period gamers that
> seems oddly similar to an academic disdain of populist historical
> analysis. What is your view of this?
Quite sure your right. I've always been of the opinion that most gamers have
in their minds eye only ONE perfect set of rules, The set of rules they will
'one day write'! SOme want gameplay, some want accuaracy to the 'Nth'
degree, some want a balance of the two. Trying to satify these 3 ideas is
hard enough, When the accuracy merchants cannot even agree on whats accurate
then what chance those who write the rules Then what level, Army? Corp?
Division? Operational? Skirmish?
Napoleonics has been starting to attract gamers of Late, Flintloque, Shako,
Fire and Fury versions have seemed to garner some interest around gamers
that i know. Before these rules, all that had been as a common reference
with the period was the WRG rules (even the initials used to send shudders
up and down the spines of most of my fellows, WRG were associated with the
overcomplex and burdensome rules with tables, sub tables etc)
> Have you stayed away from the
> period because of the impression the typical rules sets have made on
> you, or have you stayed away because there seems to be such a
> bewildering array of detail to the period? The bottom line is - why
> don't you think gaming in this period is any fun?
>
> For instance, I have long thought that the most popular scale for
> Napoleonic gaming, a "corp" sized game at 1:60 scale, is actually an
> eminently ill-suited compromise for the period. It has just enough
> abstraction to encourage endless debates over what representative
> formations and maneuvers should be, and yet just enough detail to
> inspire an often dismaying amount of lists and charts and trivia in
> many rules. To top it off, most of the "big name" battles simply
> can't be handled by such systems, so players are faced with compromise
> right from the start, regardless of the fact that an enormous
> investment in figures is required to game even at this level. Perhaps
> rules should be aimed either at a lower level - say at the division or
> brigade level - for those who want to delve into detailed maneuvers
> and technical specifics, or at a higher "army" level, so that the
> player is freed from most maneuver details and concentrates on command
> and battle-fighting. These are just suggestions to hopefully start
> the ball rolling on a civilized debate, but I'll be the first to admit
> that I don't have an answer!
>
> Regards,
>
> Christopher TenWolde
SO in summery
Lack of inspirational material in the public arena.
A poor rep for attracting the
A-R/trainspotter/nerd/semi-accademic-accurist-who's-always-right!
Rules with a 'reputation' for over-complexity
All sounds rather down i'm afraid.
How to turn it around?
encourage more insirational media
get out there and have 'fun' playing the games and not get 'stuck' on the
fussy detail
Push the playable rules that are out there.
Another Idea, Warhammer Napoleonics may be a worthwhile project for the
dedicated napoleonics players.
These are just ideas from a non-napoleonics player.
BTW, As a role player, i NEVER got superheros either, just never clicked
with me (or is that heroclix-ed?), never a great comic reader as a kid, and
much prefered Sci-Fi comics than american superhero comics anyway. ;0)
Clay Cooper
I tend to stay away from Napoleonic games nowadays myself, even
though I have armies for 4 of the 5 major powers sitting on the shelf
at home and this era used to be my personal favorite too. I think
that many gamers just got burned out and disgusted with the many
difficult to learn rules sets and huge tabletop battles that seldom
ever got resolved before it was time to pick the figures up and go
home. It's hard to get new blood into the era because it just doesn't
seem to "connect" with many of the younger generation now, who
probably cut their teeth on Warhammer and are probably only looking
for a very similar historical era game system to try out. And as we
all know, Warhammer is not Napoleonics (perhaps somebody could or has
developed a Nappy version of Warhammer?!).
The color and beauty of the uniforms is unquestionable, that's
for sure - there is not a more visually impressive period to game.
The individual Napoleonic gamer seems to be very opinionated too,
I have noticed, myself included. I'm not sure if that's really all
that bad, but it does make it where it's difficult for the various
Nappy gamers to agree on what rules set they like the best. There are
more "self-proclaimed experts" in this period than any of the others.
The truth of the matter is that none of us knows exactly what it was
like to be on a battlefield in 1812. We are all just influenced in
various ways by what we read about the period.
Battle scale is a problem too. Some gamers like a more tactical
battle where skirmishers are deployed and are important. Some gamers
don't like to mess around with all of the skirmish companies and play
an abstract rules set that has the skirmisher effects factored into
the combat results. Some guys want to be Napoleon or maybe a corps
commander, and many are happy to just be a brigade or division
commander.
And then you have the figure ratios, ranging from 1 figure = 20
men all the way up to 1 figure = 120 men. Too many different ways to
simulate the warfare of the period, IMO, is keeping the interested
gamers fragmented to some extent.
More so than any other era of wargaming, this era seems to be
screaming out for some standardization in the rules and scales used,
but I just can't see that happening. "One rules set to rule them all,
and in darkness bind them..."
Clay
ca...@traverse.net (Christopher TenWolde) wrote in message news:<f27516c2.02112...@posting.google.com>...
Duncan MacLeod
news:df00baae.02112...@posting.google.com...
I hear what you're saying Clay. My French haven't been aired for about 9
months, we thought we'd settled onto Nap F&F, but some people aren't happy
and want to give Shako another try.
We've started to go for the look of the game, and then see what rules fit
out expectations. Its sooo costly to buy rules, try them for a while, and
then give up for various reasons. Double rank instead of single rank, no
casualty removal, can be played out in a night, simple enough for people to
understand after 2 hours of play.
Hmmm, perhaps rules manufacters could give away 'Lite' versions of their
rules?
Anyway, I wouldn't hold WRG/DBx as a good example. Competition breeds
innovation (tm Microsoft).
Duncan
John
"profengs" <prof...@ixpres.com> wrote in message news:3DE544DA...@ixpres.com...A couple of reasons why perple hate Napoleonics (Certainly not me!) is scale. You need hundreds of figures. Secondly, most rules favor the French or the British overwhelmingly, which do not permit for much initiative.Because of this, they do not take the time to understand the era and learn the systems that worked on all sides.
Tim
obscure periods
Tim
"Christopher TenWolde" <ca...@traverse.net> wrote in message
news:f27516c2.02112...@posting.google.com...
: Let me preface this by stating that Napoleonics are my main period of
Patrick Carroll
> I dislike Napoleonics simply because it's been over done. I prefer more
> obscure periods
That precisely sums up how I felt when I made my *first* (abortive) foray
into miniatures in 1972. At that time, my impression was that virtually all
miniatures wargamers were Napoleonics gamers, and virtually all board
wargamers were WWII gamers. So, fancying myself a maverick, I decided I'd
get into something other than those two periods (I chose ACW, which soon
became another popular period, followed by Ancients).
Btw, this thread now comes as a complete shock to me (I've been out of the
loop for a long time). I feel like Rip van Winkle, waking up to a bizarre
futuristic world where everything's topsy-turvy. It would've been
ridiculous for anyone to ask a question like this thirty years ago--although
the question Why does everyone *love* Napoleonics? would've been apropros.
--Patrick
Mike Hillsgrove
play than the actual Napoleonic Wars (like Empire). Indeed, Napoleonics is
a heavier draw than any other period at the club.
Napoleonics has several drawbacks. The massive number of figures required
is #1, the slant most rules have toward the French army making the period
difficult for those who don't actually have a French army, and a popular set
of rules. Also the American army doesn't make much of an appearence during
this war (for us yankeeophiles)..
The last may have been solved by Col Bill and his wonderfully amazing
freebie adaptation of F&F. The club played it 2 weeks ago and it seems to
have won popular acclaim.
Charles Reynolds
"Mike Hillsgrove" <mik...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> Well, what folks really want is a fun playable game that takes less time to
> play than the actual Napoleonic Wars (like Empire). Indeed, Napoleonics is
> a heavier draw than any other period at the club.
>
> Napoleonics has several drawbacks. The massive number of figures required
> is #1,
Curious. Have you had a look at Chipco's Le Petite Empereur [LPE]? Or,
the Chipco team is soon to release La Grande Armie - basically LPE
updated and expanded to include clearer army lists (and more) as well as
some rules allowing for ACW play as well. Of course, these may not
appeal to many because they're "rules light" with unstated figure,
ground and time ratios. The advantage is that they play as fast or
faster than DBA, DBM, HOTT and that ilk.
> the slant most rules have toward the French army making the period
> difficult for those who don't actually have a French army, and a popular set
> of rules.
I haven't encountered this. Then again, I've not had exposure to a great
many Nap rules sets. Most of what I've played are the "fast play" or
"rules light" or modifications of other games which were not originally
intended to represent the Napoleonic style of warfare.
My biggest beef with playing nappies are the other players who seem to
want to nitpick about how my armies are painted down to the proper
color, shade and tincture of uniforms for given units. This is
especially upsetting because I don't bother to paint specific units and
only utilize minor variances between whole unit TYPES (ie: regulars vs.
grenadiers). I don't have the time, patience or inclination to do the
exhaustive research necessary to create this level of detail; and,
frankly, it's not necessary to enjoy a good game.
Anyway, just my two cents.
__
Charles
TopcatNZ
Napoleonic by a guy who had thousands of painted Airfix figures. We had a
great game, with a simple set of rules. But I never saw him or his armies
again.
So I went along to the club, and started to talk to the Napoleonic players.
The group at the club were a snooty lot, and looked down on plastic figures,
To them Napoleonic was the best period to play, but they couldnt be bothered
introducing others. But the WW2 gamers encouraged others to join. I joined
them. (I then progressed to ACW)
Later on (a few years), the snooty buggers had drifted off to their own
club, but the occassional game was still played, and I was encouraged by a
friend to look at it again, but it seemed no two groups used the same set of
rules. I was not interested in learning a different set of rules for every
game.So my partially built Austrian army, never got finished, and it was
sold off.
So that was just my personal experience- initially stupid snobery, and then
later the impression that it was controlled by a bunch of individuals who
didnt want to play together. Neither encouraged me to pick it up.
Snebjørn Andersen
15-year break....
/Snebjørn
Martin Rapier
> Is the real problem that the period simply has not inspired a "way of
> gaming" that is popular and enjoyable? It is true that there is an
> aversion to "popular" rules amongst the core of the period gamers that
> seems oddly similar to an academic disdain of populist historical
> analysis. What is your view of this? Have you stayed away from the
> period because of the impression the typical rules sets have made on
> you, or have you stayed away because there seems to be such a
> bewildering array of detail to the period? The bottom line is - why
> don't you think gaming in this period is any fun?
Personally I am a committed Napoleonics gamer, however I gave up on the
likes of WRG 1645-1850 (or whatever it ws called) many years ago. My
interests run to the meglomaniacal, so if I can't do an entire battle in an
evening I'm not interested. 'Battle' being a proper battle like Salamanca or
ideally Leipzig, rather than some corps sized skirmish.
There are a few sets of rules which cater to the meglomanical gamer but they
frequently require far too much space and far too many figures to make them
playable in a couple of hours. The only sets I'm really happy with these
days are Phil Barkers 'Horse, Foot & Guns', but if you hate DBA you'll hate
HF&G & Tim Gows 'A Wee Dram of Napoleon' which is essentially Megalitz
played with Napoleonics on division sized bases. Shako is OK but too
detailed for proper sized battles in a short period of time.
At these sorts of scales you are essentially playing a boardgame with toys &
you might as well just blag your favourite boardgame mechanisms to use
instead (eg. from one of the SPI Napoleonic quads, Dresden, or possibly the
expansion to AHGCs Waterloo or whatever) and it really doesn't matter how
figures you've got if what you are manouvering are division/corps sized
bases - it could be a few 25mm figs or a great mass of 6mm or 2mm figs (the
latter can look outstanding). 10-20 bases a side, a few grandiose gestures
'attack there',' defend there' whilst slurping a brandy/pint & that is
Napoleonic heaven. Not everyones cup of tea of course especially as it means
not worrying about all that boring detail about different tactical
formations etc - just factor it into the unit ratings, but it could be
argued that simply pushing great blocks of troops about without worrying too
much about tactics is exactly what Napoleonic gaming should be. Napoleon
never worried about tactics too much after all!
{snip}
> investment in figures is required to game even at this level. Perhaps
> rules should be aimed either at a lower level - say at the division or
> brigade level - for those who want to delve into detailed maneuvers
> and technical specifics, or at a higher "army" level, so that the
> player is freed from most maneuver details and concentrates on command
> and battle-fighting.
I quite agree. A quick look at WW2 rules shows a huge range of systems
available covering the smallest skirmish up to gigantic battles, but the
problem with many Napoleonic rules is that they can't make their mind up
what it is they are trying to represent. In fairness this applies to lots of
other rules e.g. a grand tactical set like Spearhead, designed to fight
divisional sized battles but worrying about minute differences in armour/gun
ratings etc.
Cheers
Martin
Matt Pavone
Napoleonic period in terms of its complexity, variety, detail, colorfulness,
etc. etc. etc.. some being very positive reasons for gaming the period,
other's being very negative reasons for gaming the period. However, to
draw the conclusion that "Everyone Hates Napoleonics" is a little off base.
Napoleonics are the Howard Stern of Miniature Wargaming. People either love
them or hate them, but EVERYONE has an opinion on them. I think this speaks
volumes to the fact that Napoleonics pretty much always have been and always
will be the number one or two period gamed (with Ancients being the other)
and certainly are the number one period discussed with more books, rulesets,
and available miniatures then just about any other period.
Besides, the poll in and of itself is missing the Napoleonic demographic.
We napoleonic gamers are far too busy researching, reading, building OOB's
and painting hundreds and thousands of figures to waste time surfing the net
participating in Polls ;-).
"Christopher TenWolde" <ca...@traverse.net> wrote in message
news:f27516c2.02112...@posting.google.com...
Mike Hillsgrove
> want to nitpick about how my armies are painted down to the proper
> color, shade and tincture of uniforms for given units.
Especially since rules made for Brigade level actions should NOT represent
specific units. In fact, in the days before colorfast dies and ridged mil
spec QC there would have been many shades of uniforms within any particular
unit. A few weeks of campaigning would have made it worse. For the most
part, niggleing over exact colors and shades is psuedo-intellectual dribble
with NO BASIS IN REALITY. There is also a distortion inherent in scale.
When folks do this I know that they've read too much and understood too
little.
My favorite games were Guarde du Corp, Napoleons Battles (played within the
spirit of the rules and military science). Neither seems popular any more.
The Bill Grey varient may become my favorite once I figure it out.
Once the problems in Napoleons Battles (induced by "win at all costs"
gamers) are fixed, I anticipate that this will become popular again.
Specifically disallow cooperation by troops under different commands to
prevent the dance of death, induce more command level confusion (for which
F&F is an ideal model), and perhaps a stronger focus on Army command
systems.
Quid Veritas
I love Napoleonics.
Trouble finding folks to game? Never.
Trouble finding folks to paint up figs -- OK always a problem.
However (limited comments on this one Marty -- I know, I know) -- the
best way to grow a Napoleonics group is with spray painters. -- Yup let
em use blue for french, dark blue for Prussians, red for brits etc.
Play some games -- Play lots of games. Small short games can be better
than large involved games for the newbie or the tepid gamer. Take some
time and talk about a few things each game (not a treatise at each
game). Grow the interest based on what the newbie is interested in --
not what you are interested in. If someone likes Brunswick try to do
some small actions involving the Brunswickers. Sometimes you have to
give a lot to get a little.
Let em use plastic or metal. 25mm, 20mm, HO, 28mm -- who cares? Pay
them to paint some figs for you -- if you don't like em you can always
sell them off later (this really works sometimes -- after they do a unit
for you they tend to show up with a couple of their own later on). Let
them paint with you -- use your paints and brushes. Make it easy. You
will develop some new friends and grow the group.
If you have trouble finding a game, best to look to yourself first. Try
to remember what got you going in the hobby. Reach out -- colleges are
full of students with limited budgets and nothing to do on the weekend.
mjc
Bob Jones
> interest - it was a fascination with this period that introduced me to
> miniature wargaming, and I continue to believe that it has the
> potential to be one of the most colorful and diverse periods available
> for gaming. My convention games, for instance, are usually aimed at
> drawing people into the period with big battles on beautiful terrain.
> Also, like almost everyone, I am of course working on my own home
> rules!
>
> That being said... should we be thinking about why such a large
> segment of the hobby views the period with an aversion akin to abject
> horror?
BJ: I,too, started with Napoleonics, and still find the history of the
period one of the most fascinating. I,too, have left it behind as a
regularly played period. Though I would agree with many of the
reasons offered(Snobbery, too complex rules, too many figures needed,
nit-picking of minute details of tactics and dress) I would add a few
others.
One is the strong tendency in present day wargaming to play only
skirmish rules. If you look closely at all of the Warhammer variants,
almost all WWII games including CDIII(though it would deny it), and
many of the "new" rules, the designs are essentially skirmish games
gussied up to superficially be "battle" games.
This allows basic simplicity, avoids nasty issues of army structure or
CnC, and as someone recounted can be learned in a couple of hours.
Skirmish games also need little in the way of the fog of war, and are
TOTALLY transparent to the gamers as they play. See figure, measure
distance, shoot figure. After a couple of hours(if that) if I note
that I have shot more figures than you(Rolled 6 more often) I WIN! A
few gestures with die rolls to determine LOS and "Sighting" are all
that is needed, though, even here, only 1 or 2 variables are
encouraged.
This doesn't work very well for Napoleonics in which issues of
command, large maneuvers, fog of war, and "soft" factors such as
morale and CnC issues are central to the accurate portrayal of
warfare in the period. Even other large battle periods such as ACW
got a quasi-skirmish design, Johnny Reb, that allowed skirmish
mechanics while "pretending" to fight larger battles. (ACW also has
the advantage that the figures are interchangable, and transmutable
from game to game) Actually worrying about the exact model of
artillery piece, and unit by unit orders with almost perfect awareness
of the battle situation(something Hooker would have liked!) is a
skirmish game at heart.
Napoleonics, on the other hand, went to Empire and its clones(LoG,
VtW, etc.) and offered few "skirmish" options. These designs were not
so much wrong, but flying in the face of what many wargamers wanted.
This has often been stated as the desire for simple rules, though I
think this is misleading. More important to many wargamers is
transparency-all variables and decision bases are presented in a
predictable, easily understood, rigidly limited, and ultimately
controllable manner. No subtlety, intuition, Hobson's choices, or
"gray" areas-thank you very much! Skirmish games, at whatever level,
fit that demand very well. But the distinctions of the Napoleonic
period, and its strongest interest, reside well outside of the
skirmish/"simple game" design parameters.
The other reason(somewhat related to the above) is the cost of
figures. If one is wargaming a period where large, large units are
required, and particularly where rules a based on the Empire ratio or
lower-the cost in money, and time has gone up 10-17 times from 1970(
.10 a 30 mm Scruby figure) to 2002 ($1 to $1.70 a 28mm figure). This
may not effect "old timers" with their already acquired armies, but it
sure as hell will give newbies pause.
One answer to this was to go to 15s which worked for awhile, but even
there rules that required large, large units andmany of them were
pricey for many. Enter the 10,6, and 2mm figure! The problem is the
collector side of many a gamer was diminished. Warhammer filled the
vacuum well with individually mounted figures in small armies in a
skirmish game design. Even with very pricey miniatures they were more
affordable than the minimum 1:60 Napoleonic Army and the finished
miniatures were often real eyecatchers!
This is now transferring to Historicals. Bryan Ansell of Foundry has
publically stated his strategy of creating proprietary figure lines(
Pirates, Darkest Africa, Wild West) meant for quasi-skirmish games,
and raising prices to fantasy gaming levels. This has been so
successful that Russ at Old Glory is creating all sorts of
quasi-fantasy 'ancient' lines(Vlad the Impaler, "vikings" medieval
knights,Age of Arthur, toying with the Gaslight Victorian idea) and
raised the price of his figures expotentially. In 1967 when he
introduced his Napoleonic line it was $16 for a bag of 30; His latest
catalog quotes $27 for the same bag. That's a 60% increase in five
years!
I do not think Napoleonics, unless they creatively figure out a way to
minimize figure purchases can succeed in this economic environment.
BJ
Matt Pavone
> BJ:
> I do not think Napoleonics, unless they creatively figure out a way to
> minimize figure purchases can succeed in this economic environment.
Doesn't this say something about the hobby in general? What does it say
when, as Bob states, that the market is moving towards skirmish games with
fewer figures both from the gaming and manufacturing side? I always thought
the whole point in gaming with miniatures was to use figures, preferably
more then less. The tendency today is to have small little armies, use few
figures, and play skirmish games. YUCK. Perhaps if this evolution
continues on its present path, I can raise a complete napoleonic army with
10 or so figures, each one representing a full corps, but I'll have to pay
$15 for each casting (except foundry, which will be $30/casting, but they
will only send you the wrong casting). Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick
with my against the grain ways and raise large napoleonic armies and
continue arguing about tactics, units, uniforms, etc. etc. etc. etc.....
M
Gregory
> introduced his Napoleonic line it was $16 for a bag of 30; His latest
> catalog quotes $27 for the same bag. That's a 60% increase in five
> years!
>
First, it is interesting that Miniature Wargaming is a business that is
always seen as wrong for raising prices, which is ussually as a result of
material, packaging, wages, and sculpting cost. Second, some price
increases are due to what gamers want in miniature purchases, the ability to
buy whole army units at one time, and not the few figures that were
available for release back in the sixties and seventies. But enough of
this.
There is one difference between the gamers of today and the gamer who
often did the big armies for Napoleonics that is not often mentioned in
these discussions, and that is painting of the miniatures. I have seen
wargaming collecitons of people who played Napoleonics in the seventies, and
many are painted to the degree of getting into the game, not creating
individual master pieces of art. I believe what slows big battles today is
the amount of time it takes to paint these armies up.
Just a thought.
Joel
Ray Trochim
I don't know were they are getting their voters, but I know in my gaming
club, Napoleonics is still very strong. Battalion level games being the
most popular at this time.
The very first miniature game I played was a Napoleonic game (A set of
rules called "Melee", anyone herd of it?) and I'v been gaming the period
for 20+ years. I've seen a slight disinterest from time to time, but
this is only temporary. As a whole, I've seen the Napoleonic period to
be the most played in all the big gaming groups I have seen or been a
member of.
Duncan MacLeod
news:uuch1j4...@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>
> My favorite games were Guarde du Corp, Napoleons Battles (played within
the
> spirit of the rules and military science). Neither seems popular any
more.
> The Bill Grey varient may become my favorite once I figure it out.
>
> Once the problems in Napoleons Battles (induced by "win at all costs"
> gamers) are fixed, I anticipate that this will become popular again.
> Specifically disallow cooperation by troops under different commands to
> prevent the dance of death, induce more command level confusion (for which
> F&F is an ideal model), and perhaps a stronger focus on Army command
> systems.
Interesting comment about 'the spirit of the game'. I have serious problems
with the 'death by angles' gamers who turn a unit through 90' and all of a
sudden your whole flank has gone. They're the types that get out the
protractors and laser-range-finders to accurately measure everything. Are
the 'legal' styles of games killing off the fun of the game?
Rulebooks should have good explanatory illustrations and FAQ's. I like
playing games and not argue over cocked dice not punctuation.
Every 10 quid spent on 'trying out' a set of rules is money that could have
been spent on figures. Every evening going through a complex set of rules
is an evening that could have been spent painting.
Just a thought
Duncan
Ray Trochim
>play than the actual Napoleonic Wars (like Empire). Indeed, Napoleonics is
>a heavier draw than any other period at the club.
>
>Napoleonics has several drawbacks. The massive number of figures required
>is #1, the slant most rules have toward the French army making the period
>difficult for those who don't actually have a French army, and a popular set
>of rules. Also the American army doesn't make much of an appearence during
>this war (for us yankeeophiles)..
Napoleonics can be fun and simple and not geared toward the French Army.
Have a look at "Napoleon's Eagles". I've focused on the fun factor then
the over-done factor.
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~trochim/NE/NE.html
The thing about Napoleonics is that there is a lot of rules available to
the gamer. Some are complex and others are simple. Some are tactical and
others grand-tactical. Overall, there is a good mix is out there for
almost any gamer. It just comes down to finding the right set of rules
for the group.
As for the "massive number of figures" arguement, well, I don't think I'm
the right gamer address this because I actually like the looks of lots of
figures on the gaming table. I prefer to play my Napoleonics at 1:30
ratio, but I can see the arguements for the 1:60 ratio and do play at
this scale as well.
-Ray Trochim
Designer of "Napoleon's Eagles"
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~trochim/NE/NE.html
LuvsH20loo
painting and pushing some lead. (I am suspicious of her reasons, but that is
another story.) Just as I was about to jump back into Napoleonics I noticed
this thread. Can anyone provide any further information about the following
rules:
Tim Gow's A Wee Dram of Napoleon
The Easiest Rules Ever for Napoleonics
and
Chipco's new release of Le Grande Armie
Thanks in advance.
Sincerely,
Michael McKenna
LT SITE
Using the scale/rules that our club (THE ALLEGHENY IRREGULARS) use, I
actually like Napoleonic very much and don't mind the large number of figures
and perhaps the two settings it takes to resolve a larger battle (Borodino,
etc.).
Perhaps many don't like Napoleonics because of the need to paint more than a
handful of figures and willingness to REALLY LEARN a set of rules. It seems
that many wargamers just want to go out and "kill something" and not really
bother with getting to know a set of rules. If that is the case, perhaps
gaming large Napoleonic battles in not the thing for those folks. It is all in
the individual's personal preference on what they want to do-----some things
(like some-what realistic Napoleonics) require a little more homework!
j s
is supose they all have there turn as you say in the hobby
just like ww2 the past say 5 or 6 years
it depends on new figures or rules as well that come out
just look at warhammer ancient battles
and all the booklets
i still like napoleonics but do not play as much as i used to
im actualy busy painting plains war figures at the moment
as a result of foundry figures buy one get one free at shows
and then on to dark age figures as the result of the sheildwall book for yes
warhammer
well we may be back in buissnes for napoleonics because my freind recently
bought a dba napoleonic rule set so i will give it a go
thanks john
"Christopher TenWolde" <ca...@traverse.net> wrote in message
news:f27516c2.02112...@posting.google.com...
NJH
> Weird - all of a sudden I feel like taking up Napoleonics again after a
> 15-year break....
>
>
> /Snebjørn
just do it one day at a time. "Today, I won't buy go back to
Napoleonics." It helps me get by. :)
Cheers
NJH
Martin Rapier
news:irqbuu49cblda95ts...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 09:42:58 -0000, "Martin Rapier"
> <m.ra...@shef.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Tim Gows 'A Wee Dram of Napoleon' which is essentially Megalitz
> >played with Napoleonics on division sized bases.
>
I've mentioned these before, they were published on the Wargames
Developments journal 'The Nugget' a couple of years ago & Tim ran off some
copies for sale himself. You can probably contact Tim directly via the
Megablitz yahoo group or possibly get the appropriate Nugget back issue from
the WDDG yahoo group. IMHO they are bit too lightweight but they work OK
with a sufficiently positive attitude! I'm tempted to rework them at some
point, but probably not yet. HF&G gives a much deeper game, as long as you
can get past Phils prose, his concept of the 'brilliant general' in the
latest edition is especially clever - I'm more interested in using these for
Boer War/1914 at the moment as I just _have_ to have a tethered balloon
stand;-) Not much scope for 'brilliant generals' there of course!
Cheers
Martin
Martin Rapier
news:9LsF9.167438$1O2.10745@sccrnsc04...
{snip}
> more then less. The tendency today is to have small little armies, use
few
> figures, and play skirmish games.
It certainly seems popular to have a larger number of smaller armies. I tend
to measure my commitment to a particular period/scale in terms of numbers of
boxfiles of figures & for dabbling in a new period I normally set an upper
limit of two box files. If it works OK then I'll up the limit, so 20mm WW2
is onto eight box files, 6mm WW2 seven or eight at the last count (or is
that twelve?), 15mm WW2 has just passed the three mark whereas AK47 Modern
Africa is strictly restricted to one box file, although it is getting a bit
full now. Not sure many/any of these are used to play skirmish games though,
although it depends how you define 'skirmish' of course.
>YUCK. Perhaps if this evolution
> continues on its present path, I can raise a complete napoleonic army with
> 10 or so figures, each one representing a full corps,
Perhaps the thing to aim for is to come up with rules which allow satisying
entry level play using a few figures (possibly even allowing one figure to
stand in for an entire Corps, although they may look a bit lonely) but at
the same time varying the base size/ground scale or whatever to allow those
of us you have decades worth of accumulated Napoleonics to deploy our vast
ranks of troops as well. DBA type systems cover this sort of thing fairly
well I guess - the current fad at our club is to base 6mm or 10mm troops on
25mm size bases, which certainly looks impressive.
Cheers
Martin
Martin Rapier
news:20021128150129...@mb-fy.aol.com...
> Please help me! My wife has insisted that I stop daydreaming and actually
start
> painting and pushing some lead. (I am suspicious of her reasons, but that
is
> another story.) Just as I was about to jump back into Napoleonics I
noticed
> this thread. Can anyone provide any further information about the
following
> rules:
>
> Tim Gow's A Wee Dram of Napoleon
See my reply to Pan Loaf. You may well be beter off with Horse Foot & Guns
as a more conventional ruleset, available free for playtesting at:
http://www.phil-barker.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Contents.htm
Phil is very interested in player feedback - my main moan is the change in
base sizes from the original version. That'll teach me....
Cheers
Martin
Rhandolph
To which I would add my two shillings.. firstly about inspiration, I live
in England and naturally we don't get half as much films/books etc about the
ACW.. but we did have a flourish of Napoleonic drama a few years ago in the
Shape of Sharpe and Hornblower and Wellington and Nelson are familiar to
anyone with the slightest interest in history.
I like Napoleonics as they are colourful, variable and attractive figures
(unlike ACW on all counts!), there are a wide range of campaigns and scales
from skirmishing amongst the rocks with 20 - 30 men in the Spanish Peninsula
to huge battles on the snow covered steps of Russia, plenty of choice of
armies and lots of equally colourful Generals.
Tactically you have more options than just advance in a loose mass or
outflank as most modern games tend to go and alot more options than the
linear men-in-lins battles of the 18th Century. The presence of combined
arms makes interesting gaming.. you should try an army largely of cavalry
and a few horse guns for an interesting battle.
Well there you are, another fan of Napoleonics steps forward!
"j s" <j...@sheppy907.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:as6hqt$krm$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Jonas Germannsen
NJH <djcoa...@aol.com> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:aa3d875c.02112...@posting.google.com...
Hmm, Napoleonics Anonymous? Why not :) I, like so many others, started out
on Napoleonics with Airfix plastics, but eventually discarded the period
again because 1) painting of uniforms is very difficult compared to other
periods and I have no painting talent whatsoever, 2) I found the geek factor
of Napoleonics unbearable - probably unfair, but there seems to be an
abundance of this breed in Napoleonics, and 3) the absence of one really
dominant rule set like DBx for ancients and medievals, F&F for the ACW and
Spearhead/Crossfire for WWII.
Also, Napoleonics are distinctly 'un-skirmishy' They require large
investments in figures, and the times are really for smaller, more compact
games with 25mm figures. Or that's my impression, anyway.
Jonas
arache
Matt Pavone
> Also, Napoleonics are distinctly 'un-skirmishy' They require large
> investments in figures, and the times are really for smaller, more compact
> games with 25mm figures. Or that's my impression, anyway.
>
Jeez, I sure hope "the times" end soon and transition back to larger, less
compact games with 25mm figures. Perhaps a few years ago when we hear on
the group applauded the release of WAB as a great tool for the conversion of
fantasy gamers over to historicals, we were really seeing an influence that
was going to drastically impact our hobby as a whole. Sure, we've gotten
more gamers I suppose, but its brought the Warhammer Fantasy influence of
small armies and expensive figures....Just a thought.
Matt
MSW
"Christopher TenWolde" <ca...@traverse.net> wrote in message
news:f27516c2.02112...@posting.google.com...
> Let me preface this by stating that Napoleonics are my main period of
> interest - it was a fascination with this period that introduced me to
> miniature wargaming, and I continue to believe that it has the
> potential to be one of the most colorful and diverse periods available
> for gaming.
Hmm sounds like you enjoy it "muchlee" I wouldn't care what everyone else
thinks...
I concentrate on one era/game at a time and W.W.II is the era I'm into ATM.
I was thinking ancients next...but would play American Civil War or
Napoleonics as relating to the War of 1812 (if that can still be called
Napoleonics)...
MSW
Corzin
typical i want the french guard, but i will water them down with polish troops.
the first time I played the french guard ran over the russian guard in about
two turns while me and my buddy managed to do about one casualty to each other.
but the nappy players have earned there reputation for nit picking uniforms
etc. the overly complex pro french rules. it used to be a running joke in our
group how we bought another set of rules at every convention. we probably
don't like that there has to be french at every battle and we didn't really
like the guy who owned the french although we don't seem to mind union and
confeds at every battle... i think in the end the Nappy games seemed to think
they had to be more realistic than other wargame eras and we don't like being
constrained by reality. now one guy in the group wants us to start again but
nobody else feels the least bit motivated to try it again
larry
ISN-News
rules, miniatures, ect. specifically. Its the people who game Napoleonics
that makes you not want to play the period.
In our area, central Illinois, napoleonic gamers are your stuffy gentlemen
who only play napoleonics. Maybe they will go out on a limb and play French
& Indian war. It seems thats all they play and anything else is just a bunch
of toys being played by kids. Napoleonics is for gentlemen, the rest is for
the kids type attitude. So you meet some of these guys and they act as if
they are stooping to your level. The group I like to game with plays pretty
much everything. warhammer 40k to ancients and just about everything
between. The few times we were asked to game with the napoleonics guys. We
had to listen to them tell us how immature we are because of the different
periods we play. The youngest member of your group is 27. All of us have
been gaming since early teens. So in our area napoleonics is looked at as
something we will play when we are old...
Quid Veritas
Ya know, many years ago we were accused of being "elitist". At the
time, The Sword And The Flame was making its debut. We correctly dubbed
TSATF a "game" but not a historical simulation. For some it was too
much game. After all, why spend your time flippin cards if you can
spend an afternoon playing Napoleonics. (We had pretty much given up on
Empire 3+ and gone back to Empire 2 at that time. Seems to me there
were other issues as well --such as the figures utilized.
Funny thing though -- in our area, the uniforms for the Colonials were
as good or better than the Napoleonics -- and the guys were pretty damn
picky about every little detail -- right down to the Zulu shields. The
other thing I remember is the "Risk or Vegas" mentality of the players.
For the Colonial bunch it was more about my roll beating your roll than
any strategy or tactics. (My impression of Warhammer in our area as
well). I can understand this sort of challege has its attractions --
after all the games at Vegas are far more successful and appeal to a
much broader base than anything we have ever, or will ever attain.
I guess I just don't see why this has to be some type of competition or
exclusive club. I like to play cards with folks that are good at it --
I have a hard time enjoying myself if I'm not being challenged. In the
end, its all about enjoyment. Why would anyone spend their spare time
doing something they don't like? Most folks won't.
The biggest problem we have had (and still have) with Napoleonics is one
individual. This guy "fudges" his troops by continually placing and
replacing them (he's "thinking" about his move) and gains a significiant
and chronic advantage. If he starts loosing in spite of his antics, he
makes up some excuse and leaves. Yea, we don't invite him often times
but he always shows up when we are trying to recruit or are playing in a
public forum. This type of play is a huge turnoff for new and old
players. [Don't tell me to talk to him -- been there, done that]
However, I think this kind of activity would be a problem no matter
what game or period you are considering.
mjc
thegamer
IA, moved 3.5 years ago) and have gamed Napoleonics with guys from
Springfield, Champaign, Bloomington, Decatur and Peoria areas and none of
them act the way you describe. Who are these people and where do they live?
I don't remember any gamers that only did one period in central Illinois
either.
Tim
"ISN-News" <rgr...@heart.net> wrote in message
news:b6kG9.21135$EY.1006@fe01...
Tom Bryant
Hi Chris,
My "beef" or complaint against Napoleonics really isn't against the
era itself, it's just that I have a lack of interest in the period. It
and ancients are two periods that really never interested me that much.
I guess it was because I never really knew that much about the history
of the period. From what I did know it was "somewhat interesting", but
not so much to start me off into gaming the period. It is now a period I
am looking into using the Shako rules and 15mm figures starting with
1812 Russians.
As to why people "hate" or "least like" Napoleonics I can come up with
a few reasons. For starters, there is the fact that the era "seems" to
be laden with anal retentive precision freaks. I know I'm not that
detail oriented in my painting at this time to want to ensure that the
collar piping is the EXACT shade of yellow or green for this regiment,
or that, with the right number of loops at this point or that, for the
WHOLE REGIMENT. Even in a GW game I wouldn't have to get that finicky
with as many figures. Also a lot of the folks who like the era like
really complex rulesets like Empire. My first love is WWII but
Battleground WWII is as far as I go for depth in a rules set simply
because I don't have the time to fiddle with all of the other crap out
there in a rules set like TRACTICS for example. I find too many
Napoleonic rules lean toward the deep end of accuracy.
Then there is the fact that most folks do not want to make the HUGE
investment in time and effort to paint the plethora of units in exacting
detail required to "satisfy" many of the "Old Guard" of the Napoleonics
fraternity. For me, so long as I can recognize that this unit belongs in
the French side and that Unit on the British side, I'm happy. I know a
lot of Nappy players would die at the mere thought of units without
correct collar piping, let alone lace patterns done, and Heaven forbid
that the uniform patterns are from the wrong year! The Horror, The
Horror!
For me ACW is as far over the line as I go right now. I want to tackle
the Napoleonic era, but it is kind of back burner for me at this time. I
think it would be fun and from the times buddy has told me about playing
Column, Line and Square I think it would a draw to other gamers as well,
no matter what the rule if presented in the right manner.
Tom Bryant
President, HMGS-GL
Christopher TenWolde wrote:
>
> Let me preface this by stating that Napoleonics are my main period of
> interest - it was a fascination with this period that introduced me to
> miniature wargaming, and I continue to believe that it has the
> potential to be one of the most colorful and diverse periods available
DYE4MINIS
from being as historical as possible, while to others, it's just another "game
of the week".
Would it bother you to play with a guy who painted his 20 Panthers blue?
Would you allow Ancients to be subbed for the Iron Brigade?
How about allowing the use of the IJN Yamato to be used for a 74 gun Frigate in
a sailing game based in the late 1700's?
While such issues may seem trivial to the "gamer", to the historical gamers who
have spent literally thousands of hours researching their favorite period, it's
NOT acceptable. I see nothing wrong with expecting folks wanting to game with
them to at least have SOME sort of working knowledge of the period BEFORE
coming to the game.
Elitist? I don't think so. Snobs? Some may be, but it's pretty shallow to call
one that without understanding what HE wants from such a game. After knowing,
he still may be a snob....but then it will be for another reason! 8>)
Naps have always been a difficult period for a newbie to QUICKLY develop an
understanding for the period. (Division verses division; a Dragoon one one army
is light while a dragoon in another may be heavy; Jagers, Lancers, Light's,
voultiguers, etc....info overload if a newbie gets bombarded with terms he is
unfamiliar with! Many do not have the patience to "teach" when their heart is
into playing a game within the alloted(and precious) time they have.
While the period is NOT for all, it has been a great source of enjoyment for me
since 1972!
Best,
Tom Dye
GFI
GFI/Minifigs: www.minifigs.com (303)361-6465
Attactix:Bi...@attactix.com (303)699-3349
Makers of Minifigs to the Americas!
Tom Bryant
had a buddy who used to game with them and actually managed to pull in
members of a local motorcycle gang into the hobby! From what I heard, it
was very informal and loads of fun. His stories are part of what drives
me on to the era today. I like having fun. The stuffed shirt, toffee
nosed ponces who look at me as some barbarian can go play with a
claymore mine for all I care. The only people who I will allow to look
down their nose at me are combat vets, they paid for that. Most of them
won't do that either, from the ones I've run into.
Tom Bryant
President, HMGS-GL
Tom Bryant
Matt,
I don't know if it's that so much as a time element with most of us.
I play Battleground WWII on a level above what it's designed for. Each
side with a platoon or two of infantry and maybe a tank company in
support somewhere, and all this in 15mm! That is a lot of lead no matter
what anyone says. I don't mind working over lots of lead, if I enjoy the
period, I'll paint it and field it. It's just that right now NApoleon
doesn't move me that way.
Tom Bryant
PResident, HMGS-GL
Martin Rapier
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:20:18 -0000, "Martin Rapier"
> <m.ra...@shef.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Tim Gow's A Wee Dram of Napoleon
> >
> >See my reply to Pan Loaf. You may well be beter off with Horse Foot &
Guns
> >as a more conventional ruleset, available free for playtesting at:
>
> repost.
Umm, I vaguely recall I may have said something along the lines of......
'A Wee Dram of Napoleon' (or DRAM as it usually referred to) were published
in the Wargames Developments Journal 'The Nugget' & Tim ran off a few
revised copies himself for sale. You can contact Tim directly via the
Megablitz or WDDG yahoogroups or possibly try and get a back issue of the
appropriate Nugget from WD. I played a lot of DRAM a couple of years ago,
but these days I think it is really too lightweight and could do with a bit
more detail. You might aso want to check out 'Republique' from the War Times
Journal (IIRC - on www.freewargamesrules.co.uk anyway) for a slightly
meatier battle sized rule set.
Cheers
Martin
Bob Jones
> Naps have always been a difficult period for a newbie to QUICKLY develop an
> understanding for the period. (Division verses division; a Dragoon one one army
> is light while a dragoon in another may be heavy; Jagers, Lancers, Light's,
> voultiguers, etc....info overload if a newbie gets bombarded with terms he is
> unfamiliar with!
BJ: You know, Tom, I disagree with you here. I think Napoleonics
buffs like to believe their period is "difficult" to understand. In
fact, one of the many reasons many people may not like the period is
that either 1.) They believe the exaggerated claims of the
"difficulty" and complexity of the period professed by many of its
adherents, or 2.) They reject the Napoleonics buffs' penchant to
overcomplicate almost every aspect of the era.
The case could easily be made that the transition period from the mid
1660s to the 19790s is far more complex in its variations, unproven
theories of warfare, organizational quirks, and evolving technology.
In a sense, the Napoleonic era is the final regularization of this 100
years of experimentation, and has far more clarity in tactical
doctrine, and standardization in equipment, than many periods before
or following!
I remember Fred Vietmweyer's earnest efforts to make minute
distinctions between Chasseurs a cheval, hussars, and Lt. Dragoons,
rules that made great fuss over the slightest varations in "Paper"
organizations and musters( seldom asking if it ever appeared in the
field!) and great sturm und drang about differences in published drill
rates( never asking why, if it were such a great matter, more wasn't
made of it at the time).
Couple this with a willed blindness to the far greater simularities
and standardization of organization, tactics, and ,especially,
weaponry that existed throughout most of the period and it is little
wonder that the uninitiated will wonder what these Nappy boys are up
to? Then, of course, the napoleonic wargame "experts" can obfuscate
some of the issues further by throwing in a few French phrases like
voltigeur, cuirassier, or en debandade. This can be quite
entertaining as their pronounciation can be hilarious! (My favorite is
the French use of "Curiouser" Horse)
Napoleonic wargaming seem to attract people that don't just enjoy
counting trees , rather than grasping the the idea of the forest, but
actually want to get down to comparing the bark patterns on these
trees in an effort to find "truth". Is it any surprise that they end
up with rules of absurd opacity?
Unless you catch the "disease" and suddenly have an urge to calculate
the stunning difference in effect of a French 8# gun versus an English
9#, poring over many dusty tomes denoting the difference in each
nations system of weights and measures as if the answer to the Victory
at Austerlitz were to be found there, then why on earth would you be
attracted to the typical napoleonic wargame group or its rules?
The Napoleonic period is not more militarily complex than any, it's
just that too many of the people that game this period try to make it
so.
BJ
PS Now, the political, literary, and social history of this period ARE
complex!
DYE4MINIS
>>Unless you catch the "disease" and suddenly have an urge to calculate
the stunning difference in effect of a French 8# gun versus an English
9#, poring over many dusty tomes denoting the difference in each
nations system of weights and measures as if the answer to the Victory
at Austerlitz were to be found there, then why on earth would you be
attracted to the typical napoleonic wargame group or its rules?>>
Napoleonic Wargamers don't do that, Bob, do they? 8>) My answer: You probably
haven't overheard some discussions amongst customers regarding the same issues
with WHFB and WH40K at Attactix!
Such trivia seems to plague the "gamers", regardless of the game being played,
if you let it!
Now I know you didn't miss the point of my reply, so let's keep it on topic:
Without a basic understanding of how troop types operate (and the subsequent
ability to identify a "couissouir" from a Hussar, Napoleonics can be hard to
understand.
While I agree that it's not brain surgery to learn, it DOES take some effort on
the part of the "gamer". (Something that I see less of now days....lack of will
to do basic research.) (Just count the number of requests for info that could
have been answered by Osprey or some easy computer search.)
No, Bob, it's just easier to "put down" a period than to actually try to learn
much about it...especially if one really does not have much interest to begin
with.
Dan D. Cyr
is that the vast majority of gamers have never been around horses, did not spend
time doing close order drill, don't have a concept as to how to prepare and fire a
flintlock smoothbore weapon, don't know how to estimate distances (or the time
needed to move), have a poor grasp of terrain, etc. It is difficult for such
people to really grasp what it took to form and move a body of troops (either foot
or cavalry), the effects of weapons for the period, command difficulties, etc. The
seemingly werid focus on trivia (such as the difference between a French #8 and
British #9) serves to make gamers of these periods believe that they actually
understand what they are attempting to simulate.
Watch a group of "naval" gamers attempt to play a game with complex movement rules
for recreating a sailing ship, and how it actually moved. These guys keep looking
for the engine, and are frustrated (not all, but a certain number as many of us
have sailed).
It is why most rules are very simple, regardless of what the users think. Trying
to get a guy who once rode a horse on a guided path, to imagine issuing commands to
a regiment, or corps of formed cavalry (actual), is very difficult. Unless they
have ever attempted to move in a large body over rough ground, or through a forest,
they really don't understand what they are having their "troops" do in a war game.
The best humor I have ever heard from a well known Napoleonic gamer, was that he
was sure that he'd have made a good general in that period, even if he was over 300
pounds and had never served in the military in this life.
The increasing skirmish nature of today's war games is a direct result of this lack
of personal knowledge. What you cannot understand or grasp, you cannot attempt to
recreate on the game table (at least with any reasonable validity, or sense of
historical reality). That is why they are "games".
Dan (who awaits the anger of those who are "experts" in their field)
Allan Goodall
>The increasing skirmish nature of today's war games is a direct result of this lack
>of personal knowledge. What you cannot understand or grasp, you cannot attempt to
>recreate on the game table (at least with any reasonable validity, or sense of
>historical reality). That is why they are "games".
That's an interesting hypothesis, and I think it has a lot of merit. There are
other reasons, of course, why horse and musket periods are hard to get into.
For one thing, you need a good deal of space and a good deal of lead to do it
properly. If you're like me and you have a lot of eras that interest you,
specializing in one like Napoleonics takes a lot of effort that you'd rather
spend on something else. I do a lot of skirmish gaming. The reason I have as
many American Civil War figures as I do is that I ended up buying some nicely
painted figures. I would _still_ be waiting to paint up all those figures.
Naploeonics have this in common with American Civil War figures, with the
added issue of many more uniform types and generally bigger battles.
Another reason for skirmish popularity is that players tend to slip down to
levels of greater detail. This is seen in two ways. Skirmish gaming is one way
it manifests itself. Players like to see weapon/armour interaction during tank
duels. They feel more comfortable with a figure representing a tank instead of
a tank squadron. They are more comfortable with one figure representing one
guy (or 10 guys) than it representing 100 guys. This attraction of detail is
also shown in the way players tend to push for bigger games within a set of
rules. If you can do a corps battle in Fire and Fury, why not attempt it in
Johnny Reb? If Stargrunt II can handle 2 platoons in four hours, why not try a
company level game? There are other reasons for pushing the size limit on a
set of rules, but the attention to detail is one of them.
Allan Goodall agoo...@hyperbear.com
http://www.hyperbear.com
"We come into the world and take our chances
Fate is just the weight of circumstances
That's the way that Lady Luck dances
Roll the bones." - N. Peart
Bob Jones
> Bob Jones wrote:
>
> No, Bob, it's just easier to "put down" a period than to actually try to learn
> much about it...especially if one really does not have much interest to begin
> with.
BJ: I love the period and the history. It's not the history or the
gaming possibilities that are at question. It's the attitude of many
of the gamers in that period. It isn't that they make distinctions
among many troop types that are so discriminating, but that they make
distinctions that are absurd.
Just because units have names like Chasseurs, Cuirassiers, Voltigeurs,
Jagers, etc. doesn't change the fact that they are simply light
infantry, infantry, grenadiers, and heavy and light horse-pretty
simple actually. Except to the converts of the Temple of Napoleon the
Obfuscator!
Actually, it has been a boon to the hobby as it has encouraged
historical wargamers with some sense to try other periods.
As to the discussions of Warhammerheads...well....it is a good thing
they have a social outlet for their fevered thoughts, as then they can
return to Attacktix and spend money rather than be restrained
forceably by society. :-)
BJ
BJ
Michael J. Clinton
In fact there are a number of us that have attempted to figure out just
this kind of experience / data. We have gone out and marched - in
formation - up and down various types of terrain (pick a nice day),
messed around with horses in formation (not recommended), and tried to
get a feel for how long it would take to load and discharge a musket of
the period several times in short order. While the Civil war
recreationists tend to be much more numerous in my neck of the woods, I
think I do have some kind of understanding for some issues faced by
period troops.
Now other issues can still be ascertained from the "modern experience".
Dunno about you guys but I did the 25 mile marches with the 50lb pack
in battalion column formation with the rifle at "port" -- up and down
hills and through the water. I can tell you all about stragglers, screw
ups by company officers, the accordion phenomenon, the effects of water
and wet socks on your feet, and yes, even the demoralization of no food
and shelter at the end of the march. You can argue they had it tougher
in the "good" old days but I suspect the issues were similar if not
identical.
However, does this dominate my game play in Napoleonics more so than any
other period? Doubt it. Do you need to "suffer" to find true Nirvana?
Doubt it. All you have to do is read the accounts of the folks that
were there. They may exaggerate but I think we have to take them at
their word.
I think the popularity of the skirmish game has a lot to do with the "D
& D" phenomenon. Essentially folks that are starting in gaming have
limited $$$. They want something they can play / own that is within
their means. Bang for the Buck.
Even if we ignore the time to prep, paint and mount the figures, you can
do a whole lot more with 10 or 12 Zulus and / or British Colonials (at a
price of what? $25.00) than you can with a single French division (at a
price of what? $125+).
The problem is the price of admission or entry level. I don't know
about you guys but I played with nothing but plastic for 5-6 years
before I started in with the metal. Never really phased out plastic
until I was 35 or 40 years old.
Well enough from this "expert".
mjc
Dan D. Cyr wrote:
> A great deal of the problem with Napoleonic games, or pre-modern games in general,
> is that the vast majority of gamers have never been around horses, did not spend
> time doing close order drill, don't have a concept as to how to prepare and fire a
> flintlock smoothbore weapon, don't know how to estimate distances (or the time
> needed to move), have a poor grasp of terrain, etc. It is difficult for such
> people to really grasp what it took to form and move a body of troops (either foot
> or cavalry), the effects of weapons for the period, command difficulties, etc. The
> seemingly werid focus on trivia (such as the difference between a French #8 and
> British #9) serves to make gamers of these periods believe that they actually
> understand what they are attempting to simulate.
>
>
>
DYE4MINIS
>Jagers, etc. doesn't change the fact that they are simply light
>infantry, infantry, grenadiers, and heavy and light horse-pretty
>simple actually. Except to the converts of the Temple of Napoleon the
>Obfuscator!
>
Well, that is what they are called. You and I (and thousands other Nappy
gamers) know what they do. Why? Because we studied the period!
Besides, try to convince a WWII gamer that a T-34/85, Tiger, Panther, M4
Sherman, Type 97's are just "tanks" and have no differences!
CPBelt
>
> Just like any other period, there will be folks that derrive their enjoyment
> from being as historical as possible, while to others, it's just another "game
> of the week".
>
> Would it bother you to play with a guy who painted his 20 Panthers blue?
>
> Would you allow Ancients to be subbed for the Iron Brigade?
>
> How about allowing the use of the IJN Yamato to be used for a 74 gun Frigate in
> a sailing game based in the late 1700's?
Those analogies are extreme and don't capture the arguments I have heard
around the gaming tables. What if my Yamato had a shade of hull gray
that was a bit too dark because I painted it under incandescent light
but the gaming room is lit by florescents? Therefore remove the model!
These are the kind of "elitist" arguments I have heard.
Let's be honest. EVERY hobby has its share of hardcore enthusiasts. Some
hardcore guys are pretty cool, teaching us a lot of information. Some
hardcore guys are plain jerks who like to belittle everyone who is not
in their elite clique, probably because they never got the recognition
they desired from their fathers. I think I have experienced more of the
latter in Napoleonics than in any other game. Seems to go with the
territory.
I have been dabling with Napoleonics only because my friends like to
play CLS in 25mm. I'd prefer to play something like the free Republique
rules with 10mm. I know that will never happen. Therefore I stick to the
SYW, AWI, and ACW for my horse and musket gaming.
Bob
TLTuohy
>gamers) know what they do. Why? Because we studied the period!
>
Fine. But the real point is that what they do is exactly the same, whether they
are called light dragoons, chevaulegers, chasseurs a cheval, or whatever.
>Besides, try to convince a WWII gamer that a T-34/85, Tiger, Panther, M4
>Sherman, Type 97's are just "tanks" and have no differences!
The differences between a T-34/85, a Sherman, and a Japanese Type 97 are
quantifiable in a number of different areas, all of them effecting their
performance in battle. The difference between a British light dragoon and a
French chasseur a cheval lies largely in the color of their jackets and the
shape of their hats, neither of which effects their performance in battle in
the least.
I played Napoleonics for years and I did all that incredibly importaant
research. I gave up Napoleonics and moved into other periods (which I also
study) because I grew tired of dealing with people who really couldn't grasp
the fact that they were playing a game, not working on a doctoral
dissertation.Someone once said that the reason arguments in academia are so
vicious is that the stakes are so low. I suspect he had tried playing Empire
with some of my old group.
LT
**************************************************
It ain't like it used to be ... but it'll do.
Freddie Sykes, 1913
***************************************************
DYE4MINIS
>they
>are called light dragoons, chevaulegers, chasseurs a cheval, or whatever.
That's right, but they DO go by different names. That is my point. As an LT.,
You sure wouldn't give one of your troops a higher than another, would you?
(Using your analogy that they are all perform the same.) If you remember your
research, some did better than others. Is it wrong to quantify such issues?
I think not unless you just want to push around some Nappy looking troops with
some friends. (Which there is nothing wrong with that, if that is your goal.)
<<I gave up Napoleonics and moved into other periods (which I also
study) because I grew tired of dealing with people who really couldn't grasp
the fact that they were playing a game, not working on a doctoral
dissertation.>>
Or perhaps you had differing ideas in what you wanted out of your efforts, that
didn't coincide with their ideas of "fun"? I think BOTH are right IF they ARE
having fun. After all, name a rules set that EVERYONE likes!
<<Someone once said that the reason arguments in academia are so
vicious is that the stakes are so low. I suspect he had tried playing Empire
with some of my old group.>>
Probably accounts for why sales of "Trivial Pursuit" were always so high! 8>) I
bet a teacher didn't say that! 8>)
Best,
DYE4MINIS
>that was a bit too dark because I painted it under incandescent light
>but the gaming room is lit by florescents? Therefore remove the model!
>These are the kind of "elitist" arguments I have heard.
Wow! I wouldn't play ANYTHING with folks like that! You have been deprived of a
period due to a bad experience from a bunch of folks that need to have a life!
While I like to take Naps seriously, I can assure you that not all nappy
players are like that.BUT, you can find these types in any period!!!!!
<<Some
hardcore guys are plain jerks who like to belittle everyone who is not
in their elite clique, probably because they never got the recognition
they desired from their fathers.>>
Well, I'm not so sure that you nor I are qualified to be shrinks, but like any
other hobbies, we sure do have our share of extremeists, don't we? To "brand"
Nap players as being the core of this type of player is unreal! I could say the
same for almost any other period as well. Take the ancient guys: Argue for
hours about the correct shade of red for a Roman tunic, yet pit their Romans
against the Aztecs! (I must have slept thru History class the day the teacher
discussed that conflict! BTW, Who won that one?) 8>)
<<Therefore I stick to the
SYW, AWI, and ACW for my horse and musket gaming.>>
That's great! Press on with whatever you enjoy! (I almost have completed the
SYW Prussian Army! I got this wild hair one year.....) MAn, I wish I had kept a
few of my ACW armies over the years! That is one period that I have collected
and painted (mainly Union) 4 times in 15mm, twice in 25mm, and have lost count
in other scales! But I still enjoy my Naps, as well!
TLTuohy
I think we're chewing on opposite ends of the same bone here. Yes, these troops
were all called by different names and yes, if you are going to field an
historically accurate army you need to be aware of this and yes, there were
some units within each category that outperformed other units of the same
category. My point is that Napoleonics is the only period in which I have ever
gamed in which trivia of this sort were elevated to a plane far out of
proportion to their importance to the game (or to reality, for that matter).
I have seen a potential new player turned off Napoleonics forever because his
beautifully painted horse-grenadiers' galloons were a light orange instead of
"aurore" and so, naturally, he couldn't put them on the table. I listened with
bemusement to a long-time Napoleonic player reveal to a passer-by at a
convention that his group never recreated historical battles because unless
they could put all of the exact units on the table it wouldn't be historical. I
ran into a guy at Historicon (before it was Historicon) who treated me to a
long, long lecture on his theory about the French army's adoption of the shako
and the likelihood that some of his primary opponent's infantry should probably
be wearing bicornes; he ended this torrent of theory and mispronounced French
with "I don't see how we can play any more until we get this cleared up." The
list goes on.
As you look back over the messages in this thread, I think this emerges as the
strongest common theme. The lack of a single standard for rules may tend to
slow down the growth of this particular segment of the hobby but what turns
people off is the extent to which many Napoleonic gamers attempt to enforce
adherence to trivial differences of costume and organization that had no
quantifiable effect on history and should, by extension, have no effect on
gaming.
Or, to put it a little more succinctly, I prefer wargames played with
well-painted miniatures to Trivial Pursuit - the Napoleon Edition.
LT
DYE4MINIS
slow down the growth of this particular segment of the hobby but what turns
people off is the extent to which many Napoleonic gamers attempt to enforce
adherence to trivial differences of costume and organization that had no
quantifiable effect on history and should, by extension, have no effect on
gaming. >>
I'm with you here, LT! My point is that it is not just the Nappy crowd that
merders games with the trivia! Perhaps many have experienced it more with
nappys, but such behavior is NOT exclusive to Napoleonic gamers.
Sure wish there was a more commonly accepted set of rules for this (and many
other) periods. For many, the fact that it doesn't exist could be viewed as a
positive (for choice). For many of us gamers (and many manufacturers of
figures), it remains a pie-in-the-sky goal! 8>(
Take care.
Tom Dye
GFI
Or, to put it a little more succinctly, I prefer wargames played with
well-painted miniatures to Trivial Pursuit - the Napoleon Edition.
GFI/Minifigs: www.minifigs.com (303)361-6465
TLTuohy
>merders games with the trivia! Perhaps many have experienced it more with
>nappys, but such behavior is NOT exclusive to Napoleonic gamers.
I never said it was. The hobby as a whole tends to attract people who mistake
masses of undigested fact for knowledge. Unfortunately, the perception is -and
certainly my own experience would tend to bear this out- that this type of
gamer is more prevalant among Napoleonic enthusiasts than in other periods.
As far as standard rules sets are concerned, well ... the downside can be
discerned in what passes for standard rules today - Napoleonic triviology pales
in comparison with listening to two D(ead) B(oring) M(iniatures) ancients
players discussing the differences among Knights(q), Knights(z), and
Knights(who say "Ni!"). 8>)
LT
William McHarg
wrote:
>>What if my Yamato had a shade of hull gray
>>that was a bit too dark because I painted it under incandescent light
>>but the gaming room is lit by florescents? Therefore remove the model!
>>These are the kind of "elitist" arguments I have heard.
>
>Wow! I wouldn't play ANYTHING with folks like that! You have been deprived of a
>period due to a bad experience from a bunch of folks that need to have a life!
>While I like to take Naps seriously, I can assure you that not all nappy
>players are like that.BUT, you can find these types in any period!!!!!
I would agree with that Tom, but I would also say that the most
extreme examples of that I have seen have been in Napoleonics. One of
them is a very good friend of mine. I would do almost anything for
the guy, we have been friends for over 20 years. There is one thing I
would NOT do for him. I would not play in a Napoleonics game with
him. He managed to ruin way too many Empire games with constant
arguing over everything that was not to his favor.
The club I started in when I moved to Denver many years ago had a
group that was into CLS. They were very proud of their knowledge of
these rules, and if newbies were playing, they would all get on the
same side and pound the newbies into dust, and say that was how they
learned and that it was good for us. They never did catch on to why
we never wanted to play CLS.
It may just be the way gamers are in general. A couple of friends and
I were in Bonnie Brae Hobby Shop in Denver many years ago, and we
heard this heated voice coming from the back of the store where the
gaming area was, "But that's not what dragons are really like!"
When our arguments get a little too heated, and we are descending into
esoterica, perhaps we should remind ourself what dragons are really
like.
Bill McHarg
Matt Pavone
mistake
> masses of undigested fact for knowledge. Unfortunately, the perception
is -and
> certainly my own experience would tend to bear this out- that this type of
> gamer is more prevalant among Napoleonic enthusiasts than in other
periods.
I've read this thread for god only knows how long now, made my pretty much
worthless contributions, and I just have to make one more. To say that its
napoleonic gamers who are more pedantic or whatever else then other types of
gamers is really just nonsense. It all has to do with the type of rules
and the type of gamer who is attracted to those rules. I would dare say
that a gamer playing Empire is much more likely to fuss over insignificant
detail then one who is playing Napoleon's battles. If you think this is
restricted to Napoleonics you're focus is much too narrow or your experience
base isn't broad enough. Try playing Advanced Squad Leader for awhile and
see what kind of arguments you can have about rules or about the values
assigned to this tank or that tank or what not. ASL is probably the Empire
of WWII, so, in my lowly opinion, to suggest for even a second that the
genre (napoleonic) is to blame for these types of gamers that the folks in
this thread loathe is just silly. Perhaps its just that Napoleonics has
more rule sets akin to the empire or ASL then other periods which leads to
the type of gamer you're talking about. Lets face it, how many other
periods are overly laden with rules such as Empire or Legacy of Glory or
Valmy to Waterloo????? But, remember, for each one of those sets, there are
probably 5 sets that are much more light hearted (with presumably more
lighthearted gamers). I personally have never ever heard a Naps Battles
gamer arguing about any piping color or any of the other horror stories that
comprise this thread.
I would also dare say that this whole thread is being answered by the vocal
minority, while the silent majority of folks who love naps are sitting
quietly at their painting table making sure they've got the piping right on
the french blah blah blah. ;-) God love 'em.
Matt
Dan D. Cyr
another). Since few gamers want to be a grunt, it is hard to extend your experience to a
game, or set of rules outside of modern skirmish, or low level combat. Even period
reinactors do not have the experience (if at least they have some).
The problem is the level that gamers want to play, be it a brigade, division or corp
commander. Since they have no concept of the period in reality (note the beautifully
painted dress uniforms on the table) in terms of time, scale or effects, they use
pre-concieved, or badly informed views of this simulated "reality".
How does one form, move and fight a 600 man cavalry unit, in corn fields broken up by
small ditches and rail fences, when one does not know how it was done? Has never
practiced doing it (marching in a squad is rather different than attempting to command a
battalion in close order drill), has no concept of the time required to change
formations, etc. Pretending that because one has read, or poorly read a manual written a
century or more ago, in a language of a different period (or foreign), is the problem.
How many history books today of WW2 for example, bother to explain how to get into a
tank, start the engine, and drive away? Stay in column, night moves, tactical practices,
etc.? Several hundred years from now, will the reader of such have an understanding?
It is not the nature of combat that we as gamers struggle to grasp, it is the mechanics
of a given period that are denied us by time, language and experience.
Dan
Ray Trochim
Hey Bill
You still live in the Denver area? If so you should check out a club
called Colorado Military Historians (www.cmhweb.org). I game with them
from time to time and find that most of the gamers are into playing
games for fun. Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that all the club
members are like that. There are a few that I think take gaming to
seriously, but this is discouraged. Anyway, you should check the group
out. Oh and play CLS with them. There are many gamers in the club
that play it. They also tend to put the best player with the newbies.
At least that is what happenned to me when I played CLS with them for
the first time.
Winning or losing, if you are not having fun playin' the game, you're in
the wrong hobby.
-Ray
TLTuohy
>napoleonic gamers who are more pedantic or whatever else then other types of
>gamers is really just nonsense
I don't believe I said that Napoleonic gamers in general are more pedantic.
What I said was that in a hobby blessed with a surplus of pedants, my
perception -based on experience- is that there may be a higher percentage found
among Napoleonic players. If you go back and read the thread in its entirety I
think you will find that I'm not alone in this.
>If you think this is
>restricted to Napoleonics you're focus is much too narrow or your experience
>base isn't broad enough.
Well, let's see now, I've been gaming since the '50s with boardgames and since
the '60s with miniatures. I have devoted years each to Napoleonics, ACW, SYW,
Ancients of various sorts, and World War II, with side trips into anything else
I found interesting. Nope, sorry, I think my breadth of experience is
sufficient to allow me to express my own opinion with some authority 8>)
LT
LuvsH20loo
see what kind of arguments you can have about rules or about the values
assigned to this tank or that tank or what not."
I'll second that. I was at Avaloncon a few years back when an ASL tourney led
to a call for an ambulance and the police.
Sincerely,
Michael McKenna
Matt Pavone
to the entire thread. You were just at the end when I jumped in and were
basically saying stuff that others on the board had already expressed/agreed
with. You are certainly not alone in your viewpoints, more on teh contrary,
I seem to be ALL ALONE in mine ;-).
Now, moving on to specifically YOU ;-) , I can certainly see that you've had
experience with some 40+ years of gaming under your belt. However, this may
well put you in an entirely different category altogther. As Napoleon once
said (paraphrase) "Man only has a limited time for war." I've always found
in my limited experience that the older a gamer is, the more simple they
want their games. They've been through all facets of gaming over their
tenure as a wargamer, but typically don't play empire when they're in their
60's... (not saying you are in your 60's or not, just saying that older
gamers tend to like to keep it simple). So, maybe its the upstart 30
somethings who get into the micro details of a period, be it napoleonics via
the insidious Empire or WWII via the equally insidious ASL. And the older
"been there done that crowd" have finally settled on teh fact through
experience that little detail, lots of detail makes no difference in the end
as its just a game and is meant for fun. Perhaps its just that we find
different things "fun" at different stages of our lives.
For what its worth, I use a Napoleonic Principles of War for Napoleonics and
am an avid ASL player. I've never really cared much for the color of piping
on uniforms too much, although I do like when they are painted historically
(I don't paint myself, so I do expect the uniforms to be accurate when I'm
paying someone to do it for me!). As for Napoleonics, I wish there were
empire gamers in my area, as I think I'd enjoy that game albeit for only
small sized battles. I stick with the simplicity of NPOW so I can put
1,000's of figures on the table, not because I don't like the detail.
Who knows, maybe I'm too sheltered and Napoleonic gamers are freaks and I
just don't know it. Maybe I"M A FREAK and just don't know it. In the end
its really all about enjoyment that one gets out of one's hobby. Maybe one
man's fun is another man's hell.
Finally, in my many long discussions with the now passed Jim Parcella of
Phoenix Games, we always agreed that Napoleonics as a period are tough to
organize simply because there are just too many options available to game
it, that its difficult to get an entire group to agree on the same way of
playing it (i.e. 5mm, 15mm, 25mm....battalion level, regiment level,
divisional level etc. etc. etc). He (being the older of us and fitting the
demographic I describe above) always thought I was nuts for wanting to play
large battles and for even considering rules like Empire. I always thought
he was nuts for continuing to play CLS. (good game, but way too dated). To
each his own I guess.
Regards,
Matt
"TLTuohy" <tlt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021203181735...@mb-cp.aol.com...
Matt Pavone
Its actually much safer to play via VASL.... ;-)
Matt
"LuvsH20loo" <luvsh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021203183835...@mb-cb.aol.com...
TLTuohy
I'm not sure I see your argument here. Granted, the average gamer has no
conception of the problems facing a corps or army command but in the end, so
what? There is no connection betwen wargaming and real warfare. Let's face it,
if someone were to write a set of rules for any period that forced the players
to do what their counterparts on the table would actually have to do, 90% of
them would quit from boredom and the other 10% would die of fright.
I think the current prevalence of pseudo-skirmish games springs from a couple
of different sources but my prime candidate is a taste for technical trivia.
Many gamers do not want to sacrifice the low-level technical details in order
to command at a higher level. For every Napoleonic buff who can quote you the
1807 French uniform regulation about pocket piping, there is a tankie who
doesn't want to see Shermans and Panzer IVs lumped into the same category, and
an ancients player who knows absolutely that there is some arcane difference
between a naked Abyssinian with a fire-hardened stick and a naked Libyan with a
fire-hardenend stick and doesn't want to lose that to the rules. When your
rules require the "corps commander" to take that sort of thing into account,
the "corps commander" quickly becomes a "platoon leader" because he deploys his
battalions as though they were squads.
Personal experience: many years ago, the publisher of a wargames publication
sent me a copy of set of Naopleonic rules he had received from a guy whose name
I recognized instantly (although being an old fart I can no longer remember it,
of course). He was considering publishing these rules along with some cardboard
units counters, a la System 7, which was fairly new at the time. I read the
rules through several times and sent them back with the recommendation that he
not open that particular can of worms. The author was irate. I pointed out to
him that I had calculated the length of time it would have taken to move a
single battalion of British infantry 100 yards in column of march, deploy into
line, and move forward another 100 yards: 1.5 hours REAL TIME! These rules were
based on the French and British drill manuals, used half-company strength
bases, and required that units follow the drill manual evolutions on the
tabletop. The player was supposed to be a division commander but the author had
given him the duties of a sergeant.
Admittedly, that is an extreme case, but I think the basic theory is sound. The
higher up the chain of command you place yourself, the more abstract the
activites of the lower levels become until you reach a point where your sole
concern is logistics ("Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics")
and the actual meeting of units in combat might as well be handled with
strength point counters and a couple of die rolls. I suspect many, perhaps
most, gamers don't want that.
LT
William McHarg
Trochim) wrote:
>
>
>Hey Bill
>
>You still live in the Denver area? If so you should check out a club
>called Colorado Military Historians (www.cmhweb.org). I game with them
>from time to time and find that most of the gamers are into playing
>games for fun. Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that all the club
>members are like that. There are a few that I think take gaming to
>seriously, but this is discouraged. Anyway, you should check the group
>out. Oh and play CLS with them. There are many gamers in the club
>that play it. They also tend to put the best player with the newbies.
>At least that is what happenned to me when I played CLS with them for
>the first time.
>
>Winning or losing, if you are not having fun playin' the game, you're in
>the wrong hobby.
>
>-Ray
Ray,
I am living in the Kansas City area now. Its funny you should mention
CMH. That is the club I was talking about. Of course, it was 20
years ago and most of the people that caused the problems have long
since moved on.
Bill
Quid Veritas
A grunt? Perhaps but only when necessary - or desirable. Spent many
hours in choppers and may have spent as many hours at battalion, brigade
and even corps level command briefings. Hell for that matter went to
stuff that involved theater level issues. While I wasn't pushing a lot
of buttons, I did get to watch the guys that did and I know all about
modern command and control issues.
Lemme tell you something. At one point in my career I received $35.00 a
year to buy hay for my horse. [OK never had a horse but still got money
to buy it hay -- armored cav is still cav you know -- military
efficiency stuff I think?] AND got to play flight operations officer
for 80+ choppers for a couple months -- cool. Wonder why we don't have
a lot of chopper games -- there's bang for your buck! Guess its because
we didn't have any chopper dogfights. What's the big deal about
choppers - well you get to be the 200' general in real time that's
what (at least on a clear day). You can sit up there and watch the tank
columns roll down the road, mech infantry deploy and recover, observe
the logistical tail try to keep up the the forward movement of combat
elements. AND listen to the cluster f_ _ _ on the radio. Of course
when there's fog, you get to go sit on the side of a mountain (run out
of fuel if you keep flying) and wait for the stuff to clear so you can
land. Command and Control takes on a whole new meaning in limited
visibility situations. (Lobositz [sp]???).
Some of your points are well taken. Most gamers have no appreciation
for the mundane matters of "real life". But I'm glad you brought this
up. Some of the most vicious behavior seen at my wargame tables
involved arm chair historian vs. Viet Nam Vet. They both had their
points to make and neither would compromise -- after all both beheld the
"truth".
I think you and a lot of others miss the point with the "historical"
gamer. What they really want, deep down inside, is something that
equates with their "perception" of "the truth". I have talked about
prejudices before and need not do so again. However, these prejudices
are the wargamer "reality". Rules that fail to pander to "prejudices"
had better explain why they don't and hope the argument is persuasive --
otherwise they will be right up there on the shelf with 30 other sets of
Napi rules. I am no better or worse than the next guy in this respect.
That being said, I will consider someone's attempt to challenge or
explain something in game terms that is "historical" in nature -- just
don't do it in the middle of a game. This is what the hobby is all
about after all. What we all really want is a one page (both sides) set
of rules that allow us to recreate "historical" tactical or strategic
problems, play a big game in 2-4 (maybe 6) hours, and allow us to show
off our lead in all its glory. Ain't never gonna happen and most of us
realize this as well. This is called "wargame maturity". We all know
there have to be trade offs. You can't have a complex game and get done
in 2 hours. Likewise you can't have a "simulation" and not have complex
rules (will at least as complex and the complexity of the simulation
desired). So we pick the options that appeal to our desires, time and
pocketbook.
I think Napoleonics is the most studied and analyzed period around.
There's a lot of war, a lot of information, and a lot of variety. This
is the wargammer "kid in a candy store" dream. Trouble is, you can eat
so much you get sick. Some of us can only handle so many sweets at a
sitting -- huh? Doesn't mean it didn't taste good going down though.
Eric K
news:20021203185357...@mb-cp.aol.com:
> Many gamers do not want to sacrifice the low-level technical details
> in order to command at a higher level. For every Napoleonic buff who
> can quote you the 1807 French uniform regulation about pocket piping,
> there is a tankie who doesn't want to see Shermans and Panzer IVs
> lumped into the same category, and an ancients player who knows
> absolutely that there is some arcane difference between a naked
> Abyssinian with a fire-hardened stick and a naked Libyan with a
> fire-hardenend stick and doesn't want to lose that to the rules.
Well,obviously the Libyan gets a morale modifier for the phallus
sheath,although whether it's up or down depends on some very personal
choices...
Quid Veritas
No I think you're absolutely wrong -- its whether or not it points to
the left or the right. ;-)
mjc
>
>
TLTuohy
>segment of the hobby views the period with an aversion akin to abject
>horror?
Just an aside here - some months ago, during the course of another flame ...er,
discussion, I submitted to Pete Panzeri a list of alternate topics that might
distract people from the acrimonious debate. This list may not have been
entirely serious 8>) One of the questions I though might lead people into more
constructive avenues of discussion was "Why do Napoleonics suck so bad?" I am
enthralled to see that Life has imitated Art with no prompting from me at all.
LT
Tom Bryant
DYE4MINIS wrote:
>
> Just like any other period, there will be folks that derrive their enjoyment
> from being as historical as possible, while to others, it's just another "game
> of the week".
>
> Would it bother you to play with a guy who painted his 20 Panthers blue?
>
> Would you allow Ancients to be subbed for the Iron Brigade?
>
> How about allowing the use of the IJN Yamato to be used for a 74 gun Frigate in
> a sailing game based in the late 1700's?
>
> While such issues may seem trivial to the "gamer", to the historical gamers who
> have spent literally thousands of hours researching their favorite period, it's
> NOT acceptable. I see nothing wrong with expecting folks wanting to game with
> them to at least have SOME sort of working knowledge of the period BEFORE
> coming to the game.
Tom, I see the point you are making and I don't see that as the big
issue here. Let me explain, out of the period in question. I have a
friend in Ohio who started in microarmor. When he began the group he was
with told him they were in need of WWII German armor, so he proceeded to
paint tanks, PZ III's and Pz IV's in panzer gray. When the day came for
the game the other players informed my friend that his panzers were the
wrong color for the period game they were running. Now, I fully
understand the "need" for historicity and accuracy, but would it have
killed the other players to inform this man to paint his minis in
dunkelgelb and camo? Would it have really killed them to give him a
brief tutorial in how to do it? The problem isn't just limited to
Napoleonics, it's just that it appears to be the era where this type of
attitude tends to coalesce with the folks that become "paint nazis"
about the quality of their minis and incredibly minute bits of detail on
their figures. The issue is really about helping introduce folks into
understanding the "why" of the method. All it takes is a warm attitude
and a friendly demeanor, not somebody coming across like an angry drill
instructor chewing out a raw recruit. This is a hobby, not real war
thank God.
Please do not misunderstand me here, if I have not been clear I
apologize, but the real issue isn't being interested in detail, it's the
attitude one presents when talking to a new gamer about the period and
hobby. Explain to the newbie WHY the uniform needs to be painted this
way, and HELP them as best as possible. EXPLAIN the tactics and help
them understand WHY the period is worth gaming. Other periods have their
assess too I realize, however the Napoleonics folks tend to have a
problem, either deserved or not with this attitude.
> Elitist? I don't think so. Snobs? Some may be, but it's pretty shallow to call
> one that without understanding what HE wants from such a game. After knowing,
> he still may be a snob....but then it will be for another reason! 8>)
It's not a matter of wanting detail in their games. I can understand
and respect that. What I refuse to accept is a confrontational attitude
to those trying to get into the hobby. Tom, if someone sees you running
a Napoleonics game at your shop, an informal and friendly game with not
tourney pressures or anything like that, and a newbie walks up and
starts asking questions I know you will be kind and courteous to them. I
am also sure when that newbie begins their journey into Napoleonic
gaming you will be there to help explain the hows and whys, or point
them to the right books.
> Naps have always been a difficult period for a newbie to QUICKLY develop an
> understanding for the period. (Division verses division; a Dragoon one one army
> is light while a dragoon in another may be heavy; Jagers, Lancers, Light's,
> voultiguers, etc....info overload if a newbie gets bombarded with terms he is
> unfamiliar with! Many do not have the patience to "teach" when their heart is
> into playing a game within the alloted(and precious) time they have.
>
> While the period is NOT for all, it has been a great source of enjoyment for me
> since 1972!
>
> Best,
> Tom Dye
Tom, while it is true there is a lot to the history, it's not so
different from other eras and organizations. I agree it's daunting to
the new initiate to the era, but that is no excuse for the "acolytes" to
make the newbie feel small because of their lack of knowledge. The
enthusiasts in the hobby should be doing everything they can to share
their joy and interest in the hobby and why they do it. Spread the good
word about the hobby and why you like it. I know you do this, I just
wish more folks did it.
Tom Bryant
President, HMGS-GL
Tom Bryant
Bob Jones wrote:
>
> dye4...@aol.com (DYE4MINIS) wrote in message news:<20021202020847...@mb-fs.aol.com>...
>
> > Naps have always been a difficult period for a newbie to QUICKLY develop an
> > understanding for the period. (Division verses division; a Dragoon one one army
> > is light while a dragoon in another may be heavy; Jagers, Lancers, Light's,
> > voultiguers, etc....info overload if a newbie gets bombarded with terms he is
> > unfamiliar with!
>
> BJ: You know, Tom, I disagree with you here. I think Napoleonics
> buffs like to believe their period is "difficult" to understand. In
> fact, one of the many reasons many people may not like the period is
> that either 1.) They believe the exaggerated claims of the
> "difficulty" and complexity of the period professed by many of its
> adherents, or 2.) They reject the Napoleonics buffs' penchant to
> overcomplicate almost every aspect of the era.
>
<SNIP>
> BJ
>
> PS Now, the political, literary, and social history of this period ARE
> complex!
BJ, I agree on both counts. I think that many of the Acolytes of
Napoleon want to make it appear much "deeper" than it really is. Why it
is true there are subtle nuances between nations, and indeed within
national armies during this transitional period, they aren't as deep as
so many folk want to make them out to be. The big thing with me in most
wargames that I want to know when playing or "simulating" can be summed
up by the following phrases: "Where's the Enemy?", "Can I hit him?",
"Can he hit me?", " Did I hit him and if so did I do Damage to him?",
"Did he it and do damage to me?", "What is the situation now?" These are
questions I think most field commanders are interested in. I'm far less
concerned about the minutiae at that point. I'll dig that up before or
after the battle. I just want to get my battalions to hit the enemy and
move on to the next target. Maybe that's being too much of a gamer, but
I don't think so. Nor do I think it is completely out of character for a
field commander in ANY period. I don't think Ney or Murat agonized over
the difference between their units and the enemy's. They knew what their
men could do and where they had to put them to be effective. End of
story and debate as far as I'm concerned.
I recognize the period is in itself very interesting historically, and
indeed can be argued as one of the first proto-modern wars, I still have
a problem with "deep" rules that go bottom feeding for the most minute
scraps of trivia in a vain attempt to justify somebody's definition of
truth. Do you really need to fire different Brown Bess Muskets at 25
yard intervals, in different weather conditions to verify your
ballistics model for the British infantry? Do you need to include the
derived calculations in your games to insure the "utmost accuracy?" In
another context is this kind of bit twiddling necessary in ANY game
system? At some point you reach a point where the signal to noise ratio
drops to close to one to one, or less. It is at that point you've gone
too far in digging up minute data for your game. I have no problem if
any gamer or designer wants to do this, I only hope they can accept my
choice to not play those systems. As I stated before, I would at some
point like to get into Napoleonic wargaming, it is just that the period
has never interested me that deeply personally until recently.
Tom Bryant
DYE4MINIS
saying: That such behavior is not exclusive to Napoleonic gamers. To crusify
just this segment was just wrong.)
Happy Holidays!
Tom Dye
GFI
TLTuohy
>just this segment was just wrong.
Try as I might, I can find no message in this thread that claims that the
behavior so many people have objected to is limited solely to Napoleonic gamers
- and I should know, since I've leveled a good deal of the criticism. However,
the original question had to do specifically with why so many gamers view
Napoleonic gaming with utter horror and in that context I think that the
criticism leveled at the uniform enforcers and self-anointed experts is
justified.
The problem is one of perception. As I have said before, our hobby is in
general blessed with a surfeit of triviologists and opinionated dipsticks but
there is a perception among many gamers that the percentage is higher among
Napoleonic gamers. Whether the perception is accurate or not is immaterial
since it the perception, not any tangible facts, that provides the answer to
the question.
LT
Bob Jones
> The problem is one of perception. As I have said before, our hobby is in
> general blessed with a surfeit of triviologists and opinionated dipsticks but
> there is a perception among many gamers that the percentage is higher among
> Napoleonic gamers. Whether the perception is accurate or not is immaterial
> since it the perception, not any tangible facts, that provides the answer to
> the question.
>
> LT
BJ: Mr. Touhy, as usual some well put arguments. I, for one, believe
that opinionated dipsticks are found in many wargame periods, but that
triviologists are highly over represented in the ranks of Napoleonic
gamers. I think this is attributable to a new book on Napoleon being
published every 3.5 seconds. thereby increasing the total mass of
trivia dedicated to the subject and supplying triviologists with an
unending supply of minutiae to wax rhapsodical over.
Several years back there was a movement among publishers to flog the
next author that brought them a Napoleonic manuscript, but it
collapsed on a legal technicality. It may interest you to know that
if all the books about Napoleon were placed end to end, Grouchy still
wouldn't arrive on time.
BJ
TLTuohy
>if all the books about Napoleon were placed end to end, Grouchy still
>wouldn't arrive on time.
Aha, but if you piled them one atop another, measured the height of the pile,
and derived the cube root of that measurement you would arrive at a figure
which, when divided by the number of cuff buttons allowed to odd-numbered
regiments under the 1807 uniform regulations, would give you Michel Ney's IQ
taken to the 8th power. In addition, the chapter headings of the books
published during the 1980s in months without an R are an anagram which, when
deciphered, yields a list of all of Murat's tailors. Nobody who didn't know
this is welcome at my gaming table 8>)
Andy
<<>>
> BJ: Mr. Touhy, as usual some well put arguments. I, for one, believe
> that opinionated dipsticks are found in many wargame periods, but that
> triviologists are highly over represented in the ranks of Napoleonic
> gamers.
I hear people booring at length on guff for all periods they play.
These are usually the same people though.
What I find weird..... REALLY WEIRD is:
After 20 or 30 years playing and mucking about designing rules.
How is it that some people still think huge amounts of detail could
possibly be a good thing?
They seem to equate detail with accuracy.
>I think this is attributable to a new book on Napoleon being
> published every 3.5 seconds. thereby increasing the total mass of
> trivia dedicated to the subject and supplying triviologists with an
> unending supply of minutiae to wax rhapsodical over.
Whilst I can see where you're coming from....
I painted professionally - quite some time ago now.
I eventually refused to naps.
It's a period mostly bores me so I didn't know all the uniform
colours.
This wasn't exactly unique though.
With other periods, clients were happy to discuss exactly what they
wanted.
Naps players seem to take umbrage you don't know what colour the 2eme
wossnamess epaulettes were on a tuesday.
Even when I borrowed a bunch of sources and got all the colours and
whatnot right they expected 5 quid a figure paint jobs for one quid a
figure.
This was a noticeable trend I've heard repeated with other pro
painters.
> Several years back there was a movement among publishers to flog the
> next author that brought them a Napoleonic manuscript, but it
> collapsed on a legal technicality. It may interest you to know that
> if all the books about Napoleon were placed end to end, Grouchy still
> wouldn't arrive on time.
>
> BJ
Is he still on the way?
Ray Trochim
>>if all the books about Napoleon were placed end to end, Grouchy still
>>wouldn't arrive on time.
>
>Aha, but if you piled them one atop another, measured the height of the pile,
>and derived the cube root of that measurement you would arrive at a figure
>which, when divided by the number of cuff buttons allowed to odd-numbered
>regiments under the 1807 uniform regulations, would give you Michel Ney's IQ
>taken to the 8th power. In addition, the chapter headings of the books
>published during the 1980s in months without an R are an anagram which, when
>deciphered, yields a list of all of Murat's tailors. Nobody who didn't know
>this is welcome at my gaming table 8>)
It's post such as these that keep me coming back for more :)
But to add to his last sentance, anyone wanting to play a Napoleonic game
for the fun and enjoyment is welcome at my gaming table. I cherish those
gamers I meet that have fun playing a good game whether they are winning
or losing the game. Sure, we all like to win, but we can't win every
game we play (I try), and if you get sore and ill-tempered when you
start to lose, give up the hobby. You're in it for the wrong reasons.
As I read the previous and most current posts, I would just like to say
I'm most fortunate to have some good gamers in my group. Yes, for some
scenarios we might have substituted a regiment of French cav for
Bavarian cav becasue we didn't have enough figs. But its not a crime.
Sure I like to play games were the all the figs on the table are what
they are supposed to be, but the alternative would be to put the game
on hold while we take a week to paint them. It's not that big of a deal.
I think I would draw the line if we wanted to use say British, Russian,
or even Austrian cav, especially as the other side were Austrians.
-Ray
Designer of "Napoleon's Eagles"
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~trochim/NE/NE.html
Gregory
me off into the period.
(1) The first Napoleonic game that I ever watched moved so slow, that it
took one player nearly 6 hours before he was allowed to put his troops on
the table and after the first move, the Game Master called the game because
he needed to get home for supper. If I take the time to paint and show up
for a game, I do expect to play more than one move. I also expect to have
the miniatures I painted mix with the opposition and roll some dice.
(2) I over heard two Napoleonic gamers talking about the lack of
opposition. They were French players and lacked British, Russian and
Prussian opponents - there last Prussian opponent moved to another state.
One of the two was working as an employee at the game shop. In walked a man
that was interested in getting into Napoleonics, specially doing the British
side - since they won. The two men proceeded to discourage him all points,
and he left the store not buying a thing and going back to role playing.
I do not mind someone pointing out some painting mistakes, because there are
diverse sources for uniform references. And, I am even willing to take a
beating in the first couple of games, as long as there is a desire on the
part of others to help me learn the rules and not just have fun beating the
crap out of the new guy.
Truthfully, I believe every historical period needs two types of rules.
Those that are simple and fast, that encourage gamers to purchase and paint
miniatures to play larger games. The second type of rules are those that
are more complex, and are for gamers who already have large armies and want
more interaction on the period, tactics, uniforms and events of the time.
Here is a question to this group as a whole in relation to the question:
"How many of you have the patience to teach someone how to game a new
period?"
"Can our enthusiasm for a certain period also over whelm someone who
interested in that period to the point that instead of bring them into the
game we put them off on the period?"
Joel
Rhandolph
I've played against a few Napoleonic gamers and I can't
say any of them are Trivialists about painting, as long as the troops are
the basic colours.. I have some 20mm Austrians whom I bought and painted up
as Saxons (nearly all white but boots, belts, shako and blue facings) yet I
have used than as Saxons, Austrians, Westphalians, Italians and Spanish
without anyone complaining.
I agree some rules make it very slow if they are intricate
about maneuvers and changes of formation, but not all. You could argue that
WWII games are slow because 'Firefly' has so many stages of looking up
weapon calibre, penetration values and vehicle armour thickness etc..
I like the Napoleons battles rule because there not
complicated yet cover everything you need quite well, as well as having most
information right there on troop sheets and the playsheet. A medium sized
battle can be played in about 3 hours.
I have not played Napoleonics for a while, perhaps I'll go and
dig up those Bavarians and dust them off...
"Gregory" <greg...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:LHnK9.54922$Hs2.7...@kent.svc.tds.net...