Bill,
    Was it my imagination, or did you have a 6mm variant included with
NFF at one time?

Jon

In addition to Col Gray's Napoleonic variant (I have the copy printed
in MWAN), I am also interested in finding an FnF variant suitable for
the Crimean War.  I know Colonel Grey mentioned a variant for the FP
war, do you have any CW variants for FnF?

Thanks,

Dave

--- In NapoleonicFireandFury@egroups.com, "Jon Rigsby" <jrigsby@h...>
wrote:
> Bill,
>Was it my imagination, or did you have a 6mm variant included with
> NFF at one time?
>
> Jon

I use NFF with 12 x 6mm figs mounted on 15mm size bases.  It looks
very good.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Rigsby [mailto:jrigsby@...]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 11:15 PM
To: NapoleonicFireandFury@egroups.com
Subject: [NapoleonicFireandFury] 6mm variant?

Bill,
   Was it my imagination, or did you have a 6mm variant included with
NFF at one time?

Jon




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
NapoleonicFireandFury-unsubscribe@egroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Bennett [mailto:bennettdk@...]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:11 AM
To: NapoleonicFireandFury@egroups.com
Subject: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Looking for FnF variants

In addition to Col Gray's Napoleonic variant (I have the copy printed
in MWAN), I am also interested in finding an FnF variant suitable for
the Crimean War.  I know Colonel Grey mentioned a variant for the FP
war, do you have any CW variants for FnF?

Thanks,

Dave



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
NapoleonicFireandFury-unsubscribe@egroups.com

After trying a few games of NF&F using a D10 for combat, as the game is
written, our group have taken to using a D8.

This results in less extreme results which, we feel, is better for the
Napoleonic period.

Any comments?


Derek Hodge <dmc.hodge@...>

Derrick,

We have played only two games of NFF and our small groups has found
the modifiers for firing very wicked.  I had thought about changing
the die and will try it out.  We also spoke about giving every one a
1 fp per stand the giving a plus or minus on the formation.

Jean

Derek H wrote:
After trying a few games of NF&F using a D10 for combat, as the game is
written, our group have taken to using a D8.

This results in less extreme results which, we feel, is better for the
Napoleonic period.

Any comments?
---------------------
For my own Napoleonic F&F variant (L'Ordre Mixte), I used 2d6 to give a
less extreme spread of results. This seemed to work well, but you need to
adjust the tables slightly (or use 2d6-1).

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon [mailto:jrigsby@...]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 9:11 PM
To: NFF
Subject: [NapoleonicFireandFury] 6mm again, or, is depth as important as frontage

Bill, (et. al.)

 

   I realize that you said in the rules that basing doesn't really matter as long as both sides use the same basing standard, but I thought I'd ask anyhow:

 

   I don't really want to crowd a ton of 6mm figures on a base, and the "standard" base seems a little bald with just 4 infantrymen, so what I want to ask is this: Keeping the frontage the same (i.e. 3/4 of an inch) would it be out of the realm of possibility to reduce the depth from 1 inch to 3/4 of an inch without reducing playability? This would allow a comfortable 6 figures per stand and still appear full.

 

The second is to reduce the cavalry stand by the same amount, while increasing the number of figures to 3 (in one rank).

 

Also, as far as the artillery is concerned, is it 1 artillery piece and *then* 1 artilleryman for each 2 actual guns?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Jon

 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
NapoleonicFireandFury-unsubscribe@egroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Burt [mailto:Steve_Burt@...]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 4:28 AM
To: NapoleonicFireandFury@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Digest Number 1

Derek H wrote:
After trying a few games of NF&F using a D10 for combat, as the game is
written, our group have taken to using a D8.

This results in less extreme results which, we feel, is better for the
Napoleonic period.

Any comments?
---------------------
For my own Napoleonic F&F variant (L'Ordre Mixte), I used 2d6 to give a
less extreme spread of results. This seemed to work well, but you need to
adjust the tables slightly (or use 2d6-1).




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
NapoleonicFireandFury-unsubscribe@egroups.com

--- In NapoleonicFireandFury@egroups.com, "Dave Bennett "
<bennettdk@a...> wrote:
> In addition to Col Gray's Napoleonic variant (I have the copy
printed
> in MWAN), I am also interested in finding an FnF variant suitable
for
> the Crimean War.  I know Colonel Grey mentioned a variant for the
FP
> war, do you have any CW variants for FnF?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave

Nick Dorrell had a series of variants in the UK publication
Wargames Illustrated.  Issue #119 had the base or core
article and issue #135 had the section covering the Crimean
War which included an OoB for the Battle of the Alma.

If you are in North America you should be able to obtain
the back issues from Wargames, Inc.
http://www.speartorifle.com/

Don

The devastating fire is the x2 fire points.  I shall give an example
not of Novi but of our first game.

The Russians are sitting on top of a hill with a 14 stand brigade
supported by a second brigades just as imposing.  If the brigades are
charged both brigades fire in defensive combat. If they are not
disorded they receive all the stands of both brigades plus the x2
multipler for a total of 56 fire points.  That hurts very much.  Then
should they be disordered they receive only 28 fire points.

At the moment with the rules we are trying a variety of situations
with the rules.

Jean

--- In NapoleonicFireandFury@egroups.com, nukday@e... wrote:
> --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@egroups.com, "Dave Bennett "
> <bennettdk@a...> wrote:
> > In addition to Col Gray's Napoleonic variant (I have the copy
> printed
> > in MWAN), I am also interested in finding an FnF variant suitable
> for
> > the Crimean War.  I know Colonel Grey mentioned a variant for the
> FP
> > war, do you have any CW variants for FnF?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dave
>
> Nick Dorrell had a series of variants in the UK publication
> Wargames Illustrated.  Issue #119 had the base or core
> article and issue #135 had the section covering the Crimean
> War which included an OoB for the Battle of the Alma.
>
> If you are in North America you should be able to obtain
> the back issues from Wargames, Inc.
> http://www.speartorifle.com/
>
> Don

Dave,

You can also find this information on the following web site
http://www.nick-dorrell.co.uk/resources.htm
Hope this helps.

Leo

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean M. Desroches [mailto:djeanm@...]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 4:58 PM
To: NapoleonicFireandFury@egroups.com
Subject: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Devastating fire

The devastating fire is the x2 fire points.  I shall give an example
not of Novi but of our first game.

The Russians are sitting on top of a hill with a 14 stand brigade
supported by a second brigades just as imposing.  If the brigades are
charged both brigades fire in defensive combat. If they are not
disorded they receive all the stands of both brigades plus the x2
multipler for a total of 56 fire points.  That hurts very much.  Then
should they be disordered they receive only 28 fire points.

At the moment with the rules we are trying a variety of situations
with the rules.

Jean



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
NapoleonicFireandFury-unsubscribe@egroups.com

At 16:48 09/01/01 , you wrote:
>Derrick,
>
>We have played only two games of NFF and our small groups has found
>the modifiers for firing very wicked.  I had thought about changing
>the die and will try it out.  We also spoke about giving every one a
>1 fp per stand the giving a plus or minus on the formation.
>
>Jean
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>NapoleonicFireandFury-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>

Some confusion here.  We still use the D10 for fire but use a D8 for melee.

Derek Hodge <dmc.hodge@...>

--- In NapoleonicFireandFury@egroups.com, "COL Bill Gray"
<hmgs1@m...> wrote:
> Jean,
>
> Understand. Nevertheless, it may look wicked, but it may be
pretty
> historical. Indeed, the casualty rate is actually a little slender
because
> subjectively it just didn't  feel right to me otherwise.
>

My personal take is that charging up hill into a 5,000 man
brigade would indeed be very bloody. I'd think you'd have to make
them at least disorganized to have any chance of success... real
soldiers are not going to move any sort of formed, steady infantry
off such a position, with anything other than a very bloody battle...
the only alternative is to make them other than formed, steady
troops !!

Jim

--- In NapoleonicFireandFury@egroups.com, "COL Bill Gray"
<hmgs1@m...> wrote:
> Jean,

> etc), British BG Hughes in his book Firepower estimated a 4 %
average
> casualty rate for musketry on the battlefield (5 1/2 % up to 100
yards, 2
> 1/2 % up to 200 yards).
>
> Thus every time your 5040 man (14 stands or 28 fire points) linear
Russian
> infantry brigade lets loose a volley, 202 of the enemy ought to
fall killed
> or wounded.

GW Hmmmm that looks a little large for an 1812 Russian brigade,
imho....I would reckon that maybe 2500 (usual) up to a maximum of
3500 or so would be more in line.....the latter even if they left the
Grenadiers in place with the brigade. If we take BP Hughes figures
that you have quoted this would suggest about 100-150 killed and
wounded issued across an area which might occupy a similar number of
enemy infantry....

Some of these might still be able to fight on, of course, depending
on the condition of the wound.

Also, this would prsumably be long range musketry? Close range from
trained infantry was indeed devestating. Maybe three or four times
that.., perhaps!!!

We played our first game and came across a situation that we either
missed in the rules or didn't understand.  A 18 stand Russain Unit
was charged by 3 French Infantry units and 1 French Cavalry unit.  We
didn't quite know how to handle this situation.  We played it as a
infantry charge, being that it was mostly infantry, and only counted
the cavalry for numbers.  Did we do this correctly?

Second, some felt that the cavalry was some what usless against
infantry.  They could not rationalize that the infantry would fire
against a charging cavalry unit while in line, but recieve the charge
as if in square(assuming a benifitial die roll during combat).  Even
if the infantry lost the charge by 1-3, the unit would move back 2"
and blast away at the cavalry again from a line.  Either we are
missing something in the rules or we are using the rules incorrectly.

Other than that, we thought the rules flowed smoothly and played well.
Thank you in advance for an input.
Todd
Toledo, Ohio

Ive had a chance to read the rules now, and I must say that it really
is a labour of love. I salute you, General!

And I dont know how you got your tables into word format, but it
looks great.

I like the use of NapsBatts bases, I have a horde of 15mm Naps which
I'd like to use, but dont want to play shako, and have already found
the gaping holes in Naps Batts....

I do have a couple of points though that I'd like to raise witht he
list for comment and discussion.

1) Looking at the info so far, I reckon that the unit sizes seem way
to big.....

2) The firing tables go up to 240 yards, but seem to give the same
weight of fire at this range as it does at 20 yards....

3) The usual pro-french stuff seems to have been taken over into the
rules. Clearly the best musketry, one would assume, is by the French
Old Guard. Beter than anyone else, including the British
sharpshooters, light infantry units, and elite riflemen.

The old guard were good troops, but can you really compare the Old
guard of post 1812 with that of 1805-9? What evidence is there that
the Old Guard are so good at musketry? I cant even recall when they
were used in combat?!!!

Hope this opens up some discussion!!!

Dear Geoffrey,
1) Firepower and French guard :
Well French Wargamers have same doubts about firepower
allowed to British infantry in other games (personnally I don't
care) . The key point is discipline fire and here the Old Guard is
the Old Guard , ie equivalent to british Guards, may be.
2)About Guard in battles it is known that Napoléon simply wrote
"la Garde au feu " when necessary? This happened many times
i, 1813, 1814, and 1815 (as far as I know).
3)About the rules and questions of unit sizes and fire power, it is
my opinion to leave the fruitless questions of fire realism, ratio of
men, losses etc. Better to think in rather abstracts units as this is
an army level game after all. For example as my bases are not of
recommanded size (I can't rebase hundreds of 6 mm figures),
I'm playtesting the rules with one base = two for fire, losses etc.
That is one base is removed after two losses. Any comments ?
Amitiés ç tous,
Jean-Marc




--- In NapoleonicFireandFury@egroups.com, "Geoffrey Wootten"
<geoff@g...> wrote:
> Ive had a chance to read the rules now, and I must say that it
really
> is a labour of love. I salute you, General!
>
> And I dont know how you got your tables into word format, but it
> looks great.
>
> I like the use of NapsBatts bases, I have a horde of 15mm
Naps which
> I'd like to use, but dont want to play shako, and have already
found
> the gaping holes in Naps Batts....
>
> I do have a couple of points though that I'd like to raise witht he
> list for comment and discussion.
>
> 1) Looking at the info so far, I reckon that the unit sizes seem
way
> to big.....
>
> 2) The firing tables go up to 240 yards, but seem to give the
same
> weight of fire at this range as it does at 20 yards....
>
> 3) The usual pro-french stuff seems to have been taken over
into the
> rules. Clearly the best musketry, one would assume, is by the
French
> Old Guard. Beter than anyone else, including the British
> sharpshooters, light infantry units, and elite riflemen.
>
> The old guard were good troops, but can you really compare
the Old
> guard of post 1812 with that of 1805-9? What evidence is there
that
> the Old Guard are so good at musketry? I cant even recall
when they
> were used in combat?!!!
>
> Hope this opens up some discussion!!!

Geoff,

First, thanks so much for the comments. Here is my reply to the
several issues you raised:

1. Unit size should be a non-problem. The game is based on Brigade
Equivelents, which could be an actual brigade, or a small division or
a big regiment or maybe something else. While I strongly encourage
folks to go by actual historical OBs, there are many cases in which
to do so would be impractical. That is why I used the example of the
Austrians at Hanau in the rules. Here Austrian brigades evidently had
two four battalion regiments with each battalion fielding 1000 men,
or an 8000 man brigade (or 22 stands or so). We would play this as
two four battalion Brigade Equivelents, each about 11 stands. I've
also played a full French divisions in 1814 as a single 8 stand
Brigade.

2. You are correct, and this was done to keep to the spirit of the
original Fire & Fury ACW rules and as a compromise between accuracy
and playability. At this scale I considered it a tad too much detail
that would matter little in the overall scheme of the battle.
Likewise, Fire and Fury ACW works similarly as it has the same
firepoint value for musketry from 0 to 480 yards (1 point) and does
not differentiate between rifled or smoothbore small arms (or
artillery for that matter). Seems to work and keeps things simple.

3. This one puzzled me and I think you may have misread the Musketry
& Cannonade Table, perhaps due to simply a difference between
American and British conversational style.  The +2 FP modifier is for
Old Guard artillery batteries, not infantry where the Old Guard is
really no better than anyone else.

Nevertheless, I think Jean-Marc has a point. I always look to British
authors for some of the most objective writing on the American Civil
War due to their not being born in Atlanta or Boston.  On the other
hand, I an American, look at, say, Bruce Quarrie's rules included in
the book Napoleon's Campaigns in Miniature and find them to be very
biased in favor of the British, with morale ratings way too high for
many units. Yet you'd better not even whisper a hint of criticism to
this South Carolinian about Robert E. Lee!  Seems on both sides of
the Atlantic things like national pride are still a factor. No big
deal really as no one will ever know for sure.

BTW, are you the same chap who wrote the Corps d'Armee rules for WRG
a while back?

Regards,

Bill Gray

  --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@egroups.com, "Geoffrey Wootten"
<geoff@g...> wrote:
> Ive had a chance to read the rules now, and I must say that it
really
> is a labour of love. I salute you, General!
>
> And I dont know how you got your tables into word format, but it
> looks great.
>
> I like the use of NapsBatts bases, I have a horde of 15mm Naps
which
> I'd like to use, but dont want to play shako, and have already
found
> the gaping holes in Naps Batts....
>
> I do have a couple of points though that I'd like to raise witht he
> list for comment and discussion.
>
> 1) Looking at the info so far, I reckon that the unit sizes seem
way
> to big.....
>
> 2) The firing tables go up to 240 yards, but seem to give the same
> weight of fire at this range as it does at 20 yards....
>
> 3) The usual pro-french stuff seems to have been taken over into
the
> rules. Clearly the best musketry, one would assume, is by the
French
> Old Guard. Beter than anyone else, including the British
> sharpshooters, light infantry units, and elite riflemen.
>
> The old guard were good troops, but can you really compare the Old
> guard of post 1812 with that of 1805-9? What evidence is there that
> the Old Guard are so good at musketry? I cant even recall when they
> were used in combat?!!!
>
> Hope this opens up some discussion!!!

Correct, but in this case I was pulling my example from the French
Revolutionary era since the battle Jean was referring to was Novi
(1799).  Here the Russians had bigger regiments (two musketeer and
one grenadier bn) with several regiments per brigade. Also, in 1812 I
would consider the Russians a Columnar Army and this would cut down
on their firepower by half. Of course the real trick is to decide how
many volleys a unit could typically unleash in two fire phases of a
30 minute turn. Could be one or it could be 10. I tended towards a
lower number given Hughes'calculations.

BTW, so far as I know, the 5 1/2% figure covered all musketry up to
100 yards but was indeed an average. I would assume that if two
firing lines are within, say, 30 yards of each other, the results
would be real nasty.

Regards,

Bill Gray

--- In NapoleonicFireandFury@egroups.com, "Geoffrey Wootten"
<geoff@g...> wrote:
> --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@egroups.com, "COL Bill Gray"
> <hmgs1@m...> wrote:
> > Jean,
>
> > etc), British BG Hughes in his book Firepower estimated a 4 %
> average
> > casualty rate for musketry on the battlefield (5 1/2 % up to 100
> yards, 2
> > 1/2 % up to 200 yards).
> >
> > Thus every time your 5040 man (14 stands or 28 fire points)
linear
> Russian
> > infantry brigade lets loose a volley, 202 of the enemy ought to
> fall killed
> > or wounded.
>
> GW Hmmmm that looks a little large for an 1812 Russian brigade,
> imho....I would reckon that maybe 2500 (usual) up to a maximum of
> 3500 or so would be more in line.....the latter even if they left
the
> Grenadiers in place with the brigade. If we take BP Hughes figures
> that you have quoted this would suggest about 100-150 killed and
> wounded issued across an area which might occupy a similar number
of
> enemy infantry....
>
> Some of these might still be able to fight on, of course, depending
> on the condition of the wound.
>
> Also, this would prsumably be long range musketry? Close range from
> trained infantry was indeed devestating. Maybe three or four times
> that.., perhaps!!!

Here are the answers to your questions:

1. Interestingly enough, no you did not, and believe me, this is one
I have questioned original F&F author Rich Hasenauer about before.
Modifiers are cumulative and thus if only a single stand of the
cavalry brigade comes into contact with the defender, the cavalry
related modifiers apply as well. Same for the ACW F&F. Two Union
infantry brigades and one Union cavalry brigade charge a Confederate
infantry brigade. Even if the cavalry makes contact with only a
single stand, the Union gets a +1 modifier. Rich indicated that given
the wide range of results there shouldn't be a problem. In the 25 or
so games we played in playtest, we rarely had this happen due to the
difficulty of getting the right types of troops in position. When it
did, Rich seemed to be correct. Let me know if you find this to be an
issue as you continue playing as I was originally considering a rule
prohibiting such combined arms attacks.

2. This was one of those compromises between playability and history.
Theorectically, not all of the brigade might be trying to change into
square, some units perhaps remaining in line, and thus able to issue
fire normally, as their flanks are anchored by others in square, etc.
Assuming the infantry wins, the concept is that enough of the
brigade's constituent bns (because battalions really form square, not
brigades) have gone into square or anchored positions to have that
effect. I tried a number of systems to account for partial fire and
so on, but it became very cumbersome very quickly so I just went with
the simplest method possible and decided to beef up the cavalry
modifiers.

Which brings me to the second portion of your question. Over the
course of some 25 games, most particpants indicated the power of
cavalry was just about right, though the modifiers were deliberately
established to discourage players from using light horse in a shock
role. Example follows:

1. 10 stand brigade of Elite French Cuirassiers (1800 men)at a
distance of 3.9 inches (468 yards) charges a 10 stand brigade of
linear Russian infantry (3600 men). Both units Fresh.

2. 10 stands fire with 20 FPs with possible results being No Result
(20%), Disordered (30 %), 1 stand lost (20 %), 2 stands lost (30%).
Assume Disordered.

3. Cav gets +2 for Fresh, +2 for cav charge at 4 in or less, +2 for
armored heavy cav, -1 for disordered or +5.

4. Infantry gets +2 for Fresh.

5. Thus the cav in effect rolls with a +3 to his die roll, the
infantry rolls even.

Even if the cav had started beyond 4 inches (-3), that would still
have both sides rolling even which means a 50/50 chance that 1800
heavy cav will beat 3600 infantry. And if the horse does win and
rolls big, the results can be very nasty. If not and the foot
retreats two inches, normally this is not a big deal since the
infantry (like the cav) is disordered and this means only 10
firepoints (50% chance no effect, 30% chance disordered but the horse
is already disordered, 20% chance 1 stand loss).

If I seem to be very involved with this its actually because in one
of our early games we had the cav on both sides shot to pieces every
time they charged. There were concerns that there needed to be some
changes to the modifiers but we let it slide and over the next
several playtests everything came out just about right.

By contrast, we originally had nothing to account for cavalry fatigue
after a charge (now they are disordered and take that -3 modifier on
the Maneuver Table) and so in one game we had a single Austrian
Kurassier Brigade redesignated by the Kaiser as Waffen SS Panzer
Division Maria Theresa!!!  Hell, they didn't have fatigue rules in
the original F&F, right?  Happened the next two games, so we made the
change.

Point is you might want to try it as is for a couple more games and
see if it works out better. If not, by all means please change to
suit your comfort level. That's why the game is in a Word file, so
you can personalize it to your taste.

Great comments, BTW. Thanks.

Bill Gray


--- In NapoleonicFireandFury@egroups.com, tmewborn@a... wrote:
> We played our first game and came across a situation that we either
> missed in the rules or didn't understand.  A 18 stand Russain Unit
> was charged by 3 French Infantry units and 1 French Cavalry unit.
We
> didn't quite know how to handle this situation.  We played it as a
> infantry charge, being that it was mostly infantry, and only
counted
> the cavalry for numbers.  Did we do this correctly?
>
> Second, some felt that the cavalry was some what usless against
> infantry.  They could not rationalize that the infantry would fire
> against a charging cavalry unit while in line, but recieve the
charge
> as if in square(assuming a benifitial die roll during combat).
Even
> if the infantry lost the charge by 1-3, the unit would move back 2"
> and blast away at the cavalry again from a line.  Either we are
> missing something in the rules or we are using the rules
incorrectly.
>
> Other than that, we thought the rules flowed smoothly and played
well.
> Thank you in advance for an input.
> Todd
> Toledo, Ohio

At 21:46 25/01/01 , you wrote:
>Nevertheless, I think Jean-Marc has a point. I always look to British
>authors for some of the most objective writing on the American Civil
>War due to their not being born in Atlanta or Boston.  On the other
>hand, I an American, look at, say, Bruce Quarrie's rules included in
>the book Napoleon's Campaigns in Miniature and find them to be very
>biased in favor of the British, with morale ratings way too high for
>many units. Yet you'd better not even whisper a hint of criticism to
>this South Carolinian about Robert E. Lee!  Seems on both sides of
>the Atlantic things like national pride are still a factor. No big
>deal really as no one will ever know for sure.

Agree completely.

I've seen wargames rules from this side of the pond with army lists that do
not allow the British to have anything other than elite infantry.
Even provisional battalions or freshly raised regiments straight off the
boat are supermen.

Many British wargamers don't seem to be willing to believe that there were
some pretty bad battalions about.
Derek Hodge <dmc.hodge@...>

To Derek,  Bill (and all)

1. Napoleonic F&F may be played wih the scale you have
mentioned, but I do prefer the Army level Game, working by
brigades/divisions. This is personal of course. This is the only
way to re-fight Leipzig with few players and without wasting the
time needed for Legacy of Glory (a good set), or Empire V(
another good one, but I still not understand the road taken after
Empire III. I was waiting an Empire III bis with some simplified
rules and a real drift towards an army level game …I received
Empire V which is very different).

2) Guards and national pride. Some of the French existing
Napoleonic rules give high rates of fire for French Guards and for
British Troops (as an aside, all are very cumbersome rules for
divisional battles). But after all it's a way to explain why Napoleon
lost in 1815…

3)I have read many rules and came to the conclusions that
English and Americans wargamers /rulemakers do have very
different perspectives about wargames. I 'd want to know if this is
linked to their relationship with war and/or games ? Under this
respect an intriguing fact is that original F&F rules are born in the
USA…
--- In NapoleonicFireandFury@y..., Derek Hodge
<dmc.hodge@v...> wrote:
> At 21:46 25/01/01 , you wrote:
> >Nevertheless, I think Jean-Marc has a point. I always look to
British
> >authors for some of the most objective writing on the
American Civil
> >War due to their not being born in Atlanta or Boston.  On the
other
> >hand, I an American, look at, say, Bruce Quarrie's rules
included in
> >the book Napoleon's Campaigns in Miniature and find them
to be very
> >biased in favor of the British, with morale ratings way too high
for
> >many units. Yet you'd better not even whisper a hint of
criticism to
> >this South Carolinian about Robert E. Lee!  Seems on both
sides of
> >the Atlantic things like national pride are still a factor. No big
> >deal really as no one will ever know for sure.
>
> Agree completely.
>
> I've seen wargames rules from this side of the pond with army
lists that do
> not allow the British to have anything other than elite infantry.
> Even provisional battalions or freshly raised regiments straight
off the
> boat are supermen.
>
> Many British wargamers don't seem to be willing to believe that
there were
> some pretty bad battalions about.
> Derek Hodge <dmc.hodge@v...>

I honestly don't know why there seems to be a difference between English and
American game design, and admittedly I haven't taken a look at a set of British
rules lately, but it does exist.

Certainly because I am an American (US type) I might have more of an objective
perspective on the Napoleonic Wars since I am reasonably detached from the
period culturally and historically. Likewise for my British cousins when they
look at the American Civil War, and this will show up at least in unit rating
tabulations.

Otherwise the one or two things I have noticed is that British gamers seem to
prefer a much lower level - very, very tactical - of combat than do we
Americans. I know when Empire first came out with a figure scale of 1:60,
enabling whole battles to be run, some of my fellow NATO officers in the British
Army of the Rhine were mortified that the scale was above 1:20 and the amount of
important detail lost. Also, seems to me that us colonists tend to be much
bigger command & control advocates than folks back home in Mother England.

Still not real sure why.

Bill

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: jean-marc.largeaud@...
Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:50:52 -0000

><html><body>
><tt>
>To Derek,  Bill (and all)<BR>
><BR>
>1.      Napoleonic F&F may be played wih the scale you have <BR>
>mentioned, but I do prefer the Army level Game, working by <BR>
>brigades/divisions. This is personal of course. This is the only <BR>
>way to re-fight Leipzig with few players and without wasting the <BR>
>time needed for Legacy of Glory (a good set), or Empire V( <BR>
>another good one, but I still not understand the road taken after <BR>
>Empire III. I was waiting an Empire III bis with some simplified <BR>
>rules and a real drift towards an army level game …I received <BR>
>Empire V which is very different). <BR>
><BR>
>2) Guards and national pride. Some of the French existing <BR>
>Napoleonic rules give high rates of fire for French Guards and for <BR>
>British Troops (as an aside, all are very cumbersome rules for <BR>
>divisional battles). But after all it's a way to explain why Napoleon <BR>
>lost in 1815…<BR>
><BR>
>3)I have read many rules and came to the conclusions that <BR>
>English and Americans wargamers /rulemakers do have very <BR>
>different perspectives about wargames. I 'd want to know if this is <BR>
>linked to their relationship with war and/or games ? Under this <BR>
>respect an intriguing fact is that original F&F rules are born in the <BR>
>USA…<BR>
>--- In NapoleonicFireandFury@y..., Derek Hodge <BR>
><dmc.hodge@v...> wrote:<BR>
>> At 21:46 25/01/01 , you wrote:<BR>
>> >Nevertheless, I think Jean-Marc has a point. I always look to <BR>
>British<BR>
>> >authors for some of the most objective writing on the <BR>
>American Civil<BR>
>> >War due to their not being born in Atlanta or Boston.  On the <BR>
>other<BR>
>> >hand, I an American, look at, say, Bruce Quarrie's rules <BR>
>included in<BR>
>> >the book Napoleon's Campaigns in Miniature and find them <BR>
>to be very<BR>
>> >biased in favor of the British, with morale ratings way too high <BR>
>for<BR>
>> >many units. Yet you'd better not even whisper a hint of <BR>
>criticism to<BR>
>> >this South Carolinian about Robert E. Lee!  Seems on both <BR>
>sides of<BR>
>> >the Atlantic things like national pride are still a factor. No big<BR>
>> >deal really as no one will ever know for sure.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> Agree completely.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> I've seen wargames rules from this side of the pond with army <BR>
>lists that do <BR>
>> not allow the British to have anything other than elite infantry.<BR>
>> Even provisional battalions or freshly raised regiments straight <BR>
>off the <BR>
>> boat are supermen.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> Many British wargamers don't seem to be willing to believe that <BR>
>there were <BR>
>> some pretty bad battalions about.<BR>
>> Derek Hodge <dmc.hodge@v...><BR>
><BR>
></tt>
>
><br>
>
><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
>
><table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
><tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
><td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>eGroups
Sponsor</b></font></td>
></tr>
><tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
><td width=470><form method="get"
action="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=1700\
000001:N/A=567132/R=0/*http://whois.domains.yahoo.com/domains_wresults.html"><in\
put type="hidden" name="action" value="1"> <input type="hidden" name="property"
value="domains">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="468" height="60"
bgcolor="#ccff00">
<tr><td align=left valign=top><A
HREF="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=170000\
0001:N/A=567132/R=1/*http://domains.yahoo.com"><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_domain/d_andy_left.gif"
height=60 width=124 alt="" border="0"></a></td>
<td valign=top align=left><A
HREF="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=170000\
0001:N/A=567132/R=2/*http://domains.yahoo.com"><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_domain/d_andy_top.gif" alt=""
border="0" height=30 width=352></a><br><table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
border=0><tr><td><font color="#000000">www.<input type="text" name="name"
size=15
value="andyscheffler">   <input type="submit" name="Submit" value="you can't
have it!"></font></td></tr></table></td>
</tr>
</table>
</form></td>
></tr>
><tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmai\
l/S=1700000001:N/A=567132/rand=428669449"></td></tr>
></table>
>
><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
>
>
><br>
><tt>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
>NapoleonicFireandFury-unsubscribe@egroups.com<BR>
><BR>
></tt>
><br>
>
></body></html>
>
>

Thank you fo your answer and a confirmation of cultural differences : I have
some knowledge of post-trauma medecine in French, German (and Austrian
WWI)British and US armies, and the different approaches are striking.
I agree with your comments about different choice of scale on both sides of
the Atlantic. Luckily enough, however, the wargaming world is so diverse in
UK ! There you can find a group without equivalent elsewhere, Wargame
Developpements.And also many interesting Historian/gamers (Paddy Griffith is
my favorite and first for his Napoleonic Wargaming for fun).
But enough philosophy (for today though).
Back to Napoleonics :
In the changes and clarifications to original rules printed in the Great
Eastern Scenarios book (p. 4) there is a special rule for charges across
bridges and fords. If we keep this rule as it is, my next travel (on table)
will be Arcole...
Jean-Marc

At 20:10 26/01/01 , you wrote:
>Otherwise the one or two things I have noticed is that British gamers seem
>to prefer a much lower level - very, very tactical - of combat than do we
>Americans. I know when Empire first came out with a figure scale of 1:60,
>enabling whole battles to be run, some of my fellow NATO officers in the
>British Army of the Rhine were mortified that the scale was above 1:20 and
>the amount of important detail lost. Also, seems to me that us colonists
>tend to be much bigger command & control advocates than folks back home in
>Mother England.

This British wargamer plays mainly US rules for most of the reasons you
have mentioned.


Derek Hodge <dmc.hodge@...>