Forum Replies Created

Viewing 32 posts - 1 through 32 (of 32 total)
  • Author

  • poniatowski

    One book I must get now….. I am intrigued.

    I agree, on a larger scope, cards add in that flavor like spice…. very useful. I can still see them in use in a smaller tactical games for the FOW effect…. if you are forced into a turn sequence that is rigid, random event cardfs can add htings like “delay” unit must spend 1-2 or however many turns reorganizing….. I liek these kind sof things but do not want my game completely under the control of random events.

    I knwo your rules systems use cards differently, I wa sjust saying this is hwo I would see introducing them into my game to break up the predictability.


    repiqueone… thank you, spelled out that way it really makes me think. I have a small scale WW1 skirmish game that is totally card driven for unit order, random events & FoW… cards do provide their own FoW element as to doing things…

    “can I move in front of those MG’s? they went this turn, but I would be left in the open for next turn if they get to go before me…. and you cross your fingers and hope your card comes up before theirs as you took the chance and moved into the open.”

    I like card driven systems, but in my Napoleonic rules, I guess I just fell into what you are saying is the old standard of “you go I go” turn sequences and you are absolutely correct with the statement about turn length…. the more you micro manage in a turn to give the “real” effect… the longer and more bogged down the turns become.

    Man, so many styles.. so many rules…. I think that is why we try to develope our own. I see strengths and weaknesses in each system and you did open my eyes to a few issues I hadn’t thought of before because I was just “doing it like the rest did it… but with my own flair”

    That was VERY helpful! (and well written!) Thank you!



    Ok… to clarify… I know my turn/move sequence is not new… I write in my rules entry that I hope to have breathed new life into Napoleonic gaming… everyone.. I don’t care who you are or claim to be has a “thing”…. that thing in their rules that they think sets their rules above the rest.

    That said… I love a lot of styles of Nap & skirmish rules…. dare I say it again…. I would love to have a game that was as detailed as Chef’ but easily played so that you could run a large game at a con in a few hours with “historic” results.. and let me be very clear here… by historic, I mean accurate… that reflect the tactics, both grand and tactical…. reflecting the movement, melee and black powder results…. not a game where the French win…. because they are the French…. and that is the way it was…. in the hands of an incompetant player…. any army could lose.

    I do not know anything about your guys rivalry…. please leave me out of it, but please do offer constructive criticism, etc…. I know there are things you can and cannot say because you are writers yourselves, but some things are given…. like accuracy of arms, troop training, etc…. feel free to give advice.

    I think the way I have handled movement is a lot like other older systems, but still different on its own accord… I have playtested my rules in groups of frineds and strangers…. AND… I have found that, within reason, I get the same historic outcomes…. I say within reason because not everyone is a master of the era or the tactics…. such are some of my friends…. so…. a guy that continually charges squares with his cavalry is not on par to Wellington right? I have found that when the commands are in capable hands and the troops in play accurately reflect the oobs of the battle we are doing… they usually play out the same… sans some crazy dice…. everyone rolls ones at some point…. Murphy indicates that it will usually be at the worst time possible.

    One thing I find AMAZING though is the ability of a novice to recreate the actual battle by their own “Godlike” perspectives…. I have played with novice players whom I tought and they can unknowingly play the battles out historically without even having ever read anything about the battle… Wargiming Napoleonics is kind of like playing out Jutland…. if you know how the battle really went…. it makes it very difficult to get historical results. This is something folks gloss over or often forget in Napoleonics or even in any gaming…… even a novice, if they understand the mechanics of the game or the abilities of the units involved, can come up with an actual game plan that resembles historical deployments and tactics… and on the other end… novices might make mistakes, but learned individuals wil lnot make the same follies as their historic prdeecessors…. unless forced to do so in the game mechanics…. and, I try to avoid that much coercion of the players.

    I digress…. sorry.

    I will end with this…. I still believe a “turn” must be divided into segements or pulses of time that reflect actual conditions…. so a trooper can move X in a specific amount of time…. use that time as a standard, then apply the black powder results… how many shots would artillery take in that time? how many rounds of musketry would be fired.. and to what effect? then have your combat tables reflect those historically proven results… it requires micro managing.. BUT it does remove that element of “universal movement”. Sorry… an engaged unit that spends 10 mins firing cannto march as far as an unengaged unit that marched for those 10 mins…. no matter how you slice it… you must differentiate this in the rules.

    Some say it makes the rules predictable…. well… the commanders knew what their troops were capable of and deployed them very predictably… you just need a good FoW element….


    • This reply was modified 4 years, 11 months ago by  poniatowski. Reason: spelling



    That is how I mean it. A si mention, the lower level commanders have some autonomy on how they accomplish siad upper level order, but whatever they do, unless it is taking over a unit directly is to try to comply with the larger order.

    Mcladdie.. you are coorect, sorry, meant bgd… I used a lot of Nafziger’s numbers. I do not consider him “THE” authority, but he is well educated… more so than I. Now, I did say I assigned that time as longer than normal becaus eof other issues such as the few mins of giving orders, organizing the troops and then acting upon those orders… it is a wave effect as the order travels down the line. And, the “unit” as a whole can only move as fast as its slowest link.. down to the company if that is the case.

    It seems like too much detail I know. I am just trying to emulate the actual movements.

    Not sure where you are from, but i think I mentioned I am the CD for HMGS Fall-IN!.. if you go to any of the HMGS cons on the east coast, PLEASE look me up. So much of what we are discussing actually gets lost in interpretation. I find it so much easier to use props and such to explain….

    Also… a big thing… as we discuss this stuff, there might very well be changes happening to my ruleset. I do NOT want to infringe on anyone else’s game mechanics, so please… if you see me changing opinion on somehting or discussing something that is leading me to certain conclusions… for my rules… I want to not cross any lines.

    So, McLaddie… if I have my turns laid out like so (see below) That whole turn represents the 6-10 mins. I don’t want it to be misleading as the definitions of each phase give the 2 pulses so to speak… so a unit could move/move shoot/ move… shoot/shoot, shoot/move, etc…

    I am open for recomendations. I do not wish to publish for sales, but rather free to the net.
    <h2>Turn Sequence:</h2>

    1. Initative phase: Determine who is active player for the turn.
    2. Rally phase: Both sides attach/detach leaders and attempt any rallies.
    3. Order phase: Determine command and control and place or activate orders.
    4. Acting Movement phase: Acting player moves some or all units, resolving enemy pre-contact fire from any charges.
    5. Acting fire phase: Simoltaneous fire, first artillery then small arms.
    6. Acting Melee phase: Resolve all charge melees, checking morale as necessary.
    7. Reactive player movement phase: Reactive player moves some or all units, resolving enemy pre-contact fire from any charges.
    8. Second fire phase: Simoltaneous fire, first artillery then small arms.
    9. Reactive Melee phase: Resolve all new melees, checking morale as necessary.
    10. Check for victory conditions.

    So much can happen in a turn and we try to reflect so much…

    I am all ears, well.. eyes…. I love to talk shop and the 5 “W”‘s so to speak….

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 11 months ago by  poniatowski.



    Good question… by the definitions, they were engaged in battle in real life, but their sole purpose was to advance/charge, they were not under multiple orders or changing orders. They were under execution of one order… And, it might be added, although advancing put them closer to death, it also put them closer to victory.

    In my system, they would have had to:

    1. be in command

    2. have an order/change of order… they were obviously doing something else* before they were given th eorder to charge, whether it be maneuvering or deploying.

    3. passed their activation

    The rest is order execution…. they were under fire, but they were unengaged in anything else other than their charge, they didn’t stop to return fire, etc… had they done so, because of the attrition and loss, they would have a harder time to get going in the charge again.

    In the game, dressing ranks is somehting that happen automatically when losses occur and stands take losses.

    And, troops well led and motivated will get the job done. The only other thing affecting the troop movement would be any potentially morale checks due to stand/figure loss…. it is absolutely possible to “keep the pace” with troops that are well led or trained and also, when it comes ot morale… well motivated.

    Well said and I couldn’t agree more… your paragraph about troops within 300 years, etc… Exactly what I believe too and that is why there should be an accounting and the formulae for rate can, does and will change base dupon many factors once engaged. Or at least, have the potential for a change to happen based upon other factors.

    On the white wash thing… I wasn’t refering to you…. I agree with all of your statements pretty much! I was talking about larger systems that just explain the micro managing away stating the movement rate is X, over Y time because ABCDEFG can happen in that time… those systems do not account for troops that are only doing “A” where A is dedicated movement. Sorry if I was misleading. I agree with your statements here.

    “My questions would be how ‘variable’ was movement on the battlefield and why?”

    You go on to describe those factors and those are the factors I am trying to incorporate. For the most part, movement will remain the same…. I stated that in extreme cases, the dice will come up badly and you might get a unit that is sluggish to disengage, etc… and that is one of the factors you mention.

    Agreed, on the Corps level, you can and a lot of games do calculate an average out and, to be honest.. it can come out accurately, BUT…. I go down to the tactical company level and all kinds of things can happen. My players like this sort of thing, so it is included.  Sometimes the micromanaging can really make a difference, but also, most times… it doesn’t affect play in any grand scale way….

    So the real question is: IS it worth including? I feel yes. And I agree your averages for movement are very accurate, well calculated and established.

    As I mentioned earlier as a reenactor, we are poorly trained for large body formations and maneuvering but have no fear of death… real troops of the time feard death but more than made up for it with their training, etc… I understand what you are saying completely, but since my turns are so short (6-10 mins)… there is a bit of micromanaging that comes into play to get the troops to do what you want.. most importantly.. when you want them to do it.

    An exerpt from my intro to the rules:

    These rules are played at a tactical level to demonstrate that there is so much more to grand scale gaming than throwing dice and moving blocks of disproportionate troops on a poorly scaled battlefield. You will have to be concerned with leadership and orders, maintaining morale and most importantly… utilizing the tactics of the day to crush your oponent on ground of your choosing. Most rules for the Napoleonic era do not take into account scale or time very well… and more importantly, what a soldier can do in the time provided to him on the batlefield. If well led, he can accomplish great things even if poorly trained. For this purpose I have chosen a tactical turn length of 6-10 minutes… which was the average length of time required for a full strength batallion to go from column into line in good order. You ar not expected to worry about supply or how far your cannon fire bounces, but rather maintaining command, giving orders and seeing how they develop over time tactically.

    I am not claiming to be correct, in fact, my original movement for my game every one said was “too fast”…. troops could zip around the board, etc.. that got me thinking that grand tactically, this was true.. averages all came out nice and neat, but on the company level.. I am trying to emulate the things that could make it come apart. I am not syaing I succeeded.. just that it seems to reflect historic outcomes pretty well. I have 9 levels of morale…. 5 levels of command… and the games run pretty smoothly.



    • This reply was modified 4 years, 11 months ago by  poniatowski. Reason: grammar


    Well… what I can say from experience in reading and reenacting… (I know, lots of folks don’t like to account for “pretending”, but it does provide some data)…. Activation.. I didn’t like the way it was done in Chef because it seemed liek you could NEVER activate… change what you were doing. The chance to activate is actually a lot higher.. almost NOT worth the dice roll… BUT.. there are a lot of documented times where, because of the situation it took longer to do things.. like stop fireing and advance, etc… through th enoise and blood of an engaged unit, orderes can get messed up.. so basically… most units would organize quickly.. but you do have situations documented where it just took “a little longer” to get things “straightened out”. Since I use a 6-10 min turn… subdivided into 4 subphases, the activation comes into play and adds a nice FoW elelment… it isn’t liek troops won’t activate, but rather that soem very poorly traine dtroops with poor leaders might just take a little longer if they dice off badly.

    As for the second part, as a participant and viewer…

    As a viewer form afar…. the mobility on the field of individual units, all under different commanders, all trying to execute the same order… you will have lots of dressing issues. You can argue 2 things here. 1. reenactors have no fear of death so they execute orders and move quickly.. whereas a soldier of the period did indeed fear death, regardless of discipline and 2. as ametures, we don’t drill regularly and thus cannot keep a regimental line well when dealing with loads of individual units who get together once every few months to play soldier… where on th eother hand, these soldiers, even poorly trained regulars can execute field maneuvers better than us and dress lines under action.

    The thing is, I view them as a wash, except in extreme conditions… reenactors are quick to march to war, but pretty unorganized as a larger body, while soldiers, while better drilled will have the fear of death. Who is to say how each of these affects real soldiers of the time. The key here is simply to add in the chance for that slow down.. that wrench in the plans, that slight FoW… Most troops wil do as they are told in the field, but there are recorded histories of units engaging prematurely and failing to disenegage and advance, etc… this stuff does and did indeed happen. It is just my little way of trying to include it, but not by some cumbersome rules. The same can be said for dressing lines, etc… trained soldiers instinctively close the gaps…. if not due to discipline, but rather the “safe” feeling of not being a lone target in the open… again.. thsoe very words documented somewhere in soem memoires I read.. a general observing troops on the field and comparing them as “huddled masses off to slaughter” or something like that.

    I guess in the GRAND tactical games, these thinsg are accounted for….. but in my game… where the smallest unit is a company… these little things, if gone astray can halt the entire body…. a company failing to act on orders can affect the btn, that then affects the rgt and so forth… thus causing the blanket orders of the division to get bogged down… depending upon the level of the orders sent… the acting body does NOT act without all of the parts of the whole…

    THIS alone is VERY important to understand what I am saying here…. thes e”things” I am talking about are the very things that other rule sets wash away by saying that a turn represents an hour or half hour… they don’t go down to the btn level, let alone the company level…. all of these snags and trip ups is what makes the whole movement rate thing so confounded crazy… no one wants to get into that realism… they wash it away.. it takes too much time, they wil never get a game doen in a few hours…. to that I say bubkiss….. the key is to have enough commanders per side to be able to break it down…. one man micromanaging the Russians at Borodino is an impossibility…. BUT…. 20 people doing it… well, I hope you see wher eI am going here.

    AND.. the direct outcome relates to the original topic in this way…. unengaged troops who devote their whole turn to movement in good order wil not have these snags.. and will move much further than units tied up in the battle…. a body in motion thing or a body at rest thing…. a rgt deployed in battle  will indeed take longer to form up and march somewhere especially under fire… whiel the unengaged rgt will have no such constraints.. they ar eformed up, unengaged and in good oreder… no micro managing… they march….

    It only makes sense that the outcome is that the unegaged rgt can move fiurther than the engaged one. So that blows the “standard movement rate” out of the water…. as was the initial question… there are so many factors that can affect movement rate…. they must be taken into account somewhere…. random movement does not work as it gives too much to chance… a uniform rate is not accurate as it doesn’t reflect the reality of the situation and to say the turn is an hour and this is what that “hour” encompasses doesn’t work with me…. that is why I go to many commanders micromanaging… not one, making braod assumptions…. as is pointed out over and over again in this discussion… unengaged troops that spend their whoel turn moving should absolutely be able to move further in a turn than engaged troops doing other stuff.. you cannot just white wash it and average it all out…. that alone to me is the difference between grand tactical and tactical level games. The key is.. if you want to play the large engagement… just get enough folks (commanders) to play… the games play quickly if you have enough people. It forces interaction between army command, divisional command and then down to regemental command….

    In my ideal game… I would have and overall army commander, corpse commandes, divisional commanders and regemental commanders…


    Hey, I am trying to input thoughts, add to the original question,etc…. stay on topic.

    It seems some folks are more interested in opening old wounds or grudges???

    McLaddie does hit one are nicely…. there are 2 areas I have issues with (struggled with myself).

    1. activation to move rolls add a very nice element of FOW… can you really count on those troops to do what you want? it depends upon how well trained they are and how well led. (modifiers will set the pace there, easily done)…

    2. rolls to see how far a unit will move…. another idea I like…. it represents the confusion in the ranks.. dressing ranks, closing gaps, etc…

    Both of these, however great ideas, I did not use in my system because I thought they were “copywrited” mechanics so to speak. I have a draft of my rules that uses both, but yes… they are great mechanics that really pull together all we know about the era.  For starters… leaders are very important… I cannot emphasize that enough, but you guys know that. Leaders can be both great inspirations to their troops and great tactical minds on the field…. or they can be the opposite in both or one or whatever… The point is…. combining the troops class: conscript, vereran, elite and the commander’s abilities… both as a modifiers respectively… you can take a d10 roll add in the mods and there you have the units chance to “activate”… whether it be to withdraw, move, etc… then easily enough, you have rolls to see how far they move and have in there mods based upon not the troop type, but proximity to battle…. engaged, unengaged….

    It is hard enough to get troops to do anything in the field onc ethey have been engaged and then to motivate them on top of that to do something else…. easily put into polished dice rolls that can actively reflect history, add fog of war, etc….

    And all of this is directly related to D=R*T… in the turn, the leader can unsuccessfully motivate (activate) his troops the first phase andf then do it in the second phase… leading to a movement which is only half of what they coudl have gotten to start and then you have to dice for distance…

    It all works rather well and accounts for all necessary issues that might arise….  and, more importantly, comes off very historic as the chances are directly related to training and leadership…

    Will those conscripts withraw in an orderly manner or break and flee…..?

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 11 months ago by  poniatowski. Reason: spelling


    This is why condensed turns do not make sense to me…. time is exaggerated to represent so much more than movement…

    It is easily handled by having longer actual turns with more than one phase or pulse…. unengaged units can move more then engaged units…

    Turns need ot be be more subdivided. if you keep to historical movement rates in combat, I htink we can all agree… a turn divided into shorter phases can more accurately represent the real worls.

    By introducing multiple phases you can have a commander who is unengaged…. march… march… whiel someoen els emight march- deploy, whilst another engages the whoel turn with 2 fire phases..

    Abstracting “out” real life, proven D=R*T.. seems absurd… time is time and must be accounted for… the abstratc of “averaging” what a unit can do in an ghour or half hour isn’t even practical….. because if one unit is engaged for an hour whilst another moves for a full hour will give 2 totally different situations.

    Take your turn, divide it up into some “accepted” ratio of time…. and then have at the “action sequence”….

    You must account for the speed at which unengaged troops can move and random activation although cool, can easily be incorporated as a “mechanism” based upon the leaders tactical ability: poor -2, fair -1, average 0, good +1, excellent +2…..

    A unit that is fighting, running away, advancing, skirmishing, etc… will not cover the same ground as even a cautious commander who is advancing unengaged.

    I understand the question clearly… I guess because my play style dictates how important maneuvering is (D=R*T) and I play grand scale games on a tactical/company level…. deployment and formation change is key during a battle…. not a dice mechanic that is set up to give historic outcomes…. any game that allows a French player to “mechanically” win or places th eodds in their favor because it wa shistorically so is not very historic at all… it is the troops and commanders and what they did and how they did it that wins the game.. not.. “Oh, he is French… they will win this”…. even the best of armies, even if poorly led will fail.

    It is very important to include the different leader’s personalities.. I get that, that is why I have 2 ratings.. tactical and charisma…. the modifier range is big enough that if helps build historical outcomes…. or at least adds to it… their ratings affect how quickly they can act upon orders (which by the way.. does represent the time to pass th eorders to the ranks, dress the ranks, etc….).

    I do not consider “predictable” movement rates ot be tired and old… it is, in fact, what the leaders depended upon when planning their battles…

    The old guard does NOT always win…. especially in commanded by a bafoon.

    What you are saying here it seems is that the games became too predictable… you know the stats, the rates, the charts, etc… well, that is what happens over time. Writing a new set of rules that is fun for you I have no problems with…. but don’t tread on folks who still enjoy it.

    The question was very straight forward…. and I think answered…  so much can happen in so much time…. I just find it better to micro manage the time rather than to abstract it… so, why not just set all of the figures up and  each commander rolls a d10…. the French add +5, Russians subtract 1 and the Brits add 3…. high roll wins….. you can do all sorts of things to force a historical outcome….. and then say, hey, it works…. 9 out of ten times the French win this battle just like they did in history.. this game is awesome! Does that really mean the game is, in fact historical.. or even fun.. if it works for you that is fine…. but some of us have not given up on the D=R*T because ti was so very important in real life. We prefer mechanics that reflect that.

    So, I guess, in conclusion, I woud say a turn that has multiple phases works better than an abstracted one because if the turn is indeed an hour… and it is broken down into say some time allotment that represent a good standard of unit that can be reflected historically… the phase must be at least long enough for a unit to deploy… so on average a 6-10 min turn…

    I quote:

    Movement phase:

    XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX uses a different system for movement compared to other games. The tactics of the era have shown that infantry moved quickly to maneuver into the best field position they could before engaging the enemy. Once there however, they would typically form into line and initiate volley fire, usually at extreme ranges, which would eventually lead to one side or the other wavering or breaking, which would then ultimately lead to an advantage where the other side would charge and attempt to drive their enemy from the field. Cavalry was used to exploit growing weakness in the enemy’s line while protecting their own. During the movement phase, any unit that does not have a charge order cannot move any closer than x” to an enemy unit. When a charge order is issued, XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, in an effort to re-create the tactics employed, uses a maximum charge range with a cary through value. Depending on the type of unit and their formation, a unit cannot start a charge unless it is in a legal charge formation and within it’s charge range or closer and has a charge order. The charge range represents the typical distance a unit would try to achieve before a charge was launched. Men and Horses have their limits and a charge of any length could leave the attackers winded and ineffective in melee. Yes, a man charging across a field can run farther, but at what cost to his units order or his endurance and ability to fight? An army is only as strong as it’s weakest link.




    in reply to: War of 1812 – US Uniforms Query #10416


    That is great Glen! That is what I do look for in my games.

    the aestetics are so important to me, but I do realize that others do play for other reasons. Yes, I saw that a lot of th efigures are mounted in strips… was it 3 per rgt/btn.. that works as you have a firm proportion to work with. columns and lines wil be different structires on the field.

    Very cool.

    I am currently looking at how I could make the move. There are so many rules out there and there is a “best fit” for each era. Company level might not be the best for such large games… I can consider any rules set, as long as it is fun tio play and looks pretty on the table top!

    thxs, for the info!



    in reply to: War of 1812 – US Uniforms Query #10311




    Thanks and cheers to you also! Many more years of great games and friends!

    I will lead into another question. The reason I use the company layout is simply because I struggle wiht “square” -ish bases… basically, the frontage and depth of a batallion is vastly different depending if the unit is in line of column… the “abstract” square does not reflect this well on a battlefield. I have heard many discussions as to explain the square…. but they never sat well with me. And as tactics and formations are very important to my game, being actually able to take those formations in the field, however cumbersome is very apealing and very pretty.

    Making a blanket statement saying the square represents all of th espace needed to do all of the things the btn needs to do is a little absurd to me because as you take into account REAL life frontages and troop depletion… it can be a game changer.. you can possibly have one btn actually squaring off against 2 in melee due to the oponent being understrength or having taken losses. Not to be too picky, etc… just a pet peeve…

    I agree wiht you though… doing away with all of that does make the games go a lot quicker and with the right mechanics in place can give equally historic outcomes. I have not problems with that at all. I just like having that many levels of command as it really comes into play when using orders and team play…

    Earlier someone mentioned that being the overall army commander can be boreing AND frustrating…. frustrating yes, but never boreing as that individual is constantly writing and changing orders base dupon th eoverall picture.. and the lower level commanders are always kept busy deploying and executing those orders. There really is lots to do AND, I must add, you have to have the right group to do this…. because if the overall Army commander came to push lead, they will be disappointed…. but, ther eis always that one guy who wants to be the king… and they don’t mind giving the orders and watching their subbordinates trying to execute them…

    It is a pretty unique playstyle that brings grand tactical and tactical onto the same table.

    As I said though, there are many systems….I am definitely not saying mine is best, it is just best for me.

    in reply to: War of 1812 – US Uniforms Query #10234




    Thanks for the quick response.

    For basing… I would definitely be keeping the unit as a company I have a ground scale of .015″ = 1′ or 1″ = 65′ (roughly 33 paces).

    Call me a masochist… but I really like the large games at small scale… I find that they are very doable. What I am considering is going from 15mm to 6mm to better match the figures to the ground scale.

    As for painting, well… I work for Old Gurard Painters in the Ukraine, I am their US rep.. so I woudl only be going that way.

    The only hurdle I have at the moment is that I have a very huge, very well painted collection (most unbassed) in 15mm.  I was working on Borodino in company level 15mm 1:40…. I think it would be so much more beautiful in 6mm… the problem is, when I started this project there really weren’t any good 6mm figures out there.

    So I am left with a huge colleciton of Russians, Polish and French, all in 15mm.. I would really have to sell them all to make the move into 6mm… that is a hefty price tag for someone to buy….. So, I have been wrestling with this for a few years. I even stopped buying the 15mm Napoleonics and started concentrating on 15mm FoW and such…. It would be a huge undertaking to try and sell them that the project has stagnated.

    I even moved on to doing 15mm war of 1812 since then too… 15mm works very well for those scales of battles.

    To me, honestly.. gaming is about the aestetics, friends and playability of the rules. Pretty much in that order. If I run a game, it is a presentation with friends food and a rule set that really grasps the era we are playing, but is very playable and fun….

    Isn’t that what it is all about any way, lol!

    But I say…. If I had a buyer for the 15mm Napoleonic collection…. I would be moving into the 6mm range as soon as the money cleared the bank!


    • This reply was modified 4 years, 11 months ago by  poniatowski.
    in reply to: Latest 'hot' period? #10219


    I think a good point has been touched upon…

    Availability of miniatures and more importantly, possibly.. the scale of said miniatures. Traditionally, Napoleonics is really suited to smaller scaled figures because of the sheer numbe rneeded. Yes, lots of folks use 25mm too, but lots of 18th century stuff can be done in 25mm with a good ground scale and figure scale. And as was pointed out.. lots of folks doing skirmish games now a days!




    I agree…  the issue of mechanics can be a true bear in the woods, elusive, but dangerous when found. I think the hardest thing to deal with in Napoleonic games is indeed the movement rate. I am no scholar, but I have read a lot of accounts… so many and they all say the same kind of things. Orders aside, troops, even well led, well trained/drilled and well disciplined are not the same under fire. The hardest mechanic to develope is how much does being under fire affect the men in the field… all of the rest is statistical averages… damage is directly proportional to the training and weapon type plus the number of men firing and rage they shoot…. these things can be proven out through tests and records form then and now.

    The crux is getting to that point of unloading that volley and how long can the men handle the attrition of losing men in the field.

    Once battle is joined and the smoke starts.. most men cannot see the big picture… they rely upon their leaders to do what is best and to KNOW what is going on. And, once engaged, a unit would rather fire at range than be told ot march into it….  that is why, I think Chef had the cil roll to actually stop firing and disengage… this replicated the toughness of micromanaging companies in a large game.

    What we do know…. there have been many mechanisms to deal with tactical and grand tactical movement in many games over the years… MOST of them are pretty straight foreward…. they take the average field drill time for marching men ~3mph and decrease it a tad in game scale to represent “other terrain or dressing the ranks, etc…

    How I handled it for infantry was to take the effective musket range and make that the key distance for movement… up until troops are actually in danger of dying, they will maneuver at whatever “rate” their training/skill level dictates… better troops and doctrine determine movement rate while not under fire… that is an easy one….

    But what, onc ethey ar ewithin threatened range of serious enemy fire, do they move when withn that range… the amount of movement reduction is really base dupon their training, morale and discipline…. throw in there the leaders ability to lead and charisma for motivation.. (as modifiers)…. ill equiped troops with poor training and leadership will be very hesitant and slow greatly compared to the old guard…. With that model, you then have to throw in all kinds of other  factors… even poorly trained troops coudl have good morale and then, if led by a charismatic leader, well… they coudl accomplish great things…. the chance is there and in history it has been proven out many times…. but… this is a rarity… in my game, lets say you have that unit of conscripts/green (poor troops)… low morale…. and they see the old guard advancing upon their position. They will be making a morale check to see if they woudl even stay before engaging… this is a simple morale tests that is modified by the leader’s charisma and any situational modifiers (fort, wall, etc..)… you wind up rolling the morale check to stand… but you must subtract -1 per difference in morale grade…. lets assume no modifiers except the morale difference…. straight out of the gate, without any positive modifiers, the militia woudl flee before the old guard.. they coudln’t possibly pass that check to stay. In this way, the only way that they woud stay is by a very lucky role AND have a charismatic leade rthere to stedy them and give them enough of a plus to actually pass…. so, in one fell swoop, I have covered the abilities of the leader and the unit…. it is possible even for a player to attach a very poor leader to the old guard and thus actually make them less effective morale or combat wise…. Now, no one in their right mind would do that… but the possibility exists that a bad roll (taken by chance and casualties) causes the guard to break…. to rally they woudl need ot get that attached leader or they continue to flee…. sometimes, all you have is a crappy leader somehwere… not common for th eFrench ratings, but, well, it coudl happen.

    I just wanted to coerce players to use the tactics and strategy of the day AND realize that yes, there are bad leaders that actually negatively impacted morale, etc.. and likewise those that were very good…. it is a subtle coercion to really give the flavor of the era….

    Is it perfect…? far form it I am sure, but it really has worked for us. The key was not having pages and pages of rules, but rather having a wide spread in morale grades, musket classes and leader capabilities so that the all situations could be handled and have a pretty accurate historical outcome.

    I don’t get into too much with rain, muddy fields and hills, etc…  and how they affect cannon bounce. I let th enumber ssort themselves out.

    I digress, sorry about that.

    Back to how this ties to movement rates…. as I started to mention earlier, units under fire slow… the amount to which they slow is directly based upoon their morale grade and leadership and is handled with a simple roll once they are within engaging range… they are considered engaged and have to make a roll to see how effective they are that turn. This ties in well with accurate artillery too… as that coudl seriously slow up any commander’s plans because his troops might get “engaged” at a much greater distance and thus are slower to do anything.

    As I said, this is a roll by turn. And there is a decent chance that being engaged will not effect movement much at all for regulars and higher morale units, but it sure can affect lower morale or higher wiht bad roles. AND, it can be different form turn to turn.

    I hope this helps. It might not be fo ryou or give you any insight, but it works for us and also seems to reflect history pretty well when played out.

    One of the biggest things this prevents is the “God complex” we have as players. The game mechaniucs do not allow you to leave units in the field that are decimated. This wa snot as common as peopel wopudl believe. Commanders woudl not throw away the lives of their troops unless very desperate. They would, instead, leave the field in order if they could. This is not the rule, but it is very common. Scenario design might say… troops stay to the last man, etc… The rules are there to allow much freedom, but they are also meant to coerce players to play according to the tactics and doctrine of the time….


    Simply beautiful…

    I am working on my Polish now…. (well, sending them out, but assembling them).

    in reply to: War of 1812 – US Uniforms Query #10192



    Wow…. well said and holy smokes.. they look very nice (did some surfing!). I guess you are correct…. in fact.. I am almost thinking I want to try them out. I know the range has been expanding… I have one chore though…. what to do with my 1000’s of 15mm…. ???

    I use a 1:20 for 1812 and a 1:40 for Napoleonics (in 15mm)…. BUT….. my ground scale is more geared between 6 & 10mm…..  I can easily envision ranks upon ranks of 6mm figs and a much better man:man ratio… WOW… I could potentially put 3 or 2 ranks per company and decrease the ratio to 1:5….

    This would be much prettier…. I have toyed with this often. AND.,.. have been looking for an excuse to go that route…

    I think at Fall-In! this year I will look for some baccus and send them off to be painted… I cannot paint anything smaller than 20mm WELL now a days…. so I send to OGP in the Ukraine.

    I think it could go very well…. my scale wouldn’t change, nor my base sizes… nor the way the game plays.. I would just have to change the “element” size to scale to the new ratio…

    My biggest hang up is that I have so many painted collectors quality French and Russians in 15mm for Napoleonic…. I would have to find a buyer to really dump ojne scale and move into another like that.

    in reply to: War of 1812 – US Uniforms Query #10177


    Excellent resources…. all around.

    Might I ask one question though? Well 2?.. crud…  just a few more? Why 6mm? The War of 1812 battles are small enough you can do a very nice 1:20 in or even 1:10 in 15mm. the unifirms and variety are kind of somehting to show off. You will never need ot use a gymnasium to play and even the largest of battles will fit on a nice 6×10 table.

    Just curious. (I do 1812 in 15mm).


    Sorry was on vacation…..

    I’ll start with: “I was more interested in how your morale system would handle the prolonged Albuera firefight. It was a combat resolution question rather than a unit size question.”

    My rules take into account attrition and a morale role dictates further reduction of morale and the more steps you lose, the easier it is to lose more… kind of like a domino effect.. but as I said, morale can be regained if out of combat and with a charismatic leader. A large group of soldier can react poorly if led poorly while a reduced strength unit can react heroically is well led… it is *ALL* relative…

    Addressing the rate question…. I factor in morale/discipline here…. well disciplined troops will stay formed better, longer and have less duress under fire… so their movement rates will not suffer much… (all men slow when under fire)….. so, again, somehting that can be relegated to morale level and type of leadership. As both a reenactor and historian… even under drill we have to dress the ranks, but we are NOT professional soldiers who droll regularly… I find it very possible and believable that the cadence of about 2-3 mph is doable, even with amature soildiers… the key here is even well trained troops will have issues if not well led or having poor morale….

    Now, I know I am a very new contender in this ring and there seems to be some folks who think thier age and wisdom is law in these parts. I do not mean this to be insulting in any way and I beg forgiveness if it comes across that way, I respect your opinions, but I beg to differ on a lot of what some of you anointed experts consider “Law” or “the way it is”… A lot of what is written above since my last post is pretty offensive (veiled in some arrogance for that matter too). I say anointer and use arrogance becaue there is a very “down the nose” tone in the wording.. although it might not be meant that way… I took it that way… you guys have your “groups” it seems and no one else can have a valid or respected opinion it seems unless they are “anointed” into your respectfull circle… that reeks of arrogance, sorry….

    It is a game… and there are many types of games out there and even more rules than one can every hope to read in a lifetime. But to flat out generalize other’s opinion as below yours and say they are “olde guard” so to speak…. like there was some critical juinction in wargaming or rules writing where a group of folks all of a sudden decided things would be different… and so it “Was”…. that doesn’t wash with me. Yes, a new style of play might have been developed and even subscribed to, but that doesn’t make it any more right then the old cannon. Just because one group gives up and decides to approach the question from a different angle.. doesn’t make them right or wrong for that matter…. it is just a different “style” utilizing a different mechanic to accomplish the task at hand, whether it be movement or morale….

    Everyone is hitting on some very delicate issues to which they feel they might know best…. says whom? Because you are well read? You cannot generalize and over abstract scale, time or distance…. and rate… that is a HUGE variable…. troops move quickly when not under fire, but how they slooooooooooooow when under fire is directley related to morale, discipline and leadership…. you can factor these in…. each leader has their own ratings in both leadership (tactical prowess) and charisma (motivation)…. couple that with the different types of troops having their own morale levels…. from conscript/green to elite and old guard…. a simple “under fire” morale check for motivation can be adapted to reflect the troops unwillingness to advance under fire.. this, of course, is affected by the leader’s ability to lead…. all modifiers that can be accurately assigned based upon actual recorded accounts… and not “abstracted away”….

    I do not subscribe to turning table top miniatures into an RPG….. yes, leaders have traits.. you can effective relate them through their values….

    You guys are “inventive” and “educated”, but please do not assume the rest are young and stupid or any less educated. Games that abstract a lot are garbage… random events, fog or war.. all good things to incorporate….

    The key here is to produce an accurate game that can be played in a reasonable amount of time. There are many ways to approach this monumental task and do it successfully on many levels…. to each their own, but to insinuate that someone who wants a certain level of detail is “olde guard” and is “behind the times” in wargame developement and writing is absurd…..

    Chef was a great game…. just unplayable by many folk’s opinions. Some people actually want that level of detail in a game….

    For me, it was a bit much…. and I like detail…. but to abstract the whole rate, time, distance thing really is absurd because too many times in history… battles were won because of the timely arrival of much needed support or lost because of the lack of said support.

    Turning a game into a mathematical function of f(x) doesn’t work for me.. I need elements of chance and history blended  together to make it a game, not a forced outcome….


    • This reply was modified 4 years, 11 months ago by  poniatowski. Reason: type like pooh



    It doesn’t happen often, but because of poor command roles and delays in getting and activating orders, a unit might have “engage” or charge as their order which, unless a leader is attached (btn or higher) to try and stop the order by taking direct control of the unit…. the unit will do as it is ordered. And sometimes, the Btn commander is needed elsewhere, a casualty.. somtheing… and cannot get there or perhaps the battle is so tight that the player does NOT want to risk attaching the commander and place his other units out of command as they will lose the modifier he provides… then the unit must commit to their orders.

    I can honestly say, this has only ever happened a verly limited number of times during playtest and it was either because of tense battle where the commander was already attached to another unit or wounded. The result is the ordered unit fires at a unit to its front within range…

    From my minds eye… when this did happen, it was in areas of heavy fighting where there would be so much smoke it is very possible that the commander issuing the orders saw something different or saw something wrong… it makes for a very good fog of war… an army commander has to plan things well in advance and if things develop wrongly in the field… well, it can be very bad.

    I know it isn’t perfect, but it does really reflect the competance of the commanders at all levels….

    For most games, we usually have one person be the over all army commander for each side with limited access to any troops except their own guard units…. you might think that is boreing, but you should see the frustration as the over all army commanders write orders and then are interpreted by the officers in the filed so to speak… the game isn’t “locked” in so much… the players controlling the lower command levels have some room for interpretation as long as it meets the definition of the order given.

    Now, as for battles like Albuera, you can start the units off actually at whatever historical/interpreted field strength and morale the battle warranted… a unit running out of food would have a reduced field strength and morale…. so any records available or existing OOB could be used.

    For example…. at Borodino, many Russian units were undersized on the field and some btns were actually closer to company strength than btn strength according to record. So you would have a btn called out in the OOB, but the amount of men in the field would be drastically off…

    That is just noted on the set up sheet… a unit has a morale level, melee value and ranged value. Commanders have a command rating and a morale rating…. you can have a very charismatic leader with horrible tactical skills…. one rating affects order based abilities and the other is used solely for morale.

    Hope this helps.



    • This reply was modified 5 years ago by  poniatowski. Reason: I type, well... horribly


    Not only do I have break points, a unit can break from just taking too many casualties in one round…. and they can keep disintegrating and losing morale levels if they fail to rally…. you can have an elite unit take a beating, and stay on the field, but they can be so reduced in morale and effective field strength the the player will want to withdraw them.

    One thing though… a unit that hjas lost morale levesl can regain them dureing the reorganization part of th erally phase if they have an inspirational leader, pass the check, etc… but they can never get back lost elements/figures.


    I want to compare my actions with some WW1 air combat games…. I play a LOT of campaign games…. it is far better to leave the board with some force than commit them in a losing battle to their total destruction. I am always thinking of tomorrow’s battles… and the poor grieving widow’s, etc..

    In the aricraft games it is always funny to see a player fly his plane until they run out of fuel and then try to glide back to their own lines or whatever… stuff like that happens, but not as the norm.. In real life you have a point where “self preservation” kicks in… as war gamers, we often forget that and go totally “all in” when playing.. it is fun… sometimes, just not my style.


    I am trying to publish, but I am thinking that they should just be a free PDF. I had a copyright lawyer look at them for IP infringement and everything else concerning those rule sets that “inspired” the mechanisms and he said I am good to go. There are just some things that cannot be copyrighted. Kind of like how you cannot copyright “d6”.

    I have learned a LOT from playing other games over the years and there are mechanics I have enjoyed that I developed and made into my own, but they were inspired by things from other rule sets. I had a huge moral issue here as I wanted to make sure whatever I did was different enough from the original mechanics, but did not lose the flavor of what I was shooting for.

    As you mentioned…. so many flavors/types of Napoleonic games that each dwell upon the author’s fancy… well. I looked at what I would like in my wargame and developed the mechanisms and playability of those items… so in a sense, the game has everything I think should be in a wargame and it plays the way I think it should for the age of musket.

    For me, it boiled down to this… scale is everything and I HATE abstracted scales…. I struggle with this every time I play FoW.

    My rules are 15mm company level 1:40… a French company has 3 figures a Russian 4. In my appendix, I list paper strength with average combat strength. Btn command is a seperate stand and it can attach… then, there is command stand for each level above that all the way up to over all army command. I use a simple order system that must go through the chain of command from the Army commander… the command rating of all of the commanders in the chain to the Btn commander AFFECT the amount of turns it takes for the Btn commander to get the orders, organize the troops and pass them through his Btn. (act upon them), thus, a commander wiht poor leaders needs to always be thinking turns in advance, while a commander with good subordinates can get orders changed quicker… it works very well… oh, and obviously, the orders can never get there in “negative” turns… I briefly contemplated creating a mechanism that gave some kind of bonus to a Btn based upon how quickly the orders got there… say you had all excellent commanders… the orders still take one turn per level of command, but the leadership mods could feasibly make the number negative in turns because they are so good… like give a btn in good order and command an extra “action” per -2 because they are part of such a smoothly oiled machine.

    And the reason it takes one turn per order level in the command is that at each level, the commander would read the orders, see whom they go to and then have to locate that unit before they sent the aide on to distribute those orders… a commander with a good rating could quickly read them, evaluate the situation and pass them along… a commander with a poor rating would spend some time “getting their act together” before passing them along…

    It can even develope into friendly fire very, VERY rarely…

    So it has decent command and control rules.. when a leader attaches to a unit.. he can effectively remove himself from the chain, thus leaving the rest of his command to technically be “out of command”…. where they will do nothing, continue their actions if given orders, etc…

    The Btn commander does have limited control on the execution of the received orders: Advance, engage, charge, withdraw, etc… are just a few. They can also take some defensive measures… like emergency square, etc… and for this, there is a command role… (leaders have a morale and command rating and they affect the appropriate dice roles).. so a commander with a poor rating when in line sees cavalry forming to charge or simply charging…. they can make an emergency square roll… which is modified by their rating.. an astute commander will make the roll while a poor commander would most likely fail… meaning they couldn’t form square fast enough…. and, well.. we all know where that goes…

    Also, having the many levels of morale really works well… as I mentioned before… for example… a peasant unit being advanced upon by the Old Guard or elite units has to take a morale and their modifies include thei immediate commander’s rating, but they also suffer a bonus or penalty of + or – depending on how many levels of morale the two differ by… this sets up situations where players are sort of coerced to play realistically… those peasants are not going to stand and deliver against the old guard as they make the morale check, it is impossible for them to stand UNLESS they have an inspirational leader (applying his grood modifier to the morale roll) and even then, the player would have to roll very well to stand. It has happened…. very rarely, but more often than not, the poor morale unit will break and flee without firing a shot…

    Note, I use the term peasant, but you can have peasants with really great morale and poor firepower/melee abilities.. and you can also have better trained troops that have suffered morale loss so that they could be excellent troops if they stand, but have poor morale and will possibly fail those morale checks.

    It might sound complex, but it comes together really easily and the charts bring it all home.

    I am sorry for the length… hopefully you found it a tad interesting.


    • This reply was modified 5 years ago by  poniatowski.
    • This reply was modified 5 years ago by  poniatowski. Reason: crappy typing skills
    in reply to: Which rules? #8546


    I am a masochist.. I play 1:40 15mm company level….. I will chime in on a rule set once mine gets copywrited. There are so many good sets out there and it all depends on how much time you have, how detailed you want to be and what scale and level you want to run. Also.. if you are a Fog of War fellow or prefer written and limited commands, etc….

    I have played so many good ones at so many scales… I guess you need to consider what you want from the game before you take the leap, research, play a few systems…. then write your own, loke so many other folks, LOL!

    Seriously though… it is a big leap and not to be considered lightly as it will be a major investment of time and money… painitng and buying…




    Yes, I do agree…. it seems to infer the opposite of what I take as “cannon”, but you are correct. There are so many factors to consider and it seems nearly impossible to include them all in a rule set without being to cumbersome… I mean, you can have well trained with very low morale.. they would tend to stop and fire further away….  then you have to consider the leaders… their moral effects on the troops and even their own fears, etc…

    I have 9 morale levels in my game.. it seems like a lot, but morale does affect everything that happens on a battle field. The leader’s morale can modify that level with their own modifiers. Morale governs how fast a soldier follows orders and so much more…. will that poorly trained mediocre morale peasant unit stand and fire against the Old Guard advancing upon them…. no, usually they wouldn’t…..they would break and flee long before a shot wa sfired… the “fear” would be in them… yet, even poor troops if well led…. just might… in my game, if conditions are right… the very high morale leader with a good leadership mod too is attached to said peasant unit…. they just might stand… it is a very slim chance, but they might, if the troop commander wants to try.

    The strategy and tactics of the era have so much “positioning” and “posturing”… that effect a battle even without shots being fired… I try to build a lot of these mechanics into the game. I mean, please don’t misunderstand, I do not try to force players to do play my way…. but to play historically, using the doctrin of the time….

    My inspiration for this was playing Wooden ships and iron men… when I first learned ot play the game, I would sail my ships all over, really.. willy nilly…. my brother-in-law would go nuts trying to explain to me what a line of battle is…. well, I learned… that is just how they fought back then… as fun as it was ot do what I wanted.. it didn’t make sense in the game and was just wrong… there is a time and a place to break doctrine, but not all of the time, every time…. ships sailed in a line of battle… as they took damage they would lag or retire from the line…. the same can be said for Napoleonics or any other era game…

    Mind you.. I know it is a game and I don’t get bent out of shape when folks don’t know the doctrine for the era they are playing….

    But trying to play using th estrategy and tactics of the era I am playing is what make sth egame fun… you have to kwo when to retire a ship or ounit from the line…. these guys didn’t always fight to the death… there was a time to do that, but there was also a time to recognize you have lost and withdraw…. something a lot of gamers don’t quite get…. we tend to fight every battle ot the end… to our lats man… and, we have little to no fog of war.. as we always have a birds eye view….

    That was the biggest accomplishment to my rules…. I really think I put the commanders into the stirrups… there are orders, command and control.. and an integrated morale system to help influence players to follow the startegy and tactics of the day.

    In the end, it is only a game, but I get the biggest fullfillment, win or lose…. when I played my best trying to do it the way they would have at the time, based upon my knowledge of the era.

    Man, the stories I could tell…. (we all have them). My favorite was being under the command of a guy at an HMGS Cold Wars.. I’ll say no more on that, but he wanted me to exhaust my troops… throw them away…. I was getitng pounded…. with no support… I formed up and withdrew to reorganize. I even voluntarily broke one of my units to flee to a safer reorganizing range (I wa shoping to actually fail my morale roles a few times, but just kept on rolling well). The guy was furious….  in the end, I did very well and the rest of the guys under his command got destroyed. I just smiled and told him the lives of my men were more important and I knew when to withdraw… He was moving his mouth like a fish out of water, he didn’t know what to say other than “this is a game!! Those are toys, this isn’t real!!!” In the end, we lost, but at least I used the tactics and strategy of the day… I was the last Russian player on the field.

    The best part was, even though I wasn’t on the winning team, the GM talked to me after the game and I got a gift certificate for $15 for my performance and playing well. The other players on the winning team agreed as well. The certificate wa ssupposed to go to the best player of the winning team. Those guys are great and still run great games at the HMGS shows…





    • This reply was modified 5 years ago by  poniatowski. Reason: hoprrid spelling
    in reply to: Rules recommendation…. #8532


    I iwll have to have a dig through my rules…. years back I played a Russian Cival War game.. reds vs whites…. It was perfect for th eera and worked very well with smaller figures… I believe we had multiple 15mm figures on a base… it wasn’t 1:1 by a long stretch… It worked very well.

    That might be a good place to start.. RCW rule sets woudl tend to have a lot of the same stats and ratios… even the same armament in a lot of cases.

    in reply to: Welcome to the World War One Forum #8531


    Possibly stickie this to always be on the top of the list?

    in reply to: Early War Aircombat #8530


    At Fort MIGS, the officer’s mess??? I thought you guys mostly played Canvas Eagles???

    in reply to: WWI over the next 4 years? #8529


    Yes, 1/144th, same scale as WoW… and man, they are nice. I will have ot investigate posting pics here if you want to see some.

    The biggest issue is getting decals…. I need agood source for them now as most lead/resin or the Shapeways 3D don’t come with them.

    Don’t get me wrong though, I love my lead kits, but if they fall even once, they usually break apart… the 3D ones are fragile too… at least a little bit. The thing is… the larger lead ones are top heavy and require larger bases for stabilization.

    The 1/72 planes are pretty stable, but they too, if they go over.. well… it isn’t pretty. It doesn’t happen a lot, but once is enough, especially with the 1/72nd kits.. they are large enough to really detail and even wire up…. when ones goes down for real.. it is a nightmare.

    I think th ereal reaosn I went to 1/144th though is aestetics… I use Canvas Eagles and 5″ hexes… the 1/72nd planes are also use din those same size hexes… very pretty, but not so realistic when looking at game scale. In fact, the larger kits, like bombers, etc.. don’t even fit into a 5″ hex even at 1/144th!! Let alone 1/72nd….

    My games are still very pretty and you can get soem nice detai on the 1/144th planes. Currently, there are 2-3 makers at Shapeways… and as I said.. I have not gotten a bad plane yet.. (knock on wood… err.. side of head).




    Very good discussion…. I have put a lot of thought into this myself….

    All things considered, soldiers coudl wiz around a battle field…. if there was no combat.

    To me, speed depends on training AND discipline…. not always the same thing. You can have gung ho illy trained troops.

    Anyway, what bogs them down is combat… or the threat of it. Unless highly trained and well disciplined…. they tend to slow the closer they get to danger. Couple this with training (staying in formation or ability to do so well) and discipline (following orders and advincing against fire)….

    Then enter fog of war…. smoke, miscommunications, etc…. the true differenc between a birds eye view and the “in the trenches” view….

    commanders on a hill can send orders via courrier to troops form their bird’s eye view to troops who might not even be able to physically see the troops that they are being sent to engage….

    Ordfers to fire sir!…. Fire? Fire at who? There is no one to see….

    And then… touching back on the whole discipline…. the troops would slow unconsciously as they got to musket range, hoping to be halted, formed up and then volley fire…. at most likely very ineffectual ranges…. over 100 yards say…..

    Some rules try to extrapolate all of this….

    I tend towards 1:40 for Napoleonics…. you get difinitive formations and can tell line vs column, etc…. and each should have different movement rates.

    There is so much to say in this topic.. I hope I get a chance ot write more from home!




    • This reply was modified 5 years ago by  poniatowski.
    in reply to: WWI over the next 4 years? #8399


    Well, I looked over the PEL for the show, it is available online now…. there are a nice bunch of WW1 air games being played at the show this year. I will be bringing my usual planes for a pick up game here or lthtere.. late night when I can escape from the day’s work!

    The east coast shows are nice, but I would love to hit one on the West coast too as I know so many folks over that way!

    I have really been getitng into the 3D printed planes…. I have to say… they are very nice indeed….

    I have about 20 of the 3D planes from Shapeways and another 50 or so lead ones from Red Eagle and the American manufacturer. I haven’t bought any lead ones in a while. WIth 3D printing, I think that coudl sound the deathknell for certain types of lead kits.


    • This reply was modified 5 years ago by  poniatowski.
    in reply to: Welcome to the World War One Forum #7999


    Hopefully lots of great things will be posted here!

    in reply to: Early War Aircombat #7998


    Not the short end of the stick, but rather air combat was really pretty much under developement in early WW1…. the first airplanes on any front were pretty much for recon. This quickly evolved though when some very innovative folks got involved…. how can we stop those pesky planes from taking pictures of our lines! Thus the air escalation war had begun.



    in reply to: WWI over the next 4 years? #7993


    I have been a huge WW1 fan since I started war gaming in 82… I cut my teeth on Napoleonics and still love them, but the air war is my first passion. I have since broken into WW1 trench slogging…. I started the land game when Trench Wars came out….. but i have played many other systems up to and including FoW WW1…..

    So yes, I am caught up in it.. so much in fact that as convention director for HMGS Fall-In! this year, I have chjosen my theme to be “1914 Home before the leaves fall”….. and will run probably one or two more WW1 themed shows over the next 4 years….

    I especially love doing air games…. I prefer to play Canvas Eagles, but have played Aerdrome, Hostile Aircraft and even Wings of War….

    I can safely say that I will be doing a huge amount of WW1 gaming over the next four years….

Viewing 32 posts - 1 through 32 (of 32 total)