Forum Replies Created
Thanks Norm, very kind!
Thanks John. I (sheepishly) stand corrected on the ‘outrageous’ comments. Please accept my sincere apologies.
Regarding the Guards, yes I have seen ads for the Hougomont book, it all now makes sense, and makes that a ‘must-have’for me – good news!
Also looking forward to being corrected about the Dragoons….
Good stuff – thanks for sharing!
Yes, its good of you to join and share your knowledge and point of view with us, its a privilege to be able to interact with an author in this way.
All I will say about that rather rancorous thread in the other place is that I feel that Kevin Kiley has every right to post a forthright, negative, but entirely professional review of your work on amazon, and I feel you were over hasty in describing his doing so as outrageous.
Where the rubber hits the road, I have (gladly) purchased all three of your recent Osprey Waterloo editions, and both your Hanoverian and Netherlands Correspondence (and it seems these were a wise investment!) (What happened to the Guards Correspondence by the way, was really looking forward to that one!)
As regards the presence of the 2eme and 7eme Dragons at QB, as I said in the other place (Navy 417) I feel that the current balance of evidence, one casualty return and a couple of eyewitness accounts, is insufficient to overturn the current received wisdom, which includes the testimony of the Formation Commander that they were not present. Obviously with the publishing of 6 primary sources from one of these Regiments stating they were involved in action, at Quatre Bras, the balance will fall the other way.
Which as a wargamer attracted to the sombre uniforms of Dragoons, I will celebrate!
But the important thing is: welcome!
You and me both mate!
Thanks very much Gents!
it leaves the door open to suggestions they were absent.
I see what you did there – you did a logic flip on us – very ingenious.
The reality of course is that the alleged presence of these 2 Regiments is the ‘new’, revisionist view, therefore logically the balance of proof should be on the revisionists to prove they were present.
To my mind, as I know from experience the worth of eyewitness accounts, next to nothing, the only worthwhile evidence is the casualty report that John Franklin (very creditably) unearthed. Again, unfortunately I am all too aware that on large scale operations, the fact that casualties are incurred does not necessarily equate to prescence in battle, much less to any particular engagement.
Had a few good hours out of these guys getting authors to speak about their books:
And the WWPD guys are actually pretty professional and entertaining. They concentrate mainly, but not exclusively, on Flames of War. But a great listen just for the banter!
Now if we could just persuade Justin at ‘Model Dads’ to do some podcasts!
So I happily reject the concept of the ‘right’ answer but willingly embrace a series of ‘good enough’ events.
‘War is won by the side that make the least mistakes’?
Couldn’t open the link by Rod as its TMP down time (just for a change!) But if that list doesn’t include ‘Desert Generals’by Correlli Barnet, it should. Outstanding reading. Debunks Monty something shocking, but it rings true, given Monty’s subsequent apologies for his TV programs about the campaign….
I never was cool!
Mate, for what its worth I really dig your avatar – well Salty!
(Or ‘Warry’ or whatever Canuck tankers say to express approval of something seamanlike!) (I guess if they’re Newfies it don’t matter as no-one can make out what they’re saying anyway!)
Well Rod I hope you’re not infringing any copyright issues with the good folks at Peter Pig!
My fave has to be Janner’s ‘The Rifles’ badge. Both who he is and what we’re interested in. When I look at the Waterloo 200 site to look up the Waterloo Medal roll, half the regiments my ancestors (or at least same name tribe!) were in are all listed as ’69th Foot…then incorporated in the 32nd Foot and Mouth…then incorporated into the Royal Berkshire and Gloucester traffic wardens’…..etc etc, son on and so on, but they all seem to finish:
….now incorporated in ‘The Rifles’ !
These guys are like the Borg!
I thought the unit would at least make a useful balancing option if the scenario was in need of adjustment.
Yes I agree! I have written a Quatre Bras scenario for Sam Mustafa’s Honour website which seems to have been used some, I wish I’d known about the possibility of a Dragoon Brigade being present, it would make the scenario much more interesting. What is really fascinating is that there is an account of at least one of the units dismounting to give fire. Now if correct that’s really breaking ground, I’ve not come across any such example of Dragoons used in this way in the later Napoleonic period.
And be a good use of the box full of Perry plastic dismounted Dragoons I seem to have acquired!
Well thank you very kindly, mon General!
What’s interesting is the generally very positive reception the painting guide received over on TMP.
Yes – quite outstanding Sir!
“Sparker” are juvenile delinquents,
Now that’s the kind of reasoned argument I like!
So we’ve compared a wargames company’s product release painting guide with dedicated Napoleonic uniform sites and found it wasn’t quite 100% correct? Well howdy dowdy – who’d ha thought Eh! Pick a medal sir, any medal!
What they will do with this guide is increase interest amongst casual gamers in the Napoleonic period in general, and Chasseurs in particular, by lowering the ‘entry bar’. Once they’re hooked, they will probably do the research for themselves, if they are not put off by too much sniffery from grognards!
Thanks guys! Yes some final practice before the big weekend. The 3 musket marker just shows who won the last combat as a reminder for the +1 bonus next round…
Very little difference if I’m honest – all the stats and rules and overall scenario used came out of the main rules. The only think I took from BATW was one of the crew skills they suggest, to give the Panthers a little more speed. (Otherwise all AFV have the same speed of 9 inches).As I said above I was expecting more from BATW, it terms of finer technical differentiation, or at least a toolkit to do this yourself, but apart from the crew skills, and some more scenarios, I don’t see any real development of rules or play for AFV’s….
But as has been observed above, the very blandness of BA does allow you to develop differences yourself with house rules…I was reluctant to do this with what was an introductory game, but I may do in the future….particularly for a Cold War variant.
Yes its hard to defend BA from the ‘bland’ label! Still, in a club setting bland can be good for a bit of fun with gamers with disparate interests…
Rod, thanks for that illuminating description of Battleground WW2. Sounds intriguing, and far ahead of its time in the Nineties. Funny, I wouldn’t turn a hair now with the thought of card activated play, thanks to Sam Mustafa’s wonderful game using this mechanism, but back in the day I would have dismissed them out of hand. Just as novel is the way they treat an AFV as a collection of crewmen. Very rich. Probably to much of a skirmish game for me though – I have had ‘Force on Force’ on my too do list for years now but the complexity means its too easy to pop back on the shelf!
Yes I have everything by Harold Coyle, and revisiting Team Yankee once the Battlefront Flames of War Cold War rules come out is something I’m really looking forward too!
Dear William Harley,
Sorry to go down a rabbit hole here, but your use of ‘BZ’ to congratulate Thaddeus caught my eye. Were you once by any chance a Naval gentleman?
I think ‘scale’ was simply the term adopted by the model railway types, who in the early days at least were far more numerous than us, and so its stuck. Interesting point though. FWIW, it use the term scale for model size, and ratio for working out relative unit sizes, and army sizes, for scenarios.
Quite lovely! Great work as usual Jon! Its great to see such transitory units done justice too in this way, bringing their service back to life as it were.
Thanks for the kind comments gents:
Rod – The table was a T shape constrained by the size of the uni’s desks, which are 4 x 2s. So across the T was 8 foot and the length of the T was 8 foot also, but the width of the long stretch was only 4 foot, if that makes sense? Still gives a big but accessible playing area, which you need for the Big Cats to get the benefit of those 88mm L71s!
What do I think of Bolt Action? I think your summary is bang on actually, the basic rules were designed for a couple of infantry sections, maybe a platoon, with a tank in support, and work entertainingly for that. My mate Bryan, who is a fan of the rules, has described them as ‘not the game of the battle, but the game of the film of the battle!” I think he’s right too. To be brutally honest I had expected more from the Tank War supplement – the initial rule quite rightly didn’t differentiate too much between the different types of tanks within each category – its an infantry skirmish ruleset after all! But the TW supplement could have enlarged on this I think. But they are enjoyable and reasonably fast, and have delivered a reasonably historical outcome for us so far…which really is the acid test when all is said and done.
No not aware of Easy Eight rules you mention, so, War Panda, please take the thread away as I too am interested to hear more from Rod about these!
Well yes you have to roll low for the morale type ‘Orders check’, but for everything else boxcars are good, I think…
I just lurve Black Powder BTW!
But Connard has a good point – the key thing is to identify what level of command the player is operating at. And in most games, that is not Bn Commander, so you have to trust that most of the time, most Bn commanders knew what they were doing, and were in the most appropriate formation. As an example, in Black Powder, the ‘must form square’ attribute means that the player commanding the Army, or even Brigade, doesn’t have to worry about when to form square. He does however, need to be conscious of when the unit is approaching its break point and needs to be pulled out of the line and rallied….
I guess the only sacred cow for me, for Napoleonics, is that the crux of the Napoleonic style of warfare can be recreated on the table top. To me this is the ability for a smaller, faster, better lead army to concentrate on one area of its larger, slower opponent, then move quickly enough to take on the rest on equal terms. So far, only Black Powder has delivered this elusive property – not often, but a couple of times. And that to me is the absolute epitome, the cream, of Napoleonic gaming!
Oh, and playing with non clever ass pseudo-intellectual mates who don’t pontificate if I put my French into column and my British into line!
Beaut looking game there Bandit!
1. Principally we got our stats from the 1815 Supplement Albion Triumphant Vol 2, although we did pick and choose a little – to speed the game up, and to reflect the use of conglomerated light companies into ad-hoc skirmish battalions on the Allied side, we dropped the ‘mixed order formation and thus attribute. Also to give the French half a chance we have given Line infantry and artillery the ‘Crack’ attribute.
2. Over the last two years we have tinkered and trialled with many variations on scenario rules, around 2 main themes, gaining physical objectives, and attrition. All of these have been documented on my blog entries over the last couple of years.
But whichever way you set it up, to give the French team an even chance is impossible without totally skewing the game – after all, would the French have attacked, if they had known before hand that the Allied units would have fought as well as the British veterans, that Blucher was going to turn up, and that Grouchy wasn’t?
So yes, we will start off in historical positions, and have the Prussians arrive at the right times for each of their 3 Corps, and we have a gentlemens agreement that generally the French will attack and the Ango-Netherlands to defend.
So it a sense the French are attacking ‘for honour alone’ as it were. But we’ll give it a damn good try!
Coupla points gents:
Sharing the love on T55’s – to my (tiny) mind the tankiest tank of them all. Not really a huge fan of the t-64 -just looks odd to me with its tiny wheels – saw one in Berlin as a snot nose toddler and just felt, compared to the T34-85 on the plinth behind it, that ny go-cart had bigger wheels! Funny how childhood impression linger! Anyway my 3rd Shock Army will be equipped with T-72s – my toys, my rules, and damn the history, to coin a phrase!
Yes also a huge fan of both QRF and Khurusan. Love the Khurusan Abrams – just lovely, as is their T-90. Must get some of their T-55s! QRF do a pretty good Chieftain Stillbrew and assorted Post war wheeled British stuff – Saracen, Ferret etc. Their SU24 FROGFOOT is just standout magnificent – a huge model though! Skytrex do the best 432 IMHO.
For T-72s, BTRs etc I don’t think you can do better than Zvezda, although I could wish they were a bit cheaper for plastic.
Also starting to get REALLY excited about BattleFront doing the Cold War
Rod – very keen to hear your views on the QRF bits you ordered.
Lovely work mate! I really like these Italeri/Warlord plastic kits, their Panther is a beaut!
Thanks Gents! I’m hoping the last minute panic will be all Wellington’s on the day….
Thanks for the update mate – get close with those Post War Helmeted Brits! BTW I think having one category for ‘post 1945’ makes terrific sense!
Gotta love that laugh!
Well that’s definitely different! ( I knew there was a little something missing from the scenario, little did I know it was T-72s!)
Wow – obscure! or not? Beautifully presented – I must pass this on to my mate Alan, a huge connoisseur of 19th Century Latin American stoushes….
Sparker I guess…although Hotel 1 Victor was always popular for training scenarios….And I will never forget my first ship’s International Callsign – Golf Charlie Delta Golf – belted that out a few times….
Speaking of nicknames, it seems I got a new one with every ship – ‘Ticker’ obviously, as my surname is Hart, then ‘Big Vern’ from a cartoon character in Viz magazine, who was always well rugged up, as I liked to be well duffelled up ahead of time to build up the warm air layers, became a bit of a joke…Then ‘Kraken’ (as I supposedly always had red eyes on waking). Then latterly, Sparks, as my original trade of Sparker (Radio Operator General, ie Telegraphist with morse key) faded into obscurity and I became something of a walking museum exhibit…
Well officially my Cold War projects are strictly verboten for the time being as I’m supposed to be concentrating on Waterloo 200, only a couple of months away – yikes!
However last weekend, as a quick break from wall to wall Lifeguards, Blues and Greys, I took time out to assemble a JB Models Saladin A/C, just for some light relief – what a lovely model! Should go well with my Hobbymaster Centurions.
However I suppose 15mm is a more credible scale for the Cold War, so I am very excited about Battlefront/FOW’s entry into this area later in the year….