Page 1 of 2

Field Of Glory: Napoleonic Coming in March 2012!

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:39 pm
by SeanD
The massively popular Field of Glory wargame series marches on!

In March 2012, Slitherine and Osprey Publishing will once again team up to release Field of Glory: Napoleonic. Based on the core mechanics of its predecessors, Field of Glory: Napoleonic allows players to command the armies of any of the nations involved in the Napoleonic and French Revolutionary Wars, emphasizing the combined arms tactics that dominated the battlefields of the period.

Richard Sullivan, Managing Director of Osprey Publishing, spoke about the new project:
“After the success of Field of Glory: Ancient and Medieval and Field of Glory: Renaissance, we are thrilled to be working with Slitherine again on a project with such huge potential. We know that the Napoleonic era has long held a cherished place in the hearts of historical wargamers, and we believe that Field of Glory: Napoleonic will be a game that they are going to love.”

J.D. McNeil, head of Slitherine, added: “Field of Glory has shown that wargamers appreciate a tactically challenging wargame with balanced army lists that can be played as either a friendly match or in a tournament environment. Our Napoleonic rules continue that tradition and also recreate the unique ‘big battle’ characteristics of the era.”

ABOUT FIELD OF GLORY: NAPOLEONIC

The hardback, full-colour Field of Glory: Napoleonic rulebook will contain the complete rules for the game and several army lists to get players started. This will be followed by two hardback supplements: Triumph of Nations in June and Emperors and Eagles in September. These supplements will give background and full army lists for all of the major and minor powers that fought each other during the wars. Taken together, this trilogy offers everything Napoleonic players will need to master the battlefields of Europe in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Get more information on Field of Glory: Napoleonic from its official product page.

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:37 pm
by babyshark
This is officially cool.

Marc

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:50 am
by DaveHollins
The cover artwork is rubbish - seems thy cannot even read their own output, but I am sure all of you know that Austrian German infantry had plain round cuffs! So, I wouldn't be too confident about the unit ratings - who has done those?

I bet the best Austrian cavalry units are said to be the Hessen-Homburg Hussars and O'Reilly Chevaulegers - a myth copied from Bowden's works as here are claims they drove off Beaumont's cavalry at the end of Austerlitz. In fact, Beaumont came over a ridge and ran into two batteries under Freierenberger - the cavalry units just caughts stragglers on the French retreat. :roll:

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:28 am
by babyshark
I am looking for a good game to play, particularly in a tournament setting. I really don't care very much about whether the uniforms have the right cuffs. If the unit game gives me a Napoleonic battle that feels right then I will be happy.

The Field of Glory rules, in the Ancient and Renaissance periods, concentrate on getting the top down feel of a battle correct, rather than worrying too much about the bottom level stuff. That is a deliberate game-design choice, and one that really works for me. I know that there are folks in the hobby who want the uniforms to be right and so on, but that is not something I give much of a hoot about.

Of course, it remains to ben seen, come March '12, whether the top down approach has worked in the Napoleonic period as well as it did for Ancients and Renaissance.

Marc

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:14 am
by hazelbark
[quote="DaveHollins"]

Do you plan to troll every thread possible?

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 4:41 pm
by terrys
I bet the best Austrian cavalry units are said to be the Hessen-Homburg Hussars and O'Reilly Chevaulegers - a myth copied from Bowden's works as here are claims they drove off Beaumont's cavalry at the end of Austerlitz. In fact, Beaumont came over a ridge and ran into two batteries under Freierenberger - the cavalry units just caughts stragglers on the French retreat.
Sorry - not taking you up on that bet.
We're not rating every single regiment that took part in battles of the period. There were a lot of units that out-performed against expectations in single battles, and there were an equal number that under-performed. There aren't enough pages in the book to cover all eventualities.....That's what the dice are for.

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:18 am
by marty
Do you plan to troll every thread possible?
I had assumed the post was a joke parodying the obsession with minor uniform details so common in Napoleonics gamers. To then follow it up with a tirade about the classification of some obscure unit that no one has seen yet! Champagne comedy :D

Martin

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:35 am
by terrys
I had assumed the post was a joke parodying the obsession with minor uniform details so common in Napoleonics gamers. To then follow it up with a tirade about the classification of some obscure unit that no one has seen yet! Champagne comedy
In which case it is quite amusing ... though it does serve to remind me that the one thing I didn't do when proof reading the final version was to check the pictures for accuracy. Fortunately, the rules are not designed to be a uniform guide. The pictures in (and on) the book are really there as eye-candy, although we have tried to make them relevent.
The post did make me look up the history of the units 2 units mentioned - am I being paranoid?

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:02 am
by Sarmaticus
terrys wrote:
The post did make me look up the history of the units 2 units mentioned - am I being paranoid?
So they say ....

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:11 am
by terrys
The post did make me look up the history of the units 2 units mentioned - am I being paranoid?

So they say ....
Alright - who's 'they'. What are their names, addresses, inside leg measurements, hat size ............

Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:16 am
by DaveHollins
marty wrote:
Do you plan to troll every thread possible?
I had assumed the post was a joke parodying the obsession with minor uniform details so common in Napoleonics gamers. To then follow it up with a tirade about the classification of some obscure unit that no one has seen yet! Champagne comedy :D

Martin
Coming from people, who think they are approximating the Nap wars with some fantasy rules and get anal on +1/2 for morale, that is especially ironic. These uniform details are basic - not minor and if you cannot be bothered, just paint them up in green and pink.

I will be interested to see the artillery rules - Charles Grant was right with his bounce sticks and artillery is not some death ray.

Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:47 am
by ravenflight
DaveHollins wrote:Coming from people, who think they are approximating the Nap wars with some fantasy rules and get anal on +1/2 for morale, that is especially ironic. These uniform details are basic - not minor and if you cannot be bothered, just paint them up in green and pink.

I will be interested to see the artillery rules - Charles Grant was right with his bounce sticks and artillery is not some death ray.
Honestly, you would hate my philosophy on figuring painting, and I have had many complients on my paint jobs.

My philosophy is 'don't let the facts get in the way of a good paint job'.

I may not have the correct shade of green for the cuffs of the 4th legere, but really, I couldn't be bothered... especially seeing they didn't actually paint their cuffs unless I was using actual material drawn directly from the uniform it's always going to be an approximation.

We're pushing toy soldiers around the table. Why worry? Honestly, life is WAY too short.

Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:36 pm
by shadowdragon
DaveHollins wrote:These uniform details are basic - not minor
:lol:

I presume you do understand that such a judgement is highly contextual. With regards to a study of Austrian military uniforms, they are indeed basic but with regards to a study of the underlying causes, courses of action, outcomes, etc. of the Napoleonic wars they are hardly even minor - unless you have a reasonable theory on how Hungarian versus German cuffs affected the performance of Austrian troops in battle.

When it comes to playing a war game???? Well if one plays games with 6mm miniatures, the difference is indistinguishable. I suppose the irritation arising from cuff-confusion would increase exponentially with scale.

:D :D :D

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:01 am
by donm
Having supplied pictures for several of the current FoG publications and submitted several for this current project, can I just say they will be as acurate as the models on the market allow.

Looking forward to playing the published version, having enjoyed play testing.

Don

Dave
I will be interested to see the artillery rules - Charles Grant was right with his bounce sticks and artillery is not some death ray.
Not sure canister doesn't have death ray properties.

Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:58 pm
by DaveHollins
shadowdragon wrote:
DaveHollins wrote:These uniform details are basic - not minor
:lol:

I presume you do understand that such a judgement is highly contextual. With regards to a study of Austrian military uniforms, they are indeed basic but with regards to a study of the underlying causes, courses of action, outcomes, etc. of the Napoleonic wars they are hardly even minor - unless you have a reasonable theory on how Hungarian versus German cuffs affected the performance of Austrian troops in battle.
No, it is the same as the clean shoes at a job interview - first impressions count. If someone cannot get the most basic uniform details right, then what about everything else. Many enthusiasts are influened in their historical view by what they read in wargames rules, so as you are proposing to produce handbooks and do unit ratings, how can anyone tell if you have got that roughly right? Indeed, what about the artillery rules? there are myths about balls flying flat and taking down everything in the path or a cone of death coming from a canister, yet the truth is "bounce zones" for the former and a narrow extended diamond for the latter.

Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 4:04 am
by hazelbark
DaveHollins wrote: No, it is the same as the clean shoes at a job interview - first impressions count.
Yes and the impression you leave is one of a distasteful individual so insufferable everyone cheers when you walk out of the room. Do you really find value in trolling here? You clearly have some demented ulterior motive. Do you have a rule set of your own?

Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:17 pm
by DaveHollins
hazelbark wrote:
DaveHollins wrote: No, it is the same as the clean shoes at a job interview - first impressions count.
Yes and the impression you leave is one of a distasteful individual so insufferable everyone cheers when you walk out of the room. Do you really find value in trolling here? You clearly have some demented ulterior motive. Do you have a rule set of your own?
I don't think it is I, who is demented and obsessional. Your posts in this thread have added precisely nothing to its subject, aside from confirming that some gamers get anal about things, which do not matter, but ignore what does. Now, go and play in the road, while the big boys talk about rules, sources and useful material. Maybe you should have helped Peter Dennis, when he diod the artwork? Oh hang on, you expect everyone else to do that, while you pick up the information for free.

Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:50 pm
by Sarmaticus
[quote="DaveHollins No, it is the same as the clean shoes at a job interview - first impressions count. If someone cannot get the most basic uniform details right, then what about everything else. Many enthusiasts are influened in their historical view by what they read in wargames rules, so as you are proposing to produce handbooks and do unit ratings, how can anyone tell if you have got that roughly right? Indeed, what about the artillery rules? there are myths about balls flying flat and taking down everything in the path or a cone of death coming from a canister, yet the truth is "bounce zones" for the former and a narrow extended diamond for the latter.[/quote]

There's knowledge of military history and there's knowledge of how to represent that history in a game someone (enough to justify it's publication) would want to play. Some processes are modelled and some aren't. Some mechanisms are aimed purely to facilitate the right outcomes and others are are linked to real-world processes for texture as much as anything else (we are playing soldiers here). Wargames figures fight each other by players throwing dice for them - that's not how it was; shooting matchsticks would be much more realistic - as a representation of shooting per se but would also make the outcomes on how good a shot the player was with a spring-loaded toy gun: Not a very realistic outcome.
It's not just right or wrong - it's a matter of taste and design as well. As you don't seem to be a wargamer yourself, you might not understand that but it's something designers must recognise.
Some rules do flout military history - what is all that dicing for moves about in BP? - but they can be very successful games. Corrections of fact are fine but to require that the mechanisms of a game of which you know nothing should use particular mechanisms is ....

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:00 am
by pyruse
Quoth Dave Hollins:
I don't think it is I, who is demented and obsessional. Your posts in this thread have added precisely nothing to its subject, aside from confirming that some gamers get anal about things, which do not matter, but ignore what does.
--------
Like uniform details, which clearly don't affect game play or historical accuracy at all?
What is it with Napoleonic gamers? Anal R Us.

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:55 pm
by grahambriggs
DaveHollins wrote:The cover artwork is rubbish - seems thy cannot even read their own output, but I am sure all of you know that Austrian German infantry had plain round cuffs! So, I wouldn't be too confident about the unit ratings - who has done those?
It's unfortunate if the cover artwork has incorrect uniforms (haven't seen it; wouldn't know if I did). And inaccuracies will put off some people. Quite what that percentage is, I couldn't say. But I would expect most looking at the book wouldn't notice, or if they did would be irritated but would look more to how the rules play.

I was part of the team that wrote one of the Field of Glory army list books for another period. In essence the writing of the the lists was a separate function from the sourcing of the pictures. So I would be surprised if a problem with the front cover suggested anything about the lists of the rules themselves.

A set of rules can't be all things to all wargamers. Those looking to be challenged by the command decisions of the senior generals may be bored by a set of rules that calculates the trajectory of each missile, or the chances of 'friendly fire' on a unit with the wrong cuffs. Those wanting a completely accurate set played with accurately painted models may find others drift off when the first hour is devoted to the rations each unit gets for breakfast!

It does seem odd that the cover and a statement from someone else on another site is the strongest criticism you can muster. Praised with faint damnation?