1700 to 1762

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Napoleonics.

Moderators: hammy, terrys, Blathergut, Slitherine Core

Derbo
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Hannover

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by Derbo » Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:21 pm

What about a more "aesthetical" approach, where you would just use one single, larger stand (say 80x30mm) per unit? As units will be in line for most of the time and you don't want to fiddle around with casualty removal, there is no real need for multiple stands per unit. That way, in smaller scales, you can do a whole regiment with officers (like a small diorama). This would speed movement up too :lol:

When it comes to columns, you could just place a small marker to indicate if the unit ist either facing to the right or to the left. No turning stands or stands falling behind other stands from the same unit to form a column. You could get rid of all the discussion and safe on time for movement.

You could still use multiple smaller stands to create a unit, but it wouldn't look so good.

No matter what basing you choose, I'd love to help you with playtesting. I love that era!

Regards from Hannover,
Chris

MikeHorah
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:57 pm

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by MikeHorah » Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:50 pm

Interesting notion - a bit like the Italian Impetus rules? It certainly provides some aesthetic attractions and appeals to me .

In fact no reason why both approaches could not be used within the same rules set if we are not removing bases - provided widths for large and small units are consistent although if we cover the earlier part where the French, among others , remained more than 3 deep there may be an issue there. And small units in America may need a different approach..

Maybe an issue for people who travel a lot in carrying them especially in 25/28mm so maybe not suitable or easy for that size of figure ? I don't myself but in 28mm storage of that wide a base would be an issue . 6cmwide bases are a lot easier to fit in my cabinets and other storage boxes.

In smaller scales ( 10mm and 5mm for mid 19th century) I actually make stands of units in column on the bases reasoning that the men are much more closed up vertically and horizontally in route march column. So for example for Sadowa 1866 I am using a scale of 500 men to one stand 5cmx 2cm ( for 10mm) with 5 figures so for a Prussian regiment of 3,00 men six stands but use just one 2cmx 5cm of 8 figures for the regiment in column of route . Still work in progress as a rule set so those may change and not as such a FOG type of game of course.

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4189
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by terrys » Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:37 pm

No reason why players couldn't double-base stands which would give the same result.
(or treble bases if using 30mm bases).

A lot depends on how much of the approach march we want to simulate. I'd certainly prefer the figures in column to look more like a column by preference - even though they would still be far to wide in scale.

MikeHorah
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:57 pm

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by MikeHorah » Thu May 01, 2014 6:27 pm

A quick update folks.

Terry and I have got together a couple of times now and are working up a set for Beta testing with 7YW as our baseline - or mid-point of the bell curve – a period within the period if you like.

Lots of familiar concepts to FoG(N)- eg terrain, and mechanisms CMTs, Cohesions tests - but some numbers and factors in such processes different ; formations very different in concept and presentation ; the initial set up and command control very different( indeed); and the army organisation very different(likewise) . Cavalry v cavalry combat pretty similar. But light infantry very sparse by comparison but the only attachments are light/medium arty for example.

When we have a set that we have tried a few times and think reasonably comprehensive ( and comprehensible!) our aim will be to issue a questionnaire/survey for beta testers with the draft asking for comments on specific elements so we can get consistent, structured feedback.

We also want to put in some notes for testers to explain what the intention is for different parts and why we have adopted a given approach and some diagrams. And we will need to provide some first draft lists to support beta testing.

The big issue has been the spatial one of how to fit a reasonable army for a 2-3 hour game onto a 6 foot wide table( for 15mm) using what is a very linear type of deployment – not just linear by individual units but the way units were arrayed in formations themselves - in "lines of lines "as it were.

We need the look and feel to be right and the more formalised style compared to the later period to be there while still providing a good game. For bigger tables and longer games that is probably less of an issue but it needs to work for the
" standard" game. And once we have this core "period within a period" reasonably fixed we have some ideas how to model small wars and colonial wars within the framework but with some "physical" modelling variations. So the testing version will not spring fully formed from the brow of Zeus. :lol:

Not sure when we will have something to issue- months not weeks I reckon given other projects and commitments gaming
( comps and 2nd Ed FoGN)) and personal :) . Not likely be an Osprey job as they have commissioned their own 7YW set it seems :shock: and ours will be broader than that war when complete. It is where we start not finish. We will need to present the model to Slitherine before going out and the key will be " Is it a good game?"

Derbo
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Hannover

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by Derbo » Thu May 01, 2014 8:51 pm

That sounds very good.
Would be honoured to take part in the testing.

SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by SirGarnet » Fri May 02, 2014 10:37 am

Although FOGN is really built around the new impulse tactics, I had thought the demi-brigadeish scale of FOGN units would translate easily to the center/wings army structure and dual line of battle composed of brigades usually in two lines of battalions if the modifiers and mechanisms were set to show the reasons for keeping good order.

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2047
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by shadowdragon » Fri May 02, 2014 4:13 pm

Sounds good to me too. Count me in for testing.

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2047
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by shadowdragon » Fri May 02, 2014 4:13 pm

shadowdragon wrote:Sounds good to me too. Count me in for testing.
Please

Rekila
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:57 pm
Location: Galiza

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by Rekila » Mon May 05, 2014 3:46 pm

I´m interested, please go on! :D

MDH
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by MDH » Mon May 18, 2015 8:23 am

Just an update.

Now that we have launched the 2nd edition process for FoG(N) we can begin to consider the process and timing for this era. We probably need a new thread to this one or even a completely new FOG(AR) themed set of threads like FOG AM and R and N have . So watch out if you are keen. We are not starting from a zero base now and after some exchanges off line we think the early 1700's will probably fit in fine without too too much messing about . Still a few months away but once FOG(N) 2nd ed is being fully beta tested there should be a window.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion”