|
Post by Mike Lewis on Apr 27, 2019 14:19:56 GMT
We played our first 54mm Napoleonics game last week using my rebased collection and Neil Thomas's Napoleonic Wargaming rules. The game was fun and we both enjoyed it. More details on the blog: mikelewis.info/littlewars/?p=709
|
|
|
Post by davel on Apr 28, 2019 7:38:29 GMT
Looks really impressive and the blog article makes for good reading and inspiration. The units remind me a bit of Dirk Donvil's "About Bonaparte" rules which I've played and also enjoyed. Must try to get Neil Thomas's rules if you've enjoyed them.
Hope there will be more photos in the future.
Best Wishes Dave
|
|
|
Post by zuludon on Apr 28, 2019 15:48:08 GMT
Thank you for posting the report. I found it very inspiring! As I recall, "About Bonaparte" infantry units are only eight figures, which I found difficult to imagine as representing a battalion on the game table. Otherwise, I quite like the rules. I own the Thomas rules as well and I want to try them soon. The Thomas units are based on bases, four for infantry, so a battalion could be represented by from four to sixteen 54mm figures. Personally, I like the look of twelve to sixteen figures per battalion. I am not sure about Thomas's suggested OBs of only eight units per army, but he offers a convincing argument and, on the plus side, it does lower the cost of entry for this period.
Hopefully, I'll play a game soon and post photos.
Cheers, Nick Stern
|
|
|
Post by spiritofethandune on Apr 28, 2019 19:08:34 GMT
Nick,
Mike and I feel that Neil's Napoleonic rules work well using up to 12 units a side. Anything larger than that we would use the relevant section of Neil's One Hour Wargames rules.
Best wishes Anthony
|
|
|
Post by spiritofethandune on Apr 28, 2019 19:10:28 GMT
Dave,
The rules had a slick and streamlined feel to them and were fun to play. It was my first time with the rules but I am keen to have another go.
Best wishes Anthony
|
|
|
Post by aducknamedjoe on Apr 29, 2019 4:40:22 GMT
davel I've played the rules a few times as well and found they offered some interesting decision points, but were just a leeetle too abstracted for my taste. Plus I found it hard to keep track of 15 hits per unit (my dice don't go that high!).
|
|
|
Post by Mike Lewis on Apr 29, 2019 7:34:14 GMT
davel I've played the rules a few times as well and found they offered some interesting decision points, but were just a leeetle too abstracted for my taste. Plus I found it hard to keep track of 15 hits per unit (my dice don't go that high!). The rules we used for the game are the ones from Neil Thomas's Napoleonic Wargaming book, not the One Hour Wargames ones... They use 4 stands per unit each with 4 hits and are a lot more detailed than one hour wargames. Mike
|
|
|
Post by tradgardmastre on Apr 29, 2019 9:26:12 GMT
Are they similar to the ones in his book on Wargaming the 19th Century Mike? I have a copy of it and it is a good read.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Lewis on Apr 29, 2019 11:28:56 GMT
Alan,
Yes, similar in that units have 4 bases, you cannot charge a unit until you are superior to it, etc Obviously has rules for squares, etc for Napooleonic flavour.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by aducknamedjoe on Apr 29, 2019 19:24:38 GMT
davel I've played the rules a few times as well and found they offered some interesting decision points, but were just a leeetle too abstracted for my taste. Plus I found it hard to keep track of 15 hits per unit (my dice don't go that high!). The rules we used for the game are the ones from Neil Thomas's Napoleonic Wargaming book, not the One Hour Wargames ones... They use 4 stands per unit each with 4 hits and are a lot more detailed than one hour wargames. Mike Ahhh, that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by zuludon on Jun 9, 2019 16:20:00 GMT
I am planning to use the Neil Thomas Napoleonic Wargaming rules on June 18th for a 54mm Waterloo refight. I plan to divide the table up into thirds and give each of six players an eight unit command. My question, having just read through the rules, is whether generals are represented on the table and, if so, what their effect is on their units. I see some nicely painted generals in the photos in this thread, but I cannot find any mention of them in the rules. Are they there just for show?
Thanks, Nick Stern
|
|
|
Post by spiritofethandune on Jun 9, 2019 18:55:11 GMT
Nick, short answer-yes! (They are just for show.) Cheers, Anthony
|
|
|
Post by zuludon on Jun 9, 2019 20:38:10 GMT
Hi Anthony,
I got some replies from my crosspost on TMP. Some players borrow the commanding officer rule from Wargaming An Introduction. Simple: if you attach your general to a unit, it stays with the unit for the whole game. It gives that unit one extra point on the morale roll. If the unit is eliminated, so is the general. Other players have come up with their own house rules and give the general a command radius. For simplicity sake, I think I will try the former option.
Thanks, Nick
|
|
|
Post by Mike Lewis on Jun 10, 2019 7:53:01 GMT
Nick
We used the Frog and Toad version of the rules from the AMW yahoo group which has command rules and some other tweaks:
Units within 18" of a general or 6" of a commanding officer act as normal. Otherwise they are isolated and can only Fire, change formation or defend in close combat.
Officers may attach but remain attached for the whole game
Morale - + 1 iof officer attached or general within 6", +2 if general attached.
Which worked well as it gave the officers and generals something to do...
Mike
|
|
|
Post by zuludon on Jun 13, 2019 17:02:09 GMT
Mike,
Thanks! I downloaded the Frog and Toad revised rules. How far down the chain of command do you represent officers on the table? For Waterloo, I anticipated only Corp commanders, three per side. British: Hill, Picton and the Prince of Orange. French: Reille, Ney and d'Erlon. Since each general commands only eight units, I'm not sure how to divvy up brigadiers. One for every two of the same type of unit, I guess.
Nick Stern
|
|