Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Why Napoleonics?
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=1844		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  dafrca [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:04 am ]
Post subject:  Why Napoleonics?
OK, I am curious as to your opinions. When I think of the long history of Warfare the Earth has had, and I think of all the wars and battles that have been fought, I have to ask why does it seem Napoleonics is the most played?

I mean, other then GW, it is the era I see the most at the conventions. I admit with FoW WWII is catching up, but look on ebay, look at the cons, look at the minis, it is an Era that has legs.

So I ask, why? What do you think the draw is?

dafrca
Author:  MaksimSmelchak [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:53 am ]
Post subject:  Why Napoleonics?
Hi Daniel,

Napoleonic warfare was very ordered with three basic units: cavalry, artillery and infantry and set strategies between them. It is easy to understand but hard to master.

Personally, I've always felt that WWII was by and far the leader of gaming genres.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.
Author:  primarch [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:58 am ]
Post subject:  Why Napoleonics?
Hi!

According to most polls or sales data (which admittedly was back when I retailed) WWII is number one in the historicals department with American Civil War as a strong contender. Heck look at FoW!

From a very biased point of view from my own experienced, it attracts a lot of pompous jerks who wish to flaunt their "knowledge" on the era through a miniatures game. I have found most rules for it, boring, unplayable and uninspiring.

It one era I have no interest in.

Primarch
Author:  vanvlak [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:09 am ]
Post subject:  Why Napoleonics?
Whee, I'm considering becoming a pompous jerk! :p I guess the fascination of Napoleonics are (1) Maksim's point on the 3 main sections and their effect oin gaming (2) the fascination of a period seen as straddling the modern age  and an earlier, more remote age - no less bloody, but less easy to relate to (3) the familiarity of many people with the name of one battle place (Waterloo) and at least one 'special character' - Napoleon (4) in the case of Europe, a connection of several countries to the Napoleonic wars - this is happening on a wider scale with WWII, which also explains its popularity, increasing as it becomes more remote in time. WWI has 'missed out', probably because (abd here I will most likely be criticised) it probably was a less mobile war, and on too vast a scale for its slowness, than Napoleonic battles.  
Amway - to work! :D :( ???
Author:  dafrca [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:29 am ]
Post subject:  Why Napoleonics?
Quote (primarch @ 12 2005 June,17:58)
According to most polls or sales data (which admittedly was back when I retailed) WWII is number one in the historicals department with American Civil War as a strong contender. Heck look at FoW!

Interesting, this did not seem to be the case based on the number of figures I see sold on ebay, nor by the tables at the local cons I attended in the last few year. Maybe my observations are flawed.

Yes, FoW has added to the WWII level, I can see that on ebay, but not in the Historical nor Game conventions.

I also believe this might be a case of an American point of view vs. a European. ACW is popular amoung some clubs here, but is it a major era for the whole world of War Games? ????
I do not know, I am asking. ?:cool: ?

dafrca
Author:  dafrca [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:34 am ]
Post subject:  Why Napoleonics?
Quote (vanvlak @ 12 2005 June,22:09)
WWI has 'missed out', probably because (abd here I will most likely be criticised) it probably was a less mobile war, and on too vast a scale for its slowness, than Napoleonic battles.

I have also found that interesting. Some wars or eras seem to be skipped in the War Game community for the most part.

It seems like there is a major jump from the DBA folks to the Napies, to the ACW/Colonial, to WWII, to Modernish.

WWI, Korea, Some of the European Wars, they all seem to have small cult followings, but nor major coverage.

dafrca
Author:  dafrca [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:44 am ]
Post subject:  Why Napoleonics?
So I am thinking, maybe there is a lot of Napies on ebay because they are selling off their collections to get into FoW. :laugh:

dafrca
Author:  Legion 4 [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:50 am ]
Post subject:  Why Napoleonics?
Yes, I could see WWII gaming being that popular for many reasons. And I think you are correct, "V", about WWI, whether it's true or not is another discussion.  However, Napoleonics has the feel of  "classic" warfare, to some.  Remember at the beginning of the ACW, most if not all, battles were fought based on Napoleonic principles.  By the end, we see a brief glimpse of WWI ... Both precursors of modern warfare and evolutionary steps.  WWII may have been the last "good" war. After that everything got clouded and confused ... The definition of good and evil became unclear ...
Author:  dafrca [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:09 am ]
Post subject:  Why Napoleonics?
Quote (Legion 4 @ 12 2005 June,22:50)
WWII may have been the last "good" war. After that everything got clouded and confused ... The definition of good and evil became unclear ...

I think that is why Nam has not done "Well" in the War Game community. Not that there is not stuff available, but it is stil a minor player.

dafrca
Author:  vanvlak [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:12 am ]
Post subject:  Why Napoleonics?
One point I'd like to clear - WWI was more mobile than the Napoleonic wars - the big change came in the Prussian-Austrian war and the ACW with the introduction of trains for transport of troops and materials. However, WWI bogged down into a static war with vast battles of attrition and occasional thrusts and advances. So perhaps WWI as a war relied on higher mobility of troops; movement if troops in Napoleonic wars was far slower, but battles were generally faster and more decisive. Better suited to wargaming too...

WWII tanks were far more mobile; and supported by aircraft, which in WWI had much less of a direct impact on land battles (except for the value of aerial reconnaissance), they made possible the circumnavigation of fortifications, which was the end of static warfare, and the brilliance of Blitzkrieg - the effective use of combined arms, made possible by the advances in capability of aircraft and tanks and troop transports since WWI (although sieges, such as at Sebastopol, Leningrad and Stalingrad, were still to come). This resulted in shorter campaigns and battles (Ow, am I really saying that Barbarossa and all that followed was a short campaign?!? ??? ) and increased tabletop gaming appeal.
And now I will step off the podium and GET BACK TO WORK!!! :angry: :( :;): :)
Author:  Jimbo [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:04 am ]
Post subject:  Why Napoleonics?
ACW is quite popular in the UK (and I guess Europe as well).

I suspect the main reason for the popularity of Napoleonics is down to the history of wargaming which for many people began with Kriegspiel for which the following article gives the history:

http://www.hmgs.org/history.htm

The reason I like Napoleonics (read actually I like Flintloque) was reading the Sharpe novels and seeing the TV series.
Author:  Mojarn Piett [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:58 am ]
Post subject:  Why Napoleonics?
Quote (dafrca @ 13 2005 June,07:09)
Quote (Legion 4 @ 12 2005 June,22:50)
WWII may have been the last "good" war. After that everything got clouded and confused ... The definition of good and evil became unclear ...

I think that is why Nam has not done "Well" in the War Game community. Not that there is not stuff available, but it is stil a minor player.

dafrca

And the reason why Continuation war is practically non-existent in English literature... :L

Not that I consider even WWII as clear and simple as it is usually portrayed. Or WWI for that matter.

Back to business, I would recommend Slaughterloo (the big brother of Flintloque) to anyone interested in a good game. It is Napoleonics in a fantasy world. IMO the rule system is really innovative, quite unlike anything I have seen in any other game like it.  :)
Author:  Legion 4 [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Why Napoleonics?
All good points, guys !  Most of my instructors when I was a cadet, had 1 or more tours in 'Nam ... learned a lot of good lessons, I later used as a Grunt.  Vietnam is still too close and "upsetting" for many ... too real.  Even though I have read much about it, it's still is not like WWII.  Even with my Father serving in the Infantry in the ETO.   Tanks and Aircraft played a minor role in WWI, but in WWII, they came into their own and revolutionized and in some cases dominated military concepts that are  still in use today (Gulf War I and 21 Days to Baghdad).  I think after my 10? years as a Grunt and continued extensive study of history (watching the H/Chan. as I write this!), is why I like, Sci-fi gaming, Hammer's Slammers, etc. ... it takes you out of the dark, horrible reality of war and puts it in another paradigm, IMO.
Author:  wargame_insomniac [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Why Napoleonics?
Quote (Mojarn Piett @ 13 2005 June,09:58)
Back to business, I would recommend Slaughterloo (the big brother of Flintloque) to anyone interested in a good game. It is Napoleonics in a fantasy world. IMO the rule system is really innovative, quite unlike anything I have seen in any other game like it. ?:)

I agree- I really like Slaughterloo as well.
For me a lot of the appeal of Napoleonics has to be the massed formations of troops moving in line/columns and with stunning looking uniforms. However, at the risk of making a broad generalistion, I also find that many Napoleonics players are anally retentive pedants who will spend hours arguing whether the 53rd Line Infantry had silver facings with gold buttons or vice versa... :angry:

The appeal of Slaughterloo/Flintloque to me is that you have all of the great Napoleonic style uniforms but you can paint them in whatever colours you like, with someone proving that they were historically wrong.

I also like the humour in the figures. Plus you get to chose between several great races including Elves (French), Orcs (British), Dwarves (Prussians) and Trolls (Swedish).

What Slaugherloo army do you collect?

I have a Finklestein Alliance army of Dogs (Austrians- Hungarian Regiments), Dwarves (Austrians- Germain Regiments) and Ogres (Hanoverians). But no Ferach Elves (French).

We have 1 player at my local club with a very large Ferach army, another with a large Undead army, and another with large Orc army. By playing Finklestien I can join in on either side, which works well as the various German states and the Austrians both fought on both sides during the Napoeonic era.

Cheers

James
Author:  Mojarn Piett [ Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Why Napoleonics?

What Slaugherloo army do you collect?


Actually I have yet to get started.  :blush:  I have several Ferach figures for Flintloque plus some werewolves but that's all for the moment.

I am trying to make up my mind between Ferach and Krautia. The undead are tempting too.

And yep, there's some great humor in the game too. Like KGB, for instance.  :laugh:  And to those unfamiliar with Slaughterloo: KGB is Kommissariat Graviski Bureau, Star Wraith Alexander's secret police staffed with Liches.  :laugh:



Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/