Too much choice is a bad thing.

My eBay purchase of Napoleonics figures arrived last week and they're about what I expected. The painting is ok but nothing great. However there was a problem with the French army. Half of them were Confederation of the Rhine Infantry which I had not been expecting. I went back to the listing and it said Napoleon's army which I had read as French so my own fault really for not checking. But now I have a problem with how I going to base the figures as they're in units of 16 or 20 and I was planning on using units of 24 or 32. With half of them being CotR troops I can't merge the units into larger ones as I'd planned because of the uniform differences

But the basing issues don't end there. I had intended to use either the Lasalle or FoG:N rules as they both use a 40mm frontage for their bases and I could base up the figures so they could be used for both rules. But  the Lasalle army lists don't have much flexibility with regard to the units you can take and the required number of units for a valid force would mean I'd have to buy more figures.

Fog:N, on the other hand, has more flexibility in what you can take. However it is a corps level game with units representing demi-brigades/regiments as opposed to Lasalle's battalions. This has the benefit of needing fewer infantry figures as you can replace a base of infantry with a base of cavalry or artillery to represent an attachment to the unit. However having looked at some pictures I didn't like the look of the units and it didn't feel right to base units that way.

After much thought I decided to go with Lasalle as the rules seemed easier to pick up and learn and I would base in 24's and bite the bullet and buy some more figures. So I ordered a bunch of bases and got my pdf copy of the rules printed out. It was at this point that I encountered the 'Napoleon at War' rules.

I came across these on the TMP boards and did a bit of research on them. They seemed to be easier to learn than Lasalle and they were based on 24 man units, plus they had flexibility in the army lists to let me pick and choose to suit the figures I had bought. But the basing is really weird and not compatible with Lasalle or FoG:N. It would also mean buying yet another set of Napoleonic rules. So now I'm thinking about going with N@W but I've just laid out £20 for printing and bases for Lasalle. I briefly toyed with the idea of using the 40mm bases for N@W but decided against it  as I didn't want to have to fudge things to make it work.

After much wailing and gnashing of teeth I decided to go with N@W as they seem to fit best with what I want. Also I can still use them with Lasalle if need be as base sizes aren't critical as Lasalle uses base widths as the unit of measurement. So I've ordered a set of the N@W rules for £22 from Stafford Games as they were the cheapest place I found that sold them. I'm sure somewhere down the line I'll find a use for the 40mm bases I'd ordered. But I can't help feeling life would be easier (and cheaper) if there wasn't so many rulesets to choose from!

Decisions, Decisions

Now the two painted 15mm Napoleonic armies I won on eBay are on their way to me I have to think about re-basing and rulesets. From what little I can see in the pictures it looks like the French are 24 figure units and the British 16 figure units.

The French

The British

Hopefully the French will be a straight swap for whatever rules I decide to use, although I may have problems with flank companies etc. But the British will definitely be a problem with their 16 figure units if they're painted up as distinct regiments.

My choice of rules is between Lasalle and FoG:N. I have both and I like elements of each of them so I think the final decision may come down to whether I have enough figures to make armies for the lists specified. I may have a problem with Lasalle as I don't think I'll have enough French troops to build an army with the listed requirements. Of course I can always try to trim things down but I'll only know for sure once the figures arrive. At least both systems use the same basing so that won't be a problem.

At the moment I'm leaning towards Lasalle as they seem to be a bit simpler to pick up, but I'll hunt around the net for some reviews and have a quick read through both again before I make my mind up.

First Impressions, Field of Glory: Napoleonic

I've had my copy of FoG:N a few days now so I thought I'd give you my first impressions.

It's production is up to the usual high standard of FoG books. It's a hardback, full colour rulebook of about 150 pages. Although it does have some diagrams explaining the rules it is mainly blocks of text which some may find off-putting. In addition to the rules there are eight army lists covering various forces in the period 1809-1813. It does have explanations of various terms and troop types but the rules assume you already have some knowledge of Napoleonic warfare.

So on to the content. Firstly although it's not exclusively a set of rules for tournament players that aspect of the game has had an impact on the rule's design. The army lists use a points system to generate 'matched' armies and it has lots of explanations of rule situations that may occur and how to deal with them. Obviously to try and deal with the antics of rules lawyers in tournaments. It doesn't have the feel of a set of rules for a quick friendly game down at your local wargames club in the way that Lasalle does. That's not to say you can't have a fun friendly game with the rules.

Secondly, it's not FoG: Ancients modified for the Napoleonic period. It does have some family similarities with things like 'Points of Advantage' but it plays very differently. It's more about command and control through the use of Command Points (CP) and Complex Move Tests (CMT) and the state of the unit (Disordered, Wavering etc). I don't have room to go into too much detail here, but I'll try and give you the gist of it.

Your CinC and Divisional commanders give you a number of CP you can use each turn. These are used to allow a unit to perform a CMT. The number and scope of CMT's is much bigger than in FoG:A and includes things like steady troops assaulting through friendlies, making a double move, activating off-table units etc. However the number of CP you get is determined by the number and quality of your commanders and could be as low as three CP. Having a low number of CP will severely limit what your troops can do, particularly if their morale/cohesion has been reduced.

So you have a game that focuses more on making you think how you are going to use what resources you have available to you to achieve your aims. It's not DBM like where it's all mm's and angles or FoG:A with it's units dashing all over the table. It's it's own beast and no bad thing for all that. You'll be worried about units being out of command range and working out whether you want to use CP to quickly move troops to exploit an opening or to make a disordered unit launch an assault on a weaken enemy near collapse. In other words the things that a general should be thinking about in a battle.

So do I like them? Yes. Do I prefer them to Lasalle? No. Lasalle 'feels' more relaxed and fun and easier to pick up and play. But I am impressed with FoG:N and will give them a serious look at some time in the future which is not something I expected.

A 'Lite' Version of FoG:Napoleonics Now Available.

Just found out that there's a 'lite' version of FoG:Napoleonics available here. I've had a quick look at it and it's quite interesting. Apparently it's possible to play as a standalone set of rules a bit like DBA. Anyway just thought I'd mention it in case anyone was interested. If you're more interested in the full set there's a review here.

A good deal on Field of Glory: Napoleonic

Just a quick heads-up that Field of Glory Napoleonic is released on Monday & I've just noticed that Amazon still have it on pre-order for £15.75 which is quite a saving on the normal price of £25.
Although I'm probably going to use Lasalle for my Napoleonics I've pre-ordered  a copy because that's such a good deal & I may use it in the future. As I've said before I'm a sucker for a good deal :-)