4 – 3 – 2 – 1

With all the decorating I have been doing over the past few days, I have had plenty of time to do some thinking about how I want to organise my collection of Napoleonic wargames figures into units. When coupled with my thinking about a grid-based set of early nineteenth century wargame rules that I want to write, I have come to the following conclusions:

  • The units will be organised into four, three, two, and single figure-strong units. (Four figures per infantry unit, three figures per cavalry unit, two figures per artillery unit, and one figure per commander and their staff.)
  • I will use the nomenclature of ‘regiment’ for infantry and cavalry units and ‘battery’ for artillery units.
  • Units will comprise figures that are in the same pose (e.g. standing firing, kneeling firing, advancing, re-loading … with the figures in less active poses being used to form second-line/reserve units [see units marked with * below]).
  • Each figure will be individually based so that it can be removed from the unit to show unit degradation due to combat.
  • I will use supernumerary figures (e.g. musicians and/or officers) to indicate elite units. (These will be the first figures removed when the elite unit suffers casualties.)
  • My rules will use the Combat Dice from the COMMANDS AND COLORS: NAPOLEONIC game to resolve combat.
  • My rules will have some command restrictions built into them. (Either I will use the cards from the COMMANDS AND COLORS: NAPOLEONIC game or the dice from RISK EXPRESS or the ‘Pips’ system from DBA/HoTT … or something that resembles one of these systems.)

With these ideas in mind – and with the additional figures that arrived recently in the post – I have reorganised my collection of Napoleonic wargame figures into the following four ‘armies’:

  • French:
    • Infantry: 13 Regiments (1 x Guard Grenadiers; 5 x Line Infantry; 6 x Light Infantry; 1 x Militia Infantry*)
    • Cavalry: 11 Regiments (5 x Cuirassiers; 2 x Carabiniers: 2 x Hussars; 2 x Lancers)
    • Artillery: 6 Batteries (2 x Horse Artillery; 4 x Foot Artillery)
  • British:
    • Infantry: 11 Regiments (4 x Foot Guards; 2 x Highland Infantry; 2 x Line Infantry; 2 x Rifles, 1 x Highland Fencibles*)
    • Cavalry: 4 Regiments (1 x Life Guards, 1 x Dragoon Guards, 2 x Light Dragoons/Hussars)
    • Artillery: 4 Batteries (1 x Horse Artillery, 3 x Foot Artillery)
  • Prussian:
    • Infantry: 7 Regiments (6 x Line Infantry; 1 x Landwehr Infantry*)
    • Cavalry: 5 Regiments (3 x Dragoons; 2 x Hussars)
    • Artillery: 1 Battery (1 x Foot Artillery)
  • Allies:
    • Infantry: 4 Regiments (2 x Belgian Infantry; 2 x Brunswick Infantry)
    • Cavalry: 1 Regiment (1 x Dutch Carabiniers)
    • Artillery: –

I have quite a few ‘spare’ figures that will be used to form additional units as and when I can purchase more Del Prado pre-painted 25/28mm-scale Napoleonic wargames figures via the Internet.

Advertisements

4 Comments on “4 – 3 – 2 – 1”

  1. David Crook says:

    Hi Bob,

    There is a rather neat card driven system using ordinary playing cards in the Te Wapen Fantasy rules by the Toy Soldiers of Antwerp chaps – the same people that produced Afriboria.

    I will be interested in seeing how your Smoothbore itch will get scratched in respect of the rule you settle on.

    All the best,

    DC

  2. David Crook,

    I will certainly have a look at the TE WAPEN rules. I have heard of them, but never read them.

    I suspect that my 'smooth bore' itch is going to take a long time to scratch. I am gradually building up my armies, and hope to begin basing the figures in the near future. Then I can begin work on the rules.

    All the best,

    Bob

  3. arthur1815 says:

    Bob,
    Have you seen Ross Mac's latest iteration of his Square Brigadier rules? They seem to contain most of your requirements, and are simple enough to tweak as required.
    I'm editing them to suit the smoothbore era; I'll send you a copy when completed.
    Best wishes,
    Arthur

  4. Arthur1815,

    I have been following the development of Ross Mac's most recent version of his rules with interest. He and I do seem to be looking for similar solutions, but are coming at it from slightly different directions.

    I would be very interested in seeing your version of his rules as soon as they are drafted.

    All the best,

    Bob


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s