im not and expert on 1810 ish time frame but heres my 2 cents
Why is japan a french ally?
the phillipines, marianas and the caroline islands should be french, and same with the west indies.
why does the coalition have british columbia and the yukon, those were british teritories.
other then that sounds cool.
P.S.
are there any new rules or units?
Ok, Japan is French ally because France controlled the Netherlands around 1810 and the Japanese only traded with Dutch. However I have rules for Japan I did not post. France really only recieves the Japan IPC’s as trade. They do not per se control Japan. No units will be in Japan and the French can build nothing in Japan. To the English allies however Japan acts as a neutral. They may convoy the zone and stop the IPC’s for France however they may not attack the island without the Japanese fighting for their sovereignty meaning a preset army will be placed in Japan should the allies attack island.
The Philippines were a Spanish colony at this time and although France did control Spain many of it’s colonies took this as a time to fight for their independence (virtually all South American and Central American colonies). The West Indies had many powers in control of various islands however the island portrayed on the AAG40 board is Cuba which was controlled by Spain so I left it as so. The Philippines and Cuba (West Indies) however stayed loyal to the crown and remained Spanish after the Napoleonic Wars because of this I am considering of moving them to the Coalition. I don’t see how the Marianas could be French? A link or something perhaps.
I gave Yukon and British Columbia because Russian companies had control of North America down to the 55 degree latitude north. However I am considering giving British Columbia to the British due to their presence in the region as well.
Another idea I thought of afterward was to make the United States a playable power on the French Side as well. However, I am not certain how to even it out for the English side.
sorry i made that unclear the marianas and carolines were spanish so well…. yah.
This looks cool. I love alternate scenerios.
I understand “Pro-France” neutrals – sort of like Pro-Allied or Pro-Axis neutrals, right? What are “Fight Neutrals” and “Colonize Neutrals”?
@i rock- yeah there will be a few new rules but I am still hammering all that out it will be layed out in a later post.
@knp- What that means will be laid out later but basically because this is pre- African Scramble and the colonizing of Asia I am going to build in rules where most likely you will pay a certain amount of IPC’s to establish a colony in certain territories how exactly the system is going to work is what im trying to find out but thats the idea. The Fight neutrals should be better described as Pro-Independent. They are mainly former Spanish colonies in the Americas. They took advantage of the instability of Spain being taken by France and many of the revolutions started around 1810 so to emulate this in the game they will be like strict neutrals with armies you must fight to gain control of the territory. However unlike A&A attacking one will not influence the others to become pro one side or the other.
My other idea was to make the US playable on the French side and to counteract this I would make the Spanish colonies a playable power for the English side except when a French power attacked one of the spanish territories they would recieve extra units namely infantry join their already attacking forces. These infantry would represent rebels who support the French as liberators. That same idea will be applied to the territory of Spain to represent the fact that many Spanish fought against Napoleon’s rule and saw English as liberators.
Sounds intriguing – alternate-history scenarios can be a lot of fun. I’m a bit unclear, however, about what you mean by “a Napoleonic WWII.” Do you mean:
A version of the Napoleonic Wars that sticks to the original time frame, and involves the people and technology of the period, but which is fought on a global scale like WWII?
A version of the Napoleonic Wars that sticks to the original time frame, and involves the people of the period, but is fought with WWII weapons rather than horse-and-musket technology?
A version of WWII which is set in 1939-1945, but which is fought with Napoleonic technology?
Or something else entirely?
I actually asked myself this…
Originally I was going to make it option 2- the setting of the Napoleonic wars only fought with ww2 weapons. But I am considering making separate rules that include the first as well which means period weapons. It would really only require a cutting of air planes. Tanks/Mech Infantry would represent Cavalry, Artillery is Artillery, Infantry as infantry, and I would assign the boats more period names only. But I am also interested into seeing what the community thinks, which is really why I posted it. So constructive criticism is appreciated as are other ideas which could possibly be incorporated.
One technical factor you might need to consider (at least on the tactical level) is that the introduction of WWII-era technology into a Napoleonic context would have a major impact on the “Napoleonic” tactics of the infantry and cavalry (particularly the infantry). Late 18th / early 19th century infantry tactics involved massed volleys of fire delivered by tightly-packed infantry formations at relatively short ranges. This was necessary because the smoothbore muskets of the period were only really effective at a range of a couple of hundred yards, and took a long time to reload. Advancing troops could cover 200 yards fairly quickly in a frontal assault, and so would only have to absorb a couple of volleys before they were on top of the enemy.
Things began to look very different during the American Civil War, in which soldiers were armed with rifled muskets firing conical bullets, and whose loading was accelerated by the use of pre-measured amounts of gunpowder in paper cartridges. These weapons fired a bit more quickly than the Napoleonic musket, but the key difference was that they could deliver effective fire at a range of about half a mile. Advancing troops therefore would have to absorb many more volleys because they were under fire over greater distances. They discovered that Napoleonic tactics could be suicidal under those conditions (especially when they were being fired on by enemy soldiers who were under cover rather than standing out in the open). The Battle of Sharpsburg / Antietam and the Battle of Fredericksburg are good examples of this dynamic.
Things became even more lethal during the First World War, in which soldiers were armed with bolt-action rifles and, even more significantly, machine guns. The great range and great firing rate of these weapons meant that a single man under good cover could, on his own, hold a considerable amount of “frontage”. When that factor was multiplied by the mass armies (numbering in the millions) which the major powers could deploy, the result was a situation in which defense was stronger than attack over distances of hundreds of miles, and the opposing armies became bogged down in the trench lines of the Western Front.
So the point to keep in mind is that, if you’re going to introduce WWII technology into the Napoleonic age, you’re probably going to have to introduce WWII-style tactical rules too because infantry units (even if they themselves are armed with WWII weapons) using Napoleonic tactics against an enemy with WWII firepower would be cut to pieces in short order.
Yeah, couldn’t you just see a nice neat line of soldiers using Napoleonic tactics then here comes the Panzers and Stukas. BLITZKRIEG!!
Actually, the way I understood the scenario was that the British and French empires were similar to what they were territorially in the early 19th century but lasted into the 1930s and 1940s. In other words, the American Revolution never happened and America is still colonies. Obviously this would also mean the American Civil War, Spanish Civil War, WW 1 and I’m not sure what else never happened.
Is this a somewhat correct assumption?
Actually, the way I understood the scenario was that the British and French empires were similar to what they were territorially in the early 19th century but lasted into the 1930s and 1940s. In other words, the American Revolution never happened and America is still colonies. Obviously this would also mean the American Civil War, Spanish Civil War, WW 1 and I’m not sure what else never happened. Is this a somewhat correct assumption?
The American Revolution happened in the mid-18th century, so the Americans were already out of the British Empire by the early 19th century. This fits with Bischoffshof’s post, which lists the U.S. as being mainly a pro-French neutral, not a British colony.
Yes knp had it right whereas its virtually a ww2 game only with sides realigned in a historical context. Although as CWO mentioned the US was no longer a colony and fought Britian in the War of 1812 which is right around the timeframe.
Thoughts of making US a French Playable and making the Spanish Colonies playable for Britian? The Sides are still pretty fair as far as IPC and I feel like it really opens up the Americas for a solid war (simulating Mexican American War)
Napoleon Lives
French Empire-France, Southern France, Normandy Bordeaux, Northern Italy, Switzerland, West Germany, Holland Belgium, Southern Italy, French Guiana, Gibraltar, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Greater Southern Germany, Slovakia Hungary, Spain, Sumatra, French Madagascar, Japan.
IPC- 58
Ottoman Empire- Turkey, Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk, Alexandria, Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Iraq, Bessarabia, Northwest Persia, Saudi Arabia, Crete, Cyprus, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, Ethiopia, British Somaliland.
IPC- 23
United States- Central United States, Eastern United States.
IPC- 32
TOTAL= 113
English Empire-United Kingdom, Scotland, Eire, Sierra Leone, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland Labrador, New Brunswick Nova Scotia, India, Ceylon, Queensland, New South Wales, Northern Territory, South Australia, New Zealand, Victoria, Malta, Southwest Africa, Union of South Africa, Malaya, Sicily, Java.
IPC- 35
Coalition- Sweden, Portugal, Brazil, Finland, Karelia, Vyborg, Baltic States, Eastern Poland, Western Ukraine, Ukraine, Rostov, Caucasus, Volgograd, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Samara, Tambov, Bryansk, Russia, Smolensk, Belarus, Nenetsia, Archangel, Vologda, Urals, Novosibirsk, Timguska, Evenkiyskiy, Yenisey, Yakut S. S. R., Buryatia, Sakha, Amur, Siberia, Soviet Far East, Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia.
IPC- 50
Colonies- Argentina, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Central America, Southeast Mexico, Mexico, Western United States, West Indies, Philippines, Guam.
IPC- 23
TOTAL= 108
Pro France Neutrals- Persia and Eastern Persia,
Colonize Neutrals- Angola, Rhodesia, Mozambique, French West Africa, French Central Africa, Gold Coast, Nigeria, French Equatorial Africa, Belgian Congo, Italian Somaliland, Liberia, Portuguese Guinea, Rio De Oro, Tanganyika Territory, Kenya, Burma, Shan State, Siam, French Indochina, All Chinese Territories, All Pacific Islands (not already owned).
The territories are divied up circa 1810.
The list of territories you gave sounds essentially identical to the one in Global 1940. Keep in mind that many of these names (and countries) didn’t exist in 1810; to pick just one example, the term “Yakut S.R.R.” (Soviet Socialist Republic) dates from post-Revolutionary times, not Tsarist Russia. And many of the borders were different. The problem is unavoidable if you’re using the Global 1940 map for reasons of covenience, but the game would have a more Napoleonic flavour (and be more accurate geographically) if you made your own custom map.
I have hand drawn custom maps before for other games I created but I’m working 50 hours a week and don’t have time. Additionally I do not know how to build them on the computer either
Okay, I got my time frames a little messed up. So the American Revolution did happen and America is it’s own country. Which means the American Civil War could have happened as well, but not the Spanish-American war if, as I understand it, France owns Spain. One other thing, was it the French or the British that supported the Confederacy in the Civil War? I ask this because it might be possible that the US Civil War might have had a different outcome and America could be 2 separate countries: The USA and the CSA. I once read an “alternate history” scenario where the North didn’t win the Civil War and there was still a Confederate States of America into the 1940s. There was also some Federation of Western American States west of the Rockies so basically we had 3 separate countries here.
CSO Marc brought up another interesting point: What about the Russian Revolution. While there were many reasons leading up to it, the revolution was kind of sparked by Russia’s long involvement and rather poor performance against the Germans in WW1. Sort of a “last straw” thing. In this scenario, there was no WW 1 because there isn’t really a Germany or Austria/Hungary Empire. So, I’m guessing the Russian revolution never happened either? Is Russia even a country? It looks like most of the Soviet territories are part of that “Coalition” which I guess is friendly to Britain.
One other thing, was it the French or the British that supported the Confederacy in the Civil War?
Neither really, but if you have to pick one I guess it would have been more likely the French than the Brits. The Brits imported too heavily from the North to risk a conflict with them.
1810 is actually firmly in between the revolution in 1776 and the American Civil War 1860-1865.
And I am kind of a Civil War buff and would love to create an alternate history scenario based on that now that you mention it… however would require an entirely new map. And in fact it was Britian that supported the South. It is in fact why the South invaded Maryland. When Antietam failed however it closed the possibility of the Brits joining the South as they did not want to support a side where they may lose. England actually built much of the Confederate Navy and was actually sued by the US after the war claiming for damages the ships that they constructed built.
If you ever create an alternate-history scenario in which France and/or Britain get directly involved in the American Civil War, one element you might want to incorporate would be the armoured ship factor. The Monitor-Virginia engagement (the Battle of Hampton Roads) is correctly cited as being the first battle between armoured vessels, but its fame sometimes overshadows the situation of the United States relative to that of France and Britain in the development of armoured warships.
France and Britain had both constructed armoured floating gun batteries – roughly in the same league as the Virginia – during the Crimean War. Some of these vessels were used in September 1855 to bombard a Russian fort at Kinburn. By August 1860, France had commissioned the ironclad La Gloire, the world’s first ocean-going armoured ship. Britain followed up in August 1861 by commissioning HMS Warrior, the world’s first iron-hulled ocean-going armoured warship. Both these ships outclassed the Monitor and the Virginia, which were small, shallow-draft armoured gunboats only suitable for use in coastal waters and rivers. So in an alternate-history scenario, you could have either France or Britain (or both) tossing their seagoing ironclads into the naval side of the American Civil War, with potentially interesting effects on the Union blockade of the Confederacy.
That is indeed interesting and actually really makes me wanna do it and put the Napoleon on hold. The problem is the map how do you put them online. Draw the map on sheets of paper then scan them? That’s only way I can think of. Additionally pieces would be hard to come by. I feel substituting tanks for cavalry would ruin the authenticity haha.
I’m not sure what you mean by the problem of putting the maps online because you mention the issue of finding suitable pieces, which implies a board game rather than an online game. I think developing your game as a board game is the best option: it avoids any scanning problems, and I think it’s more satisfying to move pieces on a board rather than electrons on a screen.
If you go the board game route, your best bet would be to use the existing board from an existing Civil War board game – of which there are probably tons on the market. That would save you the work of creating your own board from scratch. You could even use combinations of boards from different games: for instance a board showing the U.S. as a whole (which would serve as your overall situation board for the Civil War), combined with a board showing the world as a whole (to allow you to track the overseas elements, such as the British and French involvement). The world board would ideally be for the mid-19th century, but there may not be many wargames that are global in scale while being set in that time-period, so perhaps using a global Napoleonic-era wargame (I assume there must be some on the market) would be a good compromise for the British/French side of things.
Getting waterline wargaming models of Civil War ships is no problem:
http://www.panzerschiffe.com/Warships_from_the_American_Civil_War.html
There must also be lots of companies that sell Civil War plastic units in all kinds of scales. Ditto for Napoleonic pieces, which could serve as your British and French units. One game that comes with generic pieces that have a Napoleonic flavour is:
http://www.viktorygame.com/.
[Edit: Here’s another source for ships: http://navwar.co.uk/nav/ . Look on pages 6 and 8 of their PDF catalogue (http://navwar.co.uk/nav/pdf/webcat.pdf): they sell 1:3000 scale models of La Gloire and Warrior.]
Excellent thanks so much for the help and yes I was doing board game but generally when I do my custom boards they take forever to color so I was considering scanning them and then using paint or something to add color to the board. Your idea of using other boards is a solid idea though
