"Is Napoleonics dying off?" Topic

SOme guy on another thread wanted to get back into gaming after a long period away from thehobby. He basically said that he wanted to get into something popular so he would readily have opponents. One guy suggested Nappys.

I responded saying that I thought Nappys was a bad choice for a popular area of gaming. I attended Origins last year, after a break of about twenty years. I remember when half the con was covered with miniature versions of Borodino and Austerlitz. This time, I think I saw one game being played. I'm sure there were more, but in the four hours I spent just wandering around, as opposed to actually playing, I saw just one.

Please note that I am not cracking on Napoleonics. I cut my teeth on Nappys as a wargamer some 30 years ago, and, for a visually stunning game, you will struggle long and hard to find anything better.

However, it is something of a daunting project to get into. For one thing, you generally need lots of figures to play. For another -and this is just my experience, please don't shoot the messenger- Nappy players tend to be rather unforgiving of improper uniform research and poor paint jobs. Also, they really don't seem to recruit much. I think most Nappy games in my area are played in basements rather than gaming shops.

But I think the main thing is that there are just so many areas of the hobby that you can get into now that are so much easier.

Back in the 70s, if you wanted to wargame, you'd better like Nappys or WWII or both, or life was going to be difficult. Today, you can buy a set of D&D rules and two packs of prepainted minis, and you're ready to play. Even Warhammer 40,000, for all the complaints about expense, is not as expensive or time consuming to get into as a serious Napoleonics army.

Its probably heresy even to mention this on the Miniatures page, but has any company ever considered prepainted Napoleonics? I can hear the grognards howling already, but it might be a way of attracting younger players, as Axis and Allies minis did.

However, I'm not even sure that such a product would sell?

Or am I all wet? I'm okay with being educated if I've got this wrong. Are Nappys still a growing area of the hobby?

I think it is cyclical.

Our group plays napoleonics for a while, we have a campaign – afterwards we don't really touch the period for a while and then pick it up again a year or two later maybe.

I'm sure gamers on a whole are the same way. Right now WWII is in, then maybe another period – then back to napoleonics.

I sort of driften into the period because of the group I played with – I think as long as older gamers get younger gamers into playing regularly with a group (and this can be done by playing alternate periods) and then springing a nappy game on them, they will probably enjoy it.

I mean it is fun to march huge lines of soldiers around only to have them disappear under cannon fire – but until I played a few games it wasn't a period I wold ahve looked much into (and some napoleonic fans can make it a very difficult and intimidating period to get into)

I think the demographics have changed a bit. When I started in miniatures in the 1970s, if you were not a Napoleonics player, you were not a wargamer. I went into Ancients, AWI and colonials, determined to be on the fringe.
My guess is that back then, Nappys were 60% of all wargaming.
When wargaming started expanding, so did Napoleonics, but not proportionally. Even if wargaming expands 500%, and Napoleonics expands 200$, Nappys still expands, but loses market share.

Napoleonics is still healthy, but not the 500 pound gorilla any more. There IS no 500 pound goorilla in wargaming anymore, and that is a Good Thing.

Our club is doing more nappies now then ever before. No helping some people :-)

Goodness me, is it that time of the year already?

…next week: is it over for ancients?

I must be a contrarian.

When I started gaming in the 60's we never did Napoleonics. Didn't start them until the late 1990's. Did almost everything else but.

A lot of gamers dabble in different periods now and I think as a result there has been more of a move to skirmish style games. It's possibly because the hobby is becoming more figure driven rather than ruleset or period driven. People see a new range of nice looking figures an buy a handful then look for an excuse to use them. Fewer people stick with just one period and amass a huge army like in the old days and Napoleonics need large armies on the whole.
(I have seen a fair few Sharpes skirmish games around the shows though)

Just a gut feeling here, but I think some manufacturer is going to come along and give nappies the FOW treatment. Beautiful rule book, easy to grasp rules, tournament ready, minis packaged for the game, the whole nine yards. Then the period will explode. Right now, we're in the sort of inhale stage.

I think Napoleonics went through a phase of ever more realistic (read complex) rulesets. The buzzword was simulation. I also believe this turned many people off. At the end of the day, players want to enjoy the game. Our group has gone to more playable systems and have attracted more players than ever.

I haven't played Naps, but we're getting into them. I think Naps has among the best strategic puzzles of any era, foot, cav and artillery. I love ACW but you just don't get those kinds of thought-provoking issues.

Steve

I briefly toyed with the idea of getting into Naps (6mm). I just doubt my group would ever look at it.

This has already been mentioned on this thread a few times, but the reason that 7YW and Napoleonics aren't growing quickly is the requirement to paint large numbers of figs in whichever scale that you choose. Most of the gamers still involved in these periods(my club for one) is because we already have accumulated large collections over the years. The trend over the last several years is towards skirmish gaming, multiple periods, etc…, and the lack of time for hobby stuff has already been discussed multiple times here on TMP.

Also, I'm not sure a FOW treatment would work out too well. While it would be good for gamers in the terms of rules, books, and new figs, there is still the whole issue of painting everything up. I was looking at one of the forums where there was an FOW conversion for Napoleonics and you would still need 150+ figs per player to have a game. Few gamers I've seen recently are into that kind of painting commitment.

I agree with awalesll, If someone comes along and packages/markets it well it will have a boost

I personly don't don't play Naps, but do do SYW, AWI and ACW, I think there is a mentality of it being the older gamers and its hard for new gamers to get in

Also as Pygmalion said, more systems re going skirmish rather than massed armies

There are always trends, and "fads" in wargaming, especialy over the last few years, at the momment in our club anyway its FOW (ww2) and FOG (ancients) that are the "in Games"

Al

Based on sales, both in Old Glory 25's and 10's, as well as the Sash and Saber 25' and 40's, I would say that Napoleonics are still very healthy. Also, it should be noted that the Perry's are still pumping out 25's nd 40's in Napoleonics (besides their new plastics), as well as few other companies who make regular announcements about new Napoleonic releases.

To me, what makes the difference in what games where played in the 60', 70's and 80's, verses now relates more to the amount of different rules sets available today verses what was back then. The late 80's there was an explosion of rule sets. No sooner did someone come out witha Civil War set or rules or a Colonial set of Rules, there would be three or more different rule sets foer the smae period all wanting attention. Thus, when running games prior to explosion of rule sets, you were verily certain when running a convention game most were familar with the rules you were using – now it's just a crap shoot of what rules are going to be used, including a newe home brew set of rules.

I think today it is more a matter of choice, there are many more available these days than there was 30 years ago so Nappy games will be less prevalent. But yes, the Nappy era it seems is not as popular as it once was 20+ years ago. WWII died in a similar way at the same time but FoW and other rules sets since have breathed knew life into that period.

The Nappy period seems to have languished with no firm rules set that has risen above the mass of systems on the market so until that happens Nappy battles will be fewer.

Shane

Nappy's dead ? Not 'round here. I just (well, a couple
month back) bought about 250 more Nap (Russians/Austrians)
in 28mm, to go with the several thousand I already have.

Also have a bunch of old Scruby 30's (which fit very
well with modern 28's) in re-paint.

Nope, not dead here…

"Is Napoleonics dying off?"

Er…not if my sales of figures rules and flags is anything to go by.

There is a constant demand for our our boxed sets. The mould for Napoleonic line infantry is hardly ever out of the casting machine and we're having to reprint the Polemos Napoleonic rules. I am bombarded on a daily basis for new items and new nationalities to add to the range.

Napoleonics is very much alive and kicking, it's probably just changed from the style of games that were knocking around in the 1970s and 1980s.

Cheers

Peter

I just started wargaming and the first thing I did was ofcouse nappy, so it's not dead, I have infact plans of starting a wargaming revolution in norway, forcing EVERYONE to do it or die

I suspect we will see more not less as the 200th anniversaries of the major battle start to come around. There was a whole load of stuff for Trafalgar and I think we will see the same in 2015 for Waterloo.

Mephistopheles: I think that all of your points pretty much hit the nail on the head of truth. I have noticed that WW2 has crowded out Napoleonics for a number of years, at least as convention games go.

Based on the number of new rules sets and new figures, plus the fact that we are in the Bicentennial of the Napoleonic Wars, I would guess that figure manufacturers are seeing a rebound in sales. The Perry 1815 range, the TAG 1809 Austrians and growth in 6mm wargaming creates some buzz and attracts gamers to this genre. Rules such as Le Feu Sacre and Generale de Brigade seem to be user friendly and make it easier for newcomers to play the period.

My guess is that a FOW treatment will not work for Napoleonics because the younger crowd likes all of the tanks and mechanized equipment (which is lacking in the 1800s).

We need to get away from the mindset that every Napoleonic game has to be a huge mega-game with 2,000 to 5,000 figures gridlocked across the gaming table. Smaller scenarios with fewer troops look just as nice and are more likely to entice convention goers into participating in the game. I am rather surprised that Sharpe-based skirmish games haven't really taken off, especially with the availability of beautiful 28mm and 40mm figures these days.

They will, new fun rule set coming soon from Too Fat Lardies.

Sharp Practice will bring skirmish home.

I attended Origins last year, after a break of about twenty years. I remember when half the con was covered with miniature versions of Borodino and Austerlitz. This time, I think I saw one game being played.

This is part of the problem. Origins is not really where I would go to get a finger on the pulse of miniature gaming.
Origins, and their treatment of historical miniatures gaming is the reason we have Historicon, Cold Wars etc.

What goes around comes around.

All it will take is a new set of rules that catch the imagination.

Blasphemy! Get the rope, boys!

i hope not, im just getting into it, polemos, and/or FPGA / GA look like they might just fit the bill.

That said, it does seem like quite a daunting period to get into, so many different scales and rules, not to mention the research to actually paint them…….

As far as the FOW treatment goes, I still contend that the main reason FOW did so well was the overall popularity of WW2 amongst their target audience due to Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, Day of Defeat etc.
WW2 was hot, and they got in at the right time.

Without a huge surge in popular media and computer games, I don't think any other period will succeed with the "FOW" treatment.

Bardolph, you are quite right about FoW surfing the crest of a wave of popular media.

It's not likely Napoleonics will receive the same treatment; there are no producers alive today whose fathers and grandfathers fought in those wars.

Though I have game nearly everything out there Napoleonic's will always be my favorite period.

Yes it does require lots of miniatures and when you believe in big battles with big battalions/regiments then this becomes even more daunting.

Now I would not like to see a FOW treatment of Napoleonics since while it uses World War II miniatures I do not see it as fighting a World War II battle.

Yes there are the uniforms lawyers that would be little you if you fielded 1806 French for a 1812 battle. I would not because I see those figures as being French no matter what type of uniform they are wearing.

As stated before you need lots of miniatures to play Napoleonic's so requiring people to have thousands of different miniatures just so they are modeled in the right uniform for the year that you are fighting is just wrong.

What really needs to happen is that the writers of all the different sets of rules should get together and see if they can come up with just one set of rules.

I don't think Nappys are dying out really, the major difference is just the huge proliferation of periods gamed today compared with (say) the seventies. Back then you had ancients/medeival, Napoleonics and WW2 that was it with only minor look ins from ACW, Colonial or whatever. No chance of anyone turning up at the club with a box of Spanish Civil War under his arm, even some periods that are now considered fairly mainstream such as Great War of the North, AWI or Franco-Prussian would have been almost impossible to game due to lack of figures and information.

So as a proportion of games played it has probably shrunk a little but its still there and….a period just waiting for a decent push back into the limelight with the arrival of a new set of rules methinks.

Bruntonboy, I agree with part of your comment. However, AWI gaming was quite evident (at least in the USA) as of the mid 70's. You had 1776, Redcoat and several other rule sets out along with several lines of figs. The Iton Brigade line was pretty nice for it's day. I own a decent amount of them still.

Thanks,

John

No…don't tell me they're dieing out! I'm in the middle of building new French and Austrian armies in 28mm and I'm updating my 15mm French and British armies…..!!!!

The future of the Napoleonic Wars as a POPULAR wargaming genre is entirely dependant upon the younger generations having an interest in taking part. Napoleonic Wargames will always be either a continuing genre amongst our older wargaming veterans, either as a regular genre preference or at the very least as a perennial genre preference.

It appears that the media has quite an influence (though NOT absolute) on what is being played and how much something is being played at a particular time.

Generally speaking interest in the Napoleonic Wars was huge back in the Seventies and early Nineties and this was reflected by the amount of games of that genre being played back in those days. In the Seventies we had the film ‘Waterloo' and in the early Nineties we had the Sharpe and later the Hornblower TV series. Many books on the period of course were being written and re-printed in the Seventies and Nineties due to an increased interest in the period and of course the wonderful First Empire magazine took off in the early Nineties too.

Sharpe was unquestionably monumental in rekindling a popular interest in the Napoleonic Wars in the Nineties.

By the millennium most of us had access to the internet and were able to discuss our period on forums like this and the Napoleon Series to keep our Napoleonic passion active, as before the internet, if you had trouble finding local groups it was quite easy for a passion, not to disappear exactly, but rather to lie quietly dormant and for whatever other genre was popular to sweep one along or for one not to game at all if Napoleonic's could not be played and reside ones self to doing research.

With the new millennium (certainly in my neck of the woods) came a large growth of interest in the Fantasy/Sword and Sorcery genre. Granted, this had always been a popular genre due to the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and HeroQuest, etc. but there is no doubt that The Lord of the Rings movies were a God send to the likes of Games Workshop, World of Warcraft, White Dwarf etc. as they really took off because of those movies. In my opinion there is no doubt that the LOTR movies significantly influenced the amount of wargames being played that were of the Fantasy/Sword and Sorcery genre. There is always a plentiful supply of computer games for that genre as well that is forever being released – again the media lending a helping hand.

It is not just Napoleonics that seem to (by-and-large) get snubbed by the majority of younger gamers, but every historic period does too.

I remember a time before the film Braveheart, when few people outside of Scotland knew who William Wallace was. Then, afterwards an interest had been sparked prompting them to read up on him and low and behold, many of those interested further readers at least now know enough about him and the events depicted in the film to know that the film was far from historically accurate.

The Sharpe series had a similar effect – prompting readers to read about the period but many of them being sadly disappointed when everything was not exactly as it was in Sharpe. Yet both Braveheart and Sharpe were and still are incredibly popular.

Herein lies the problem with historical wargaming. It is presented as TOO historical and TOO rigid and the outcome of a battle or campaign being perceived as a forgone conclusion – simply being history, whereas the stories of Games Workshop etc. are still evolving and have not yet become history. Something we could learn from perhaps? Who said there had to be peace in 1815?

If historical wargaming is to survive, we need to find a balance between fantasy and history. And I am NOT talking Naomi Novik's books. Though I must say, I have high hopes for Naomi Novik's books, which blend the fantasy genre and the Napoleonic Wars together. If they are made into well-handled and well-crafted films, they could have the potential to get all sorts of people reading Napoleonics and hopefully getting involved in it without the dragons. Perhaps the computer games could be made to further get younger ones interested?

For those of us who like our history without the dragons etc. we need to be less rigid with our "well that couldn't happen because the political or military situations wouldn't allow it" excuses etc. And we should be more willing to present lots of exciting opportunities and scenarios to our periods and not be afraid to share them for fear of not being taken seriously or being laughed out of the forum.

For example what if the Tsar sent a Russian Corps to Spain to help Napoleon as a gesture of his "friendship" and as a proof of his peace with Napoleon? Don't sweat it! Just play it! What if you don't have the order of battle for whatever armies in whatever campaign? Don't sweat it! Make your own up and just play it! Enjoy it! Chances are, yours will be better! :o) These suggestions are not as fantastical as dragons etc. but have enough fantasy within the confines of the real world of the past to offer some breathing space to historical genres and imagination to our younger ones.

Being less rigid and more imaginative with our games and COMMUNICATING that we are less rigid and more imaginative on our forums and in our magazines is ESSENTIAL for the survival of our historical genres as is media influence – unfortunately. And I repeat "we should be more willing to present lots of exciting opportunities and scenarios to our periods and not be afraid to share them for fear of not being taken seriously or being laughed out of the forum."

I never got into Napoleonics but I can say, Medieval Total War is getting me to paint up a DBA army. Otherwise I am working on WW2 Micro Armor/aircraft and 2400 naval, and 22mm ACW.

Now I just gotta get enough figs painted to play more.

I attended Origins last year, after a break of about twenty years. I remember when half the con was covered with miniature versions of Borodino and Austerlitz. This time, I think I saw one game being played.

Part of what's changed is the convention itself. I suspect that there were far fewer miniatures games total last summer than there were at Baltimore in 1987. Certainly the percentage of miniatures games to toal events is down. It's even worse at GenCon. My first year (1970), I think it was 99% miniatures. last summer, I doubt if it was over 10%. Of course, the convention itself has grown, and you could have dropped Horticultural Hall into the miniatures room and had space left over.

you generally need lots of figures to play.

Only if you insist on doing really big battles right from the start. Look at the histories. There are plenty of smaller actions available. Even significant ones. Sahagun was quite important, but the OB is two cavalry regiments per side, and one of the British ones didn't even get into the battle.. I don't see people being put off WW2 because it will take forever to paint up enough figures to do D-Day or Kursk.

For another -and this is just my experience, please don't shoot the messenger- Nappy players tend to be rather unforgiving of improper uniform research and poor paint jobs.

I grant you that there are some like this. There is also a large number of rivet counters in WW2 miniatures.

Also, they really don't seem to recruit much. I think most Nappy games in my area are played in basements rather than gaming shops.

Don't know where you're at, but here in the Twin Cities, there's plenty of Napoleonics action in the shops.

Back in the 70s, if you wanted to wargame, you'd better like Nappys or WWII or both, or life was going to be difficult. Today, you can buy a set of D&D rules and two packs of prepainted minis, and you're ready to play. Even Warhammer 40,000, for all the complaints about expense, is not as expensive or time consuming to get into as a serious Napoleonics army.

Or ACW, or Ancients, or Medievals, or Lace Wars, or ECW, or …

Historical miniatures gaming was never as limited as you're suggesting. And you seem to have a very inflated idea of what constitutes "a serious Napoleonics army". There's a lot of fun to be had (and fun is, after all, the object) with an infantry brigade, a battery, and a few cavalry squadrons on each side. And the Napoleonic Era has a lot of good skirmish gaming possibilities that require even fewer figures.

So, no, I don't think Napoleonics is dying off.

I suppose naps gamers appear to serious and stand offish to the younger gamers, which could be putting them off.

Make light of a game,play simple rules and who cares if anyone can rattle off what army had what to eat on the morning of Waterloo.

Promote the period to the younger gamers and show them it can be just as much fun gaming naps as gaming WH 40,000 or whatever.

My armies are all 6mm from Baccus and mm for mm can look just as good painted up as any WH figure.

A few of my buddies are playing DBN which is quick and needs only a few figures. There having a lot of fun.

As with most things popularity goes in cycles. One thing about Napoleonics, I think, is that the popularity is steady and relatively constant. Even if we don't game, paint or collect for a while Nap gamers don't sell up wholesale to try something else. Judging by the comments made by sellers on trading sites (apart from professionals) most sales are reluctant and a last resort, whereas GW et al seem to flog off they figs on a whim.
Hey just my thoughts.

Napoleonics players should not need to dumb down or change history in order to attract new players. The things that make Napoleonics attractive are that it represented a time in history where ordinary people did great things and where there was a beautiful balance between the various arms.

It is what it is BECAUSE it is hard history and still exciting, still beautiful, and combines romanticism with the art of war. It is a period that rewards history research and learning.

If there isn't a mass audience for that now it is not the fault of the material, it is the fault of the audience.

Time will pass and Romanticism and respect for history and learning will overcome Gothic love of fantasy.

addendum:

When you bring someone new to the Hobby of historical gaming, do not point them to the fluff section of the the sourcebooks or answer their questions with generalizations.

Tell them to learn to love to research…and research beyond Google and Wikipedia. Learning about history and a love of it is a centrel aspect of the Hobby.

sssshhhh…………………. don't tell anyone its dying,

15 of us (out of a club of 22)are having a campaign in 28mm using 1/20 scale rules, all of us are still having a arms race to see who can get the most new things on the table. (you would think we would grow up……..never!)

updates next weekend on our club blog

cheers
Matt

I just bought 500 Nappys this month and planning on buying at least another 500 next month, so I hope your wrong!

I like OFM and others I started in the late 60s/ early 70s and Nappys WAS wargaming and the scale was 25mm.

The problem was that Nappy's are always very large battles, both in number of men and also in table size due to the range of weapons. In the early days this was sort of fudged by having simplistic rules like Grants etc, but as time went on and we grew more sophisticated the problems of scale began to surface and I think as a result Nappy's declined and ancients took off.

The reality is that as you move forward though history weapons ranges and battle sizes increase to reach a pinnacle in the Nappy era, as you move forward from the Nappy era the individual figure become less attractive/important and you can go down in scale without losing much of the appeal. Weapon effectiveness also make skirmish gaming of limited appeal.

In the last few years a few friends and I have been talking about how much we enjoyed the 50+man battalion of the Grant era and this has led us to the conclusion that the answer is not to fight big battles with small battalions but to fight small battles with a big battalions.

All that said I do think that maybe if we evetually see the emergence of plastic 28mm Nappys we might see a resurgence of interest.

I think part of the problem of gaining a younger generation into the fold (so to speak) comes from a misunderstanding of what, as a generation, they want, and I THINK comes down to 2 main problems.

The first has been mentioned – painting all those miniatures. 2 reasons this has become a problem. The first has also been mentioned – napoleonic players insisting anyone wanting to use figures has them in correc t uniform, period yada yada yada. The second being a predeliction in some circles to massive battalions. Look at warhamer – how big are the units there? Generaly I believe 8-12 figures? Thats a nice group to paint in one hit etc etc.

The second main problem area IMHO is that the 'younger generation' are drastically underestimated in their desire for detail. A trend for a little while, and ongoing, is for 'speed of play' which is fine, but achieved by very abstracted rules that in reality loose much of the lower level 'feel' of a napoleonic combat. Look at Warhammer etc – detail to the max and the younger players can't get enough of it. More rules, more unit detail, more mods etc etc etc and the designers can't pump it out fast enough.

While I list 2, there is perhaps a third problem, in that again relates to detail. In Warhammer etc teaching the new player about the 'history' of the period, its flavour, tactics etc etc etc is a challenge taken up wholeheartedly by the designers. How many tactical advise studies are put out by napoleonic rules producers, along with period histories etc. This is a generation that HATES to feel they are getting only part of 'the story', and on top of that want it pre-packaged and digestible.

Thats a big challenge to take up as a marketing practice, but IFF it can be met I'd have thought would be the 'great hope' so to speak.

Daryl

I'm a faily young guy as gamers go(26) and i only got into 28mm napoleonics last summer. since then I have painted 1000 infantry 150 canalry and something on hte order of 40 guns. A little more than half that is my own russian army. Napoleonics is more alive tehn ever in my area, nad attracting younger players too.

Steve

I fail to understand the idea that Nappy battles are always seen as "massive"battles. In actual fact there were 10 minor battles, actions and skirmishes to ever major battle….most gamers overlook this fact.

If you want realistic battles then re-read your books and look for these minor actions and re-fight them. These are the battles that usually see less than a corps each side and more often than not as little as a Brigade or ad-hoc grouping of units in some re-guard / advance guard action.

These in my opinion are the best battles to re-fight providing your rules systems drill down to the detail needed for such actions. Find a set which does this comfortably and you will have years of fun.

Shane

Agreed. Not every Napoleonic game has to involve a huge number of troops, anymore than a WW2 game has to be a recreation of the Normandy landings or of the Battle of Kursk.

The defence of a farm from Spanish Guerrillas or Cossacks, or cutting off a detachment of French reinforcements with a Prussian Streifkorps doesn't need a whole lot of troops and can be just as fun as any other game out there.

As for rules, there is something out there for everyone. Choose a set that works for you, and just get down to it.

Just to add to my earlier post….I was speaking of my personal recollections of the Wargames scene in Great Britain so my comments about the AWI not being popular refer to here only- although I recall a lot of hullaballo at the time of the bicentenial and figures came out at that time, it just never really took off. Although to shoot down my own ideas I did do the AWI with Airfix figures.

The notion that Napoleonics equals massive armies might be an issue but more recent rulesets have allowed multi-corps battles using less figures, Volley and Bayonet, Grande Armee and the above mentioned DBN spring to mind.

I stand by my earlier assertion that intereset is still strong but simply we have far more potential periods that can be practically games now and that the jam is just spread that little bit thinner IMHO.

bluewillow,

"15 of us (out of a club of 22)are having a campaign in 28mm using 1/20 scale rules…"

What 1/20 scale rules are you using?

Thanks,

Bill.

I certainly hope that the Nap period survives at least for a few more years. I'm new to historical wargaming as a whole, and currently I'm in SYW, but in the next 1-2 years will start doing research into the Nap period. I think *research*, and the vast forest of books out there on the subject, is the most daunting prospect. When I think of traditional WARGAMING, I think of Napoleonics first and foremost, and SYW secondarily. I began with the latter simply due to what I--perhaps foolishly--hoped was a lesser amount of research required with which to game that timeframe. I look forward to moving into the Nap period soon, and obtaining good overviews of the Age and its Conflicts is Step One. I have recently heard of a Napoleonic History podcast, and will probably listen in.

It's not going to die out, Yogah, don't worry about that. The Napoleonic Wars are too significant and too interesting not to attract wargamers. They are also fixed in history.

I used to play a lot of modern (1980s) naval -- all of that is completely obsolete now and such games can only be regarded as fantasy battles. I don't think anyone plays it any more.

As someone said above, things go in cycles. Popular periods come and go and the "greats" will always make a comeback.

The popularity of Napoleonics might vary from country to country. The problem in the U.S. is that the Napoleonic Wars don't get much coverage in our history classes.

A good movie or TV mini-series on the period would certainly help (a remake of War & Peace?)