Search found 37 matches

by paulbg
Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:55 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Direction of retire
Replies: 18
Views: 3096

Re: Direction of retire

I like this bi-setting angle solution
by paulbg
Sat Sep 20, 2014 3:22 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Rear support -effect
Replies: 6
Views: 1083

Re: Rear support -effect

Interesting I cannot see in the rules where there is a limit to + or - dice - happy if you could point me in the relight direction. If I apply the rules, as written, then Unit has rear support +1 and each opponent -1 So 2 attackers both with support would mean -2 If the rules said Unit has rear supp...
by paulbg
Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:18 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Rear support -effect
Replies: 6
Views: 1083

Rear support -effect

Unit A is attacked by units X and Y, both X and Y are supported by Z

X gets +1 for support and A -1
Y gets +1 for support and A -1

So A loses 2 die.

Did we get it right ?
by paulbg
Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:19 pm
Forum: Army Design
Topic: Polish List
Replies: 5
Views: 711

Re: Polish List

I would agree with edb1815

My understanding is also that the REFORMED status included intrinsic light infantry.


Paul
by paulbg
Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:53 am
Forum: Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion
Topic: Game time
Replies: 5
Views: 966

Game time

How long are people finding that it takes to play a game.

Say 800pts

From the games I have played - none to completion because of time - it looks like 4-4.5 hrs
by paulbg
Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:05 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Passing through squares
Replies: 9
Views: 804

Re: Passing through squares

I can only hope that you didn't get it right. Far too "gamey", the square has fought (with ineffectual results) so why fight again ! If its 61mm then there is a completely different outcome. What if its 59mm ? I think that the pursuit/passthrough move is afteer passing through. So the second infantr...
by paulbg
Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:08 am
Forum: Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion
Topic: French v Prussian (1813)
Replies: 5
Views: 947

Re: French v Prussian (1813)

Not so flexible

"declare all firers against a specific target"

means that that you cannot see the result and then add more.
If the factors are the same you don't then need to fire all in turn - just roll all in one go.
by paulbg
Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:23 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Rules ??: Capable of Firing??
Replies: 3
Views: 443

Re: Rules ??: Capable of Firing??

Terry only in your own turn. You fire 2nd in youropponents turn, so if he didn't pivot during his own phase he would not be 'capable of firing at them this phase.' The rules (pg 51) don't say that artillery can only pivot in their own turn. It just says that (in the fire phase) artillery can pivot f...
by paulbg
Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:10 am
Forum: Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion
Topic: French v Prussian (1813)
Replies: 5
Views: 947

Re: French v Prussian (1813)

Mike Thx. Had thought that might be for Cav. It has some impact as its possible to take a hit and not lose cohesion then for the pursuit (2nd combat). The shooting section mainly deals with multiple targets rather than multiple shooters. The issue was having seen the cumulative hits you could pivot ...
by paulbg
Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:41 am
Forum: Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion
Topic: French v Prussian (1813)
Replies: 5
Views: 947

French v Prussian (1813)

Used John's list from the Army spreadsheet, the forces gave a good balanced game. The French defended and baring some small maneuver waited for the Prussians.Used the light infantry in skirmish to mask units from some artillery and to occupy some bad going in the centre of the table that the Prussia...
by paulbg
Sun May 27, 2012 9:04 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Combat , support and 2nd combat
Replies: 11
Views: 983

Re: Combat , support and 2nd combat

Alan

I would agree, many people in the club(s) I am involved with do just what you say. I am sure that I have already seen a copy on eBay
by paulbg
Fri May 25, 2012 1:10 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Combat , support and 2nd combat
Replies: 11
Views: 983

Re: Combat , support and 2nd combat

Mike Your suggestion Move assaulters to 2 MU (sometimes less); Resolve Defensive Fire against each assaulter by defender, suppports, and units having the assault path to contact within their firing arc (max 1 DF per firer). If CMT failed/not taken, then Cav+Arty Att may and Inf must remain at 2 MU (...
by paulbg
Fri May 25, 2012 10:06 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Combat , support and 2nd combat
Replies: 11
Views: 983

Re: Combat , support and 2nd combat

what or where is 32891 ? How do I find it ? If units other than those being assaulted fire in the assault phase (as part of charge reaction) then this [to me] is a news and changes many things ....... should they not also then have to take a reaction test ! So if artillery and wish to fire - they ma...
by paulbg
Fri May 25, 2012 8:06 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Combat , support and 2nd combat
Replies: 11
Views: 983

Re: Combat , support and 2nd combat

I am not sure how the second (non target) artillery unit would fire. The target does not fire - so it cannot get support (+2 dice). As there is no fire (in the assault phase) the cavalry move to contact So we move to the general fire phase. The rules (pg 48) specifically state that the cavalry is NO...
by paulbg
Thu May 24, 2012 9:21 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Deployment
Replies: 15
Views: 1622

Re: Deployment

Mike The 3 x 3 just takes too long. As I said, there may be some need for detachment but in real terms what are we considering 1. irregulars or light infantry in a terrain feature 2. building this could be managed. I took it that the 3 x 3 model (and division limitation) was simulating a column of m...
by paulbg
Thu May 24, 2012 5:39 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Deployment
Replies: 15
Views: 1622

Deployment

In the games played so far one main criticism from all has been deployment. the 3 x 3 method just seems to long winded. The division criteria is great so why not just deploy division by division. Suggestion would be Deploy 1 division at a time, each unit to be deployed in command (maybe some allowan...
by paulbg
Wed May 23, 2012 2:24 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Combat , support and 2nd combat
Replies: 11
Views: 983

Combat , support and 2nd combat

Interesring second full game. As always interesting situations occur. I charged an artillery battery, most likely getting in the flank. To do this a moved across the front of another artillery battery. We could not find any rules that allows the battery I crossed to do anything, if I contact the fla...
by paulbg
Tue May 22, 2012 2:31 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Rallying Artillery: Rare??
Replies: 7
Views: 1250

Re: Rallying Artillery: Rare??

I thought a commander only had to be within 4MU of a unit to recover cohesion, the commander did not have to attach.


Why would not any Artillery commander be able to attach to artillery ? Many armies (France, Russia) had specific Artillery generals.
by paulbg
Wed May 09, 2012 3:06 pm
Forum: Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion
Topic: Borodino
Replies: 10
Views: 1157

Re: Borodino

Mike

A good resource - it was my starting point. OB's close to Nafziger. Map isn't scaled, used 4miles from another source. Based on this map/deployment I will need 4 miles x 4 miles, while the venue could handle 8x8 my arms aren't that long.



Thx.
by paulbg
Tue May 08, 2012 2:34 pm
Forum: Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion
Topic: Borodino
Replies: 10
Views: 1157

Re: Borodino

Was planning on an 8 x 6 with 15mm troops.
Plan to play test some sections to see if the scale and forces will work. I have used brigade basis and not regiments so I don't think figure density will be issue.

Go to advanced search