FoG:R Update - List Changes

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:57 am

OK, I wasn't going to do another one today, however, a post on one of the existing topics reminded me that getting one list thing out of the way early doors would be good.

It is our intention to allow Polish Hussaria plus (probably) Louis XIV French and Later Swedish Determined Horse currently classified as Impact Mounted, Swordsmen to be optionally classified as Impact Mounted, Pistol on an all or none basis. FWIW Richard classifies the Hussaria this way in Pike & Shot and players of that will know they are rather tasty and well worth using.

I am currently undecided about 1642 Royalists currently classified as Pistol, Swordsmen as my feeling is that against the 1642 Parliamentarians they probably get the right result (the Better Armour discussion also impacts on this please note) - however, input on this is, of course, most welcome.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by kevinj » Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:18 am

I think it's sensible to treat all of the Impact Mounted types the same.

I'd leave the 1642 Royalists as they are, the army has other options so the only time they're likely to be used is in a 1642 ECW scenario game where their opponents are mostly Poor Carbine/Pistol Horse. The only Early Royalist armies I've seen used are 1643 Cornish or Rapid Raiding forces.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Nov 22, 2016 2:17 pm

We are also minded to make official the current general competition rule that for every base of Medium/Heavy Artillery in an army 6 bases of foot Battle Troops must be taken. There seems to be a widespread acceptance that a link between artillery bases and foot Battle Troops is a good thing.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

marshalney2000
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by marshalney2000 » Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:13 pm

Nick, your proposal re hussars etc seems very sensible and gets my vote.
John

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2968
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by madaxeman » Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:39 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:We are also minded to make official the current general competition rule that for every base of Medium/Heavy Artillery in an army 6 bases of foot Battle Troops must be taken. There seems to be a widespread acceptance that a link between artillery bases and foot Battle Troops is a good thing.
I'm not sure this really works all that well in the case of eastern armies such as Ottomans, as it puts an "infantry tax" on what is already a very small army trying to do its normal thing.

This is partly due to the exclusion of Mob from the list of "battle troops" - so if they were thrown back into the mix it could help. I'm not sure which armies this might then cheese up from the other books though.

If the rule was "at least 4 bases.." or even "at least 5 bases..." (but not commanded shot!) that might also help, as the eastern armies with options for blocks of 8-10 rubbish foot and lots of horse could then get slightly better ratios than the European Cheesey armies this is really intended to nobble.
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by kevinj » Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:53 pm

According to the definitions on p25 and p171 Mob are Battle Troops. I don't believe I've ever seen them specifically excluded in any theme restrictions.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Nov 22, 2016 7:11 pm

Remembered another one. Is for a Duty & Glory army, however, I'll post it here to keep it away from the more general D&G one as this is specific.
Remove the half Poor requirement for Later Dutch mounted BGs. Almost certainly over-cooked their inferiority to the French with that.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

viking123
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Posts: 982
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by viking123 » Tue Nov 22, 2016 7:20 pm

We had a re-fight of Edgehill where Ben made the Royal Cavaliers Impact mounted with swordsmen. Tom had the Royalists against Ben's Parliamentary Horse. In all but one impact the Royalist lost and then were killed in the melee. The royalist cavalries do not go through Parliamentarian Horse like a hot knife through butter. If they that been taken as impact mounted with pistol then they may have lasted and even won some of the following melees.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:44 pm

kevinj wrote: I'd leave the 1642 Royalists as they are, the army has other options so the only time they're likely to be used is in a 1642 ECW scenario game where their opponents are mostly Poor Carbine/Pistol Horse. The only Early Royalist armies I've seen used are 1643 Cornish or Rapid Raiding forces.
My gut feeling is to agree with this. "Not worth me diesel, guv" :lol:
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

quackstheking
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:41 pm
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by quackstheking » Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:06 pm

kevinj wrote:According to the definitions on p25 and p171 Mob are Battle Troops. I don't believe I've ever seen them specifically excluded in any theme restrictions.
It may be the definition of "Supported" on p174 that Tim is referring too where Mob cannot provide support (along with Artillery). At the end of the day we may call them "Mob" in the army lists but in reality they are Poor Unarmoured troops for 2pts! By p173 they can provide "Rear Support" to artillery so why not just delete that reference on p174 to Mob - they'll only give support to average troops anyway!

Don

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger » Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:11 pm

I don't think Tim's comment was anything to do with support, it was about battle troops.

However, you may wish to throw out the support idea you suggest as a possible change in a new topic. I'd only ask whether it is something that really needs changing?
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

marshalney2000
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by marshalney2000 » Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:25 pm

Is it possible to add one of the changes from FOG 2 namely that matching battle troops can march to 4 inches from skirmishers rather than six.
John

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger » Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:36 pm

Can you start a new topic on that please John.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

marshalney2000
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by marshalney2000 » Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:43 pm

OK will do

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by timmy1 » Thu Nov 24, 2016 2:57 pm

Nik

'
It is our intention to allow Polish Hussaria plus (probably) Louis XIV French and Later Swedish Determined Horse currently classified as Impact Mounted, Swordsmen to be optionally classified as Impact Mounted, Pistol on an all or none basis.
'

Gets my vote (matches the behaviour of all three from what I see in the rules against the history). Would not recommend the other proposed changes.

benjones1211
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by benjones1211 » Thu Nov 24, 2016 3:01 pm

viking123 wrote:We had a re-fight of Edgehill where Ben made the Royal Cavaliers Impact mounted with swordsmen. Tom had the Royalists against Ben's Parliamentary Horse. In all but one impact the Royalist lost and then were killed in the melee. The royalist cavalries do not go through Parliamentarian Horse like a hot knife through butter. If they that been taken as impact mounted with pistol then they may have lasted and even won some of the following melees.
Actually not quite correct, the Parliamentarians held in most cases despite losing, so the next round where + or double + depending on whether the Royalists where armoured or not.
Then the Royalists where in trouble, because multiple + rounds means they eventually lose.

Jhykronos
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by Jhykronos » Thu Dec 01, 2016 4:33 am

Is there any point in revisiting Spanish Gendarmes being classified as "Light Lancers"? I seem to recall there being some dispute on this, and in game terms it makes them absolute garbage against all their historical opponents for the same price.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:26 am

Jhykronos wrote:Is there any point in revisiting Spanish Gendarmes being classified as "Light Lancers"? I seem to recall there being some dispute on this, and in game terms it makes them absolute garbage against all their historical opponents for the same price.

Another case where a half PoA would be rather useful :roll:

I'll have a think about this one.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:29 am

One list change I'll probably throw in, to correct an original omission, is to allow the Later TYW Swedes (but not Weimarians) 0-2 Heavy Artillery and give them a max of 6 artillery in total up from 4.

Actually I have a whole revised list for the Later TYW Swedes and Weimarians but that is probably outside the scope of this update :lol:
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: FoG:R Update - List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:53 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
Jhykronos wrote:Is there any point in revisiting Spanish Gendarmes being classified as "Light Lancers"? I seem to recall there being some dispute on this, and in game terms it makes them absolute garbage against all their historical opponents for the same price.

Another case where a half PoA would be rather useful :roll:

I'll have a think about this one.

We could give them Heavy Lancers but drop them to Average - is, in effect, then half a PoA down from the Superior versions and assuming we change the break points as suggested they won't be breaking on different losses from the Superiors. May get the right effect.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”