Play Test

[nikgaukroger]

the object of increasing the numbers using FOGR.

Who said that was an object?

[DavidT]

IMO CS is all about making combats where you'd be at a significant disadvantage more equal, not about giving you the upper hand.

I had a look at the points values involved.
We were using the current points system (with the proposed CS points).
My opponent committed 3 of his units against my 4 (his fourth unit was committed to deterring one of my infantry brigades from getting involved).
His 3 units totalled 252 points
My four units plus CS totalled 244 points.
So I would expect this to be a pretty even fight, with both sides having a chance of winning - it wasn't.

Under the proposed points changes, it gets worse.

My opponents 3 units would total 204 points
My 4 units plus CS would total 236 points for a weaker force with little chance of winning.

At Breitenfeld, the Swedish mounted (mainly Armoured Avg P/P Hse and DH), with commanded shot, defeated Pappenheim's Sup HArm P/P Hse. I have refought Breitenfeld a couple of times using the current rules and this has happened (with the occasional upset). I have also had historical results refighting Lutzen.

The current proposals for CS mean that historical results will not happen.

[DavidT]

nikgaukroger wrote
For info under the current proposal what points do you think CS should cost?

madaxeman wrote
On balance what we have now does sort of feel like a 1-point/base-type benefit at most.

1 point per base is probably in the right ballpark, however, making them cheaper doesn't address the key problem.

Historically, CS helped weaker mounted defeat better quality enemy mounted. The rules should reflect this. It shouldn't be a given that the troops with CS will win, but they should at least have a reasonable chance.

Reading historical accounts, the effect of the firepower of the CS is commented upon and Gustav recognised the importance of this and increased the firepower for Lutzen by attaching 3 pdr cannon to his CS.

So I don't think reducing the points cost is a solution we should be aspiring to - we need to rethink the proposal.

Oh and I forgot to say - it didn't look right.

[nikgaukroger]

Could I tempt you into commenting on my replies about the specific effects on the combats in your play tests. I think it would be valuable.

Your Breitenfeld comment is pertinent and one I have been pondering today as it happens. When drawing up the Swedish army list I was (deliberately) a touch harsh on the cavalry quality at the date of Breitenfeld, however, the proposed change in the way CS works would probably mean reconsidering it and being more liberal.

[nikgaukroger]

Reading historical accounts, the effect of the firepower of the CS is commented upon and Gustav recognised the importance of this and increased the firepower for Lutzen by attaching 3 pdr cannon to his CS.

It has been suggested that that was a reaction to the heavy losses the shot suffered at Breitendfeld. I don't think we have a contemporary account giving the reason alas

Lutzen didn't turn out to be the Swedish cavalry's greatest day either as it turned out (various reasons obviously)

So I don't think reducing the points cost is a solution we should be aspiring to - we need to rethink the proposal.

I am all ears. Please post any ideas you have (a new thread would be a good idea).

I'd only say I really dislike the CS extending the fighting frontage of the mounted as IMO it is wholly ahistorical, so that should be avoided.

[Vespasian28]

the differential between Average and Superior not so great and I suspect will not really impact historical refights much.

I really need to find the time to re-fight Flodden and soon as I think the changes to armour and autobreak will make it far harder for the English, who have won both re-fights to date under RAW. Not surprisingly though I didn't keep a record of the die rolls first time and that in itself can change everything.

[Vespasian28]

jonphilp wrote:
the object of increasing the numbers using FOGR.

Who said that was an object?

Holding the FOGR community together on a set of common rules might be a more realsitic objective but I think we will see a splintering effect.

[nikgaukroger]

So I don't think reducing the points cost is a solution we should be aspiring to - we need to rethink the proposal.

I am all ears. Please post any ideas you have (a new thread would be a good idea).

I'd only say I really dislike the CS extending the fighting frontage of the mounted as IMO it is wholly ahistorical, so that should be avoided.

And to my last point I'd add this from Dan with which I agree:

A strict requirement of any change is to end the Command shot operating as their own BGs when not with mounted. Anything that does not fix this is failure.

I appreciate Lutzen, however, the side effects are to be avoided (unless a solution that does not have the side effects can be devised, its just I haven't seen one yet that has CS in their own BGs)

[nikgaukroger]

Reading historical accounts, the effect of the firepower of the CS is commented upon and Gustav recognised the importance of this and increased the firepower for Lutzen by attaching 3 pdr cannon to his CS.

It has been suggested that that was a reaction to the heavy losses the shot suffered at Breitendfeld. I don't think we have a contemporary account giving the reason alas

I find that this reason is taken by Brezezinski from a 1652 publication - "Harmonia in fortalitiis" by W. Schildknecht

[DavidT]

The shooting is meant to be fairly incidental, we do not want CS assisted BGs that otherwise do not shoot to become significant shooting BGs.

The shooting of CS BGs at present doesn't appear excessive. It has a chance of doing something, but the factors and limited number of shots mean that it isn't decisive - unless your opponent wants to hang around without charging and get shot.

From what you say your extra dice equalised the combat - without them his re-rolls would have given him the advantage.

It did equalize the combat at impact. Without the CS I would have been broken more quickly. But something which just slows down the inevitable isn't really worth it if there are other better options.

Perhaps extend the extra dice to Melee if PoAs are otherwise equal like at Impact

This would be a possibility as it would then keep thing equal giving both sides a chance to win.

at Impact the CS have negated the PoA advantage the Impact Mounted Cavaliers would otherwise have had thus you are hitting on 4+ instead of 5+ which is no small thing.

I have no argument with this, but again, I was in a combat which I had almost no chance of winning - I was just losing more slowly.

CS is all about making combats where you'd be at a significant disadvantage more equal, not about giving you the upper hand.

I wouldn't be looking at getting the upper hand - just a fair chance to win.

The fact that, under the old points the forces were almost identical (252 points v 244 points) reinforces my point that both sides should have had an equal chance to win.

Under the new points, the difference would be:
3 BGs of Sup DH/Cv = 204 points.
4 BGs of Avg DH/Hse = 192 points. Plus CS = 236 points.

Two things about this - the new points costs may be a step too far with DH/Cv as both forces were roughly equal in points without the CS and the Avg mounted would have disintegrated very quickly against the Sup without them.
Also, the fact that you would now pay more points, including CS, for a force which is still weaker makes CS a poor buy, even if they were 1 point per base.

[nikgaukroger]

Yet again much appreciated, especially as points are covered as well

[DavidT]

We may get a chance to try this re-fight again this Saturday.
We may then get another chance next week when we may try some tweaks.

[madaxeman]

The other "old" CS effect that current proposals miss is that it meant 1 base in every 3 fighting got to ignore better enemy armour

If we're limiting the troops who can use it, is this something else to look at in terms of their effect vs likely opponents?

[nikgaukroger]

The other "old" CS effect that current proposals miss is that it meant 1 base in every 3 fighting got to ignore better enemy armour

If we're limiting the troops who can use it, is this something else to look at in terms of their effect vs likely opponents?

Under the current Better Armour proposal all the fighting bases of a BG with CS negate better enemy armour.

[nikgaukroger]

How would CS points as this sit?

Poor 4/6
Average 6/9
Superior 9/12
Elite 12/16

Horse/DH

[nikgaukroger]

We may get a chance to try this re-fight again this Saturday.
We may then get another chance next week when we may try some tweaks.

Allowing a Bg that has CS an extra dice in the Melee phase if the CS are not mitigating a - PoA or Better Armour would be a good tweak to use IMO.

[benjones1211]

I would go with

Poor 4/5
Average 6/8
Superior 9/12
Elite 12/16
Horse/DH

So the DH is 33% more than the Horse otherwise the Average one looks out of kilter with Superior/Elite.

From what I understand summing up the new thoughts
At Impact CS negates a - or provides a dice
During Melee, CS negates Armour advantage as shot, and negates a - or adds a dice

Using the example above with new CS points above would get
Under the new points, the difference would be:
3 BGs of Sup DH/Cv = 204 points.
4 BGs of Avg DH/Hse = 192 points. Plus CS = 224 points. (At DH cost)

Would this be closer to what we want.

[nikgaukroger]

Worth also looking at the cost of cuirassiers in the comparison as well as they are a rather important (historical) opponent - points are, after all, an attempt to balance costs across a wide range of opponents (with special reference to likely and historical ones).

[DavidT]

We'll try the same matchup again on Saturday with the reduced points for CS and the extra dice in melee if not mitigating a -.
Unfortunately my regular opponent doesn't have an army with Cuirassiers (Hvy Arm P/P Hse).

[DavidT]

We tried 2 battles today.
The first was a refight of my earlier battle, using the reduced points for commanded shot and the change that they also got an extra dice in melee if they were even or + and had not mitigated a -.

Armies below. Still using original mounted points but latest CS points proposal.

French
2 Sup Arm P/P DH
2 Sup Arm IM/SW Cav
2 Sup infantry 4/2 IF/M* with arm pike
2 Avg infantry 4/2 IF/M* with unarm pike
1 musketter company IF/M*
1 BG of 3 Drag
1 BG of 2 Med Arty
GC and 2 TC

Swedish
3 Sup brigades (2 with Reg Gun)
1 Avg brigade with RG
2 Avg Arm P/P DG with CS
1 Avg Arm P/P Hse with CS
1 Avg Arm P/P Hse
1 Avg Unarm C/P Hse with CS
1 BG of 4 Drag
1 BG of 2 Med Arty
1 GC and 2 TC

I will gloss over the dragoon and infantry battle where a BG of 3 disrupted enemy dragoons defeated a BG of 4 of mine and all three superior infantry brigades got beaten up by 1 superior and 2 average French infantry.

The change to CS made a big difference. Shooting was actually effective this time, causing 2 casualties although that was more by luck due to poor death rolls.

Surviving the impact, the mounted melee was even and I had a good run of luck, enabling me to break all 4 enemy mounted BGs. 2 of my BGs were down to 3 bases and the carbine boys were down to 2, however, they were saved when a BG of my DH got into the rear of the Cavaliers fighting them.

Overall, this works much better - the odds are much more even and, in this case I had the better luck and came out on top. It also means that there is merit in having a supporting line (which my opponent didn't have) as, after pursuing, the CS are gone and a second line could be very effective.

With regards to points fop CS, I am much happier with the latest proposals. However, the difference between the Hse and DH/Cav cost may be too great. An extra dice gives more advantage when you are rolling fewer dice. So a Hse BG which is roiling 4 dice gets more benefit from a 5th dice than a DH unit rolling 6 dice does from a 7th dice or rolling 8 and getting a 9th dice. The benefit in negating a -ve POA gives more advantage if you are rolling more dice. These would seem to balance out and so maybe the points costs should be evened out between Hse and DH/Cav.

In addition, the benefit of an extra dice in impact and melee will make a big difference to Sup and Elite mounted. So maybe the cost for Superior and Elite CS should increase?