Triumph of Nations Errata

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Napoleonics.

Moderators: hammy, Blathergut, terrys, Slitherine Core

Post Reply
terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4181
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by terrys » Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:44 am

I've notice 3 errors so far (although I only got the book yesterday so haven't read it through as yet).

1) Italians of 1812 should be reformed (the points in the list are correct)
2) The Russian uhlans of 1812 should have lances (the points are correct)
3) The Imperial Guard of 1812 cannot be fielded due to the minima being too high. I'm working of a fix for this.

I won't publish an official errata until I've had chance to go through the book completely, but any additional ones can be posted here.

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2043
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by shadowdragon » Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:13 pm

Also, just got the book yesterday...only part way through, but some things noted.

Austrian Reserve Corps, Army of the Danube 1809: (more a clarification than an error) Page 10 - The special instructions for including a single division from the list "Austrian Infantry Corps Army of the Danube 1809" reads, "The minima for core cavalry may be ignored." For which list - the Austrian Reserve Corps or the Austrian Infantry Corps or both? Similar clarifications as to which minima should be ignored would be helpful for other lists as well. For example:
- page 22, French Army of Dalmatia - single infantry division of a French Infantry Corps 1809
- page 46, French Infantry Corps d'Armee 1812 - single infantry or cavalry division from the "Imperial Guard 1812", single cavalry division from the "Cavalry Reserve Corps"

Kingdom of Westphalia 1809: page 32 - the special instructions mention that the Saxon infantry are unreformed but there are no Saxon infantry in the list. Also, it mentions Saxon cavalry taken from the Saxon list may be in a single cavalry division led by a Westphalian general. Does that mean a Saxon cavalry division from the Saxon list may be included. Further down it mentions only a Saxon infantry or mixed division may be included.

Russian Infantry Corps Army of the West 1812: page 41 - Including a single cavalry division from the "Russian Cavalry Corps Army of the West 1812" reads "except all minima for units in this list may be ignored". "This list" might be taken to mean the minima for the Infantry Corps list. I think you mean the minima for the Cavalry Corps list.

French Infantry Corps Autumn 1813:
page 73 - "Each group of 12 German or Italian units may only be used to form separate divisions." I think you mean "each group of 12 German or Italian BASES".
page 75 - What is the maximum number of bases for "French or Allied Average Veteran Field Artillery"? Is it "8" or is there a missing number?
page 76 - The restrictions for cavalry attachments reads, "Up to 1 per division only if no cavalry units purchased", but there is a requirement for 4 bases of core cavalry (i.e., you MUST purchase a cavalry unit). Therefore, one can never have cavalry attachments?

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4181
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by terrys » Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:58 am

Austrian Reserve Corps, Army of the Danube 1809: (more a clarification than an error) Page 10 - The special instructions for including a single division from the list "Austrian Infantry Corps Army of the Danube 1809" reads, "The minima for core cavalry may be ignored." For which list - the Austrian Reserve Corps or the Austrian Infantry Corps or both?

Similar clarifications as to which minima should be ignored would be helpful for other lists as well. For example:
- page 22, French Army of Dalmatia - single infantry division of a French Infantry Corps 1809

- page 46, French Infantry Corps d'Armee 1812 - single infantry or cavalry division from the "Imperial Guard 1812", single cavalry division from the "Cavalry Reserve Corps"
Since the restriction is part of the bullet points, they refer to the list referenced in that bullet point.
Kingdom of Westphalia 1809: page 32 - the special instructions mention that the Saxon infantry are unreformed but there are no Saxon infantry in the list. Also, it mentions Saxon cavalry taken from the Saxon list may be in a single cavalry division led by a Westphalian general. Does that mean a Saxon cavalry division from the Saxon list may be included. Further down it mentions only a Saxon infantry or mixed division may be included.
The statement about Saxon infantry being unreformed is to clarify that using them from the allied list does not negate their unreformed status.
The reference to Saxon cavalry means exactly what it says – If you use a division from the Saxon list then you may use their cavalry in a Saxon mixed division or instead assign any of the cavalry in that division to a cavalry division led by a Westphalian General. This is the only way that you can field a cavalry division in the Westphalian Corps.
Russian Infantry Corps Army of the West 1812: page 41 - Including a single cavalry division from the "Russian Cavalry Corps Army of the West 1812" reads "except all minima for units in this list may be ignored". "This list" might be taken to mean the minima for the Infantry Corps list. I think you mean the minima for the Cavalry Corps list.
Again – The bullet point refers to ‘other’ lists and all statements in the bullet point refer to those ‘other’ lists. You also miss the beginning of the sentence: “The DIVISION must obey its own special rules except ......”
French Infantry Corps Autumn 1813:
page 73 - "Each group of 12 German or Italian units may only be used to form separate divisions." I think you mean "each group of 12 German or Italian BASES".
Correct. It should read ‘bases’
page 75 - What is the maximum number of bases for "French or Allied Average Veteran Field Artillery"? Is it "8" or is there a missing number?


It should be a “2”
page 76 - The restrictions for cavalry attachments reads, "Up to 1 per division only if no cavalry units purchased", but there is a requirement for 4 bases of core cavalry (i.e., you MUST purchase a cavalry unit). Therefore, one can never have cavalry attachments?


Basically it should be “Up to 1 per infantry division”. The wording was meant to imply you can’t have cavalry attachments if you have a cavalry unit in the division (rather than the army)

baskerville
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:45 pm

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by baskerville » Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:24 pm

Saxon army of 1813 pg 85

The Garde Du Corps & Zastrow Cuirassiers both show 4 base per unit, min of 0 and a max of both together 6, this must be a typo, because it not really possible?

Baskerville

donm
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:08 am
Location: Clevedon, England

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by donm » Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:49 am

Brunswick Option on page 139

Line infantry minimum 4 max 6
Light Infantry minimum 6 max 8
Jagers minimum 0 max 4

TOTAL ALLOWED OF ALL 3 types is 12, so with a minimum of 10 you cannot field the Jagers?

Having said this I would love to know how it is you are allowed to field a full brigade of Jagers, when only half of the Advance Guard had rifles and these where only 300 to 350 men out of a total of over 5000 infantry that made up the Brunswick contingent.

Mixed Hussar and lancer unit is also pushing it a bit, when the lancers where never more than a third of the combined total?

Artillery doesn't look right either. They had an 8 gun foot and an 8 gun horse battery, so to get a small unit these must be combined. Interesting that the choice was the better horse battery.

Don

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4181
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by terrys » Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:18 pm

Having said this I would love to know how it is you are allowed to field a full brigade of Jagers, when only half of the Advance Guard had rifles and these where only 300 to 350 men out of a total of over 5000 infantry that made up the Brunswick contingent.
There are 2 ways of representing a unit with rifles.
1) By giving the unit itself a "special Capability" of rifles.
2) By assigning a rifle attachment to the unit. (usually representing about 300 men)
Both have the same effect.
Normally, you wouldn't assign a rifle attachment to a light infantry unit - it would increase the cost out of proportion to its value, so in this case we give the unit rifles, even though as you point out - only a proportion had them. The other choice would be to make the Jaegers have a compulsory skirmisher attachment of rifles - but that would increase the cost by 6 points.
In effect this gives the whole Division (or Brigade) of Brunswickers the 300 rifles as quoted by Don.
Mixed Hussar and lancer unit is also pushing it a bit, when the lancers where never more than a third of the combined total?
We deliberate that exact point. In the end the choice was either none - or half. We decided to go for half, if only because it's closer to 1/3 than none would be - although there was also the consideration that it makes them slightly different from the other light cavalry in the allied army.

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4181
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by terrys » Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:37 pm

Saxon army of 1813 pg 85

The Garde Du Corps & Zastrow Cuirassiers both show 4 base per unit, min of 0 and a max of both together 6, this must be a typo, because it not really possible?
The restriction is on a maximum of 6 bases between them - but that only works if the are both the same Elan & training.
We'll have to come up with a solution that allows the 6 bases to be fielded. Once I've completed my proof reading I'll issue something in an errata.
Brunswick Option on page 139

Line infantry minimum 4 max 6
Light Infantry minimum 6 max 8
Jagers minimum 0 max 4

TOTAL ALLOWED OF ALL 3 types is 12, so with a minimum of 10 you cannot field the Jagers?
We'll have to decide whether or not to reduce the minimum of light infantry to 4, or to increase the total to 14 - I suspect the former, based on the total size of the Brunswick brigade.

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4181
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by terrys » Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:08 pm

Artillery doesn't look right either. They had an 8 gun foot and an 8 gun horse battery, so to get a small unit these must be combined. Interesting that the choice was the better horse battery.
We can't make the lists fit every combination for every battle. We do use a little artistic license. The lists are to ensure that players field a force that is reasonably respresentative of the army they are fielding, and stops the 'cherry picking' that you get with free selection.

In this particular case you should consider that G company Royal horse artillery supported the Brunswickers at Waterloo, and as such it would be perfectly reasonable to represent the small horse artillery unit with one Brunswick model and one British model. The foot artillery could then be represented by an artillery attachment (as permitted by the list).

clogs4444
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:22 pm

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by clogs4444 » Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:32 pm

Terry's

When do you think you will have these mistakes corrected because I dying for a game using the old guard 1812.

Clogs

SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by SirGarnet » Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:18 pm

The nice thing about the errata is that they give me a taste of what I will find in the actual book when my pre-order arrives. Won't complain about the delay - support your local retailer and all that - but I am curious.

donm
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:08 am
Location: Clevedon, England

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by donm » Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:53 am

Terry
by terrys » 22 Jun 2012 12:18

Having said this I would love to know how it is you are allowed to field a full brigade of Jagers, when only half of the Advance Guard had rifles and these where only 300 to 350 men out of a total of over 5000 infantry that made up the Brunswick contingent.

There are 2 ways of representing a unit with rifles.
1) By giving the unit itself a "special Capability" of rifles.
2) By assigning a rifle attachment to the unit. (usually representing about 300 men)
Both have the same effect.
Normally, you wouldn't assign a rifle attachment to a light infantry unit - it would increase the cost out of proportion to its value, so in this case we give the unit rifles, even though as you point out - only a proportion had them. The other choice would be to make the Jaegers have a compulsory skirmisher attachment of rifles - but that would increase the cost by 6 points.
In effect this gives the whole Division (or Brigade) of Brunswickers the 300 rifles as quoted by Don.
I am still very confused here.

When you talk about representing a unit, surely you mean a brigade?

Therefore this unit of 600+ men of whom only 300+ are armed with rifles would be represented on the table as part of a brigade that represents a minmum of 1200 and a maximum of 2000 men.

I am sorry but I don't see how 25% or less of men within a brigade being armed with rifles allows a full brigade of rifle armed troops to find it's way on to the table top.

Don

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2043
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by shadowdragon » Sun Jun 24, 2012 3:45 pm

Prussian Army Corps Autumn 1813 - 1814

Special Instructions on pg. 91: "Each infantry and mixed division MUST have at least one cavalry attachment."

Table for Attachments pg. 94: Cavalry Attachments - "At least 1 and up 2 per infantry division." Minimum bases - "1 per infantry division." Maximum bases - "2 per infantry division." There's no mention of "mixed divisions".

I assume that the special instructions are correct and that the table should be "per infantry or mixed division".
Last edited by shadowdragon on Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2043
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by shadowdragon » Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:09 pm

donm wrote:Terry
by terrys » 22 Jun 2012 12:18

Having said this I would love to know how it is you are allowed to field a full brigade of Jagers, when only half of the Advance Guard had rifles and these where only 300 to 350 men out of a total of over 5000 infantry that made up the Brunswick contingent.

There are 2 ways of representing a unit with rifles.
1) By giving the unit itself a "special Capability" of rifles.
2) By assigning a rifle attachment to the unit. (usually representing about 300 men)
Both have the same effect.
Normally, you wouldn't assign a rifle attachment to a light infantry unit - it would increase the cost out of proportion to its value, so in this case we give the unit rifles, even though as you point out - only a proportion had them. The other choice would be to make the Jaegers have a compulsory skirmisher attachment of rifles - but that would increase the cost by 6 points.
In effect this gives the whole Division (or Brigade) of Brunswickers the 300 rifles as quoted by Don.
I am still very confused here.

When you talk about representing a unit, surely you mean a brigade?

Therefore this unit of 600+ men of whom only 300+ are armed with rifles would be represented on the table as part of a brigade that represents a minmum of 1200 and a maximum of 2000 men.

I am sorry but I don't see how 25% or less of men within a brigade being armed with rifles allows a full brigade of rifle armed troops to find it's way on to the table top.

Don
No, "unit" is the right term. A FoG unit represents a group of battalions between 1200 and 2000 for a small unit and between 2000 and 3000 for a large unit. See page 162 of ToN. Sometimes that means the unit represents an actual brigade, sometimes a regiment or demi-brigade and sometimes just a group of battalions.

In the case of the Brunswick division, about 6,000-ish troops, it could be represented by 2 large units or 3 small units.

The "rifles" capability does not mean that all troops in the unit are armed with rifles. As has been mentioned above the capability means that about 300 troops in the unit have rifles. Therefore, in order to represent that 300 Brunswick light troops with rifles, it would be appropriate that one of the unit has the "rifles" capability or a rifle attachment.

I think your confusion is that the "Unit Name" is "Brunswick Jagers" when really it's a group (i.e., 2-3 battalions) of Brunswick light infantry battalions, of which one battalion is the Advance Guard battalion.

If I were building the unit I would have 2 bases of light infantry and 2 bases of Advance Guard jagers, one of which would be the rifles.

Given the scale of the game, it seems a reasonable way to add flavour....and to allow people to take their Brunswick Jagers out of the box for a FoG game.

MikeHorah
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:57 pm

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by MikeHorah » Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:04 pm

donm wrote:Terry
by terrys » 22 Jun 2012 12:18

Having said this I would love to know how it is you are allowed to field a full brigade of Jagers, when only half of the Advance Guard had rifles and these where only 300 to 350 men out of a total of over 5000 infantry that made up the Brunswick contingent.

There are 2 ways of representing a unit with rifles.
1) By giving the unit itself a "special Capability" of rifles.
2) By assigning a rifle attachment to the unit. (usually representing about 300 men)
Both have the same effect.
Normally, you wouldn't assign a rifle attachment to a light infantry unit - it would increase the cost out of proportion to its value, so in this case we give the unit rifles, even though as you point out - only a proportion had them. The other choice would be to make the Jaegers have a compulsory skirmisher attachment of rifles - but that would increase the cost by 6 points.
In effect this gives the whole Division (or Brigade) of Brunswickers the 300 rifles as quoted by Don.
I am still very confused here.

When you talk about representing a unit, surely you mean a brigade?

Therefore this unit of 600+ men of whom only 300+ are armed with rifles would be represented on the table as part of a brigade that represents a minmum of 1200 and a maximum of 2000 men.

I am sorry but I don't see how 25% or less of men within a brigade being armed with rifles allows a full brigade of rifle armed troops to find it's way on to the table top.

Don
‘rifles’ is a CAPABILITY and not a declaration that ALL infantry in the formation has rifles.
We don’t allow skirmisher attachments to light infantry units and we use the “special capability” column of the army list to indicate that the unit has AT LEAST enough riflemen within their ranks to justify such a rating. There need not be more riflemen in the unit than in a line infantry unit with a rifle attachment.

bahdahbum
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:40 pm

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by bahdahbum » Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:17 pm

Russian Grenadiers Corps 1813-1814 , pg 96

The problem is with the artillery .

They may field heavy artillery with 2-3 bases , the minimum being 2 and the maximum ....also 2 . :shock:
They may field medium artillery with 2-3 bases, the minimum being 2 and the maximum 4 ..

So you have 4 compulsory bases and you could get 2 more medium artillery bases ...but the grand maximum artillery bases, heavy and medium combined is also ....4 :shock:

Something is not right unless I am a very poor matematician 8)

MikeHorah
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:57 pm

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by MikeHorah » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:15 pm

bahdahbum wrote:Russian Grenadiers Corps 1813-1814 , pg 96

The problem is with the artillery .

They may field heavy artillery with 2-3 bases , the minimum being 2 and the maximum ....also 2 . :shock:
They may field medium artillery with 2-3 bases, the minimum being 2 and the maximum 4 ..

So you have 4 compulsory bases and you could get 2 more medium artillery bases ...but the grand maximum artillery bases, heavy and medium combined is also ....4 :shock:

Something is not right unless I am a very poor matematician 8)
The unit size for heavy should be 2 not 2 or 3. But the medium is fine. As a Corps you can field two small units or one large of medium or you can field 1 small unit of medium and one small of heavy . This is not a standard Corps of course and is primarily a reserve Corps which was drawn upon at need and a source for an imported division or one into which other divisions can be imported. A single division exported from this list can only have one artillery unit as standard and this corps is only allowed two division commanders.

Ambiorix
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:10 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by Ambiorix » Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:44 pm

Dutch Belgian Jaegers : Typo Page 139, Points per Base cost should be 12 instead of 2;

I know Dutch are ' cheap ' but this is ridiculous :twisted:

groetjes,
Ambiorix,
"Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae"

bahdahbum
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:40 pm

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by bahdahbum » Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:12 pm

But the medium is fine. As a Corps you can field two small units or one large of medium or you can field 1 small unit of medium and one small of heavy
I disagree : the maximum artillery bases you may have for that corps is 4 , as the minimum requirement is 2 medium art bases + 2 heavy art bases ...2+2=4 ..you cannot have a 3 base artillery unit and even less 4 medium art bases as 4+2=6 and 4 is the max art you may have for that corps ( which is, I admitt attypical being a reserve corps but ight be used for the fun of it )

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by hazelbark » Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:57 pm

bahdahbum wrote:
But the medium is fine. As a Corps you can field two small units or one large of medium or you can field 1 small unit of medium and one small of heavy
I disagree : the maximum artillery bases you may have for that corps is 4 , as the minimum requirement is 2 medium art bases + 2 heavy art bases ...2+2=4 ..you cannot have a 3 base artillery unit and even less 4 medium art bases as 4+2=6 and 4 is the max art you may have for that corps ( which is, I admitt attypical being a reserve corps but ight be used for the fun of it )
I see the same problem.

Med 2-4
Hvy 2-2
Combined up to 4.

donm
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:08 am
Location: Clevedon, England

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by donm » Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:07 pm

Prussian 1813 list.

In the notes it says 'If used, guards must all be in the same mixed division'

As there are no Guard cavalry in the list this could prove difficult.

I think it a bit harsh to have to buy a Divisional commander for just one unit of infantry.

Nafziger has the guard infantry in the same Division (Prussian Brigade) in March 1813 as below

1st Garde zu Fuss (3) (2,411)
Normal Inf Bat (1) (801)
Guard Jagers (1) (801)
Lieb-Grenadiers (1) (805)
E/Prussian Greandiers (1) (805)

Attached cavalry
2 sqns Brandenberg Hussars (300)
2 sqns Brandenberg Uhlans (300)
4 sqns W/Prussian Uhlans (601)

Artillery
4th & 9th 6pdr Foot batteries (16 guns).
8th 6pdr Horse battery (8 guns).

In April 1813 these same units are still in this Division, but the following are added,

von Wedell Freiwilliger Jagers batttalion (500)
3rd battalion Leib Infantry regiment (805)
4th Guard Foot battery (8 guns).

Within the same Division 1st Corps commanded by Blucher are the Guard Cuirassers (750 men + 900 men in the Guard light cav regt) and the three line regiments of Cuirassiers (600 + men each regt), but there are none in the lists?

Don

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion”