1700 to 1762

[Blucher007]

Is Slitherine and FOG going to either develop rules for, or publish an addenum, FOGR covering the early 18th century? I would really like to have the added period of time covered by the rules system.

[deadtorius]

There was some talk about it when the rules first released. Terry seemed to feel it would require a whole new rule set to properly cover the period and also allow for smaller armies for such theaters as North America etc.

[Adraeth]

I think the Emperors and Eagles army lists for the revolutionary period shoul be a start for the seven years war; having prussian/russian and austrian army as sample armies

[terrys]

We have certainly considered a revised set of rules for the 7YW, using FOGN as a basis.
Haven't started it as yet, but it's next on my long list of things to do.....

[Jilu]

I think the Emperors and Eagles army lists for the revolutionary period shoul be a start for the seven years war; having prussian/russian and austrian army as sample armies

well no, the armies evolved a great deal over the period

you cannot use a similar army for the Prussians at the start of the war where the quality of troups and command was superior to other armies, and thelast years where heavy artillery had to be used as battalion guns to supplement the weaker effectivenes of the infantry. Just as the austrians more and more relied on fortifications in the later years.

It would be interesting to see how the oblique order system would be solved.....i see it as a flank march, or better a repositioning after initial deployment.

[Blucher007]

Thanks for the heads up, why not make the rules an extension of FOGR? That would allow for the early period and some of the more outlandish units available in North America, India and Middle East?

[BrettPT]

Thanks for the heads up, why not make the rules an extension of FOGR??

Because [ducking for cover now] FoGN is a better game system than FoGR?

[KendallB]

From what I've seen and heard, FoGR doesn't have a decent command and control system. Something I think pretty important for horse and musket rules.

[shadowdragon]

From what I've seen and heard, FoGR doesn't have a decent command and control system. Something I think pretty important for horse and musket rules.

I've adapted FoGR for the War of the Spanish Succession (WSS) and was happy with the results. I'm not sure I'd want to use an adapted FoGN for the WSS due to the evolving nature of infantry and cavalry during that period; and I prefer to have some continuity of the WSS with the 1690's from the perspective of miniature basing and the economical re-use of figures.

However, on the other hand I wouldn't use FoGR for anything later than that the WSS. I'd would prefer to see FoGN adapted for that purpose.

[Blucher007]

Agree the C2 could use some work from FOGR, however I think the rules are not far off, staff had not been fully devleoped, command by one visual distance, Army size remained comparatively small compared to the Napoleonic period and what we would consider modern Army structures had not been fully devleoped, ie Brigades, Division and Corps (at least not in their Napoleonic sense). So the period is probably better linked to the Rennaissance than Napoleons period. Just throwing it out there!

[Sarmaticus]

While not of the size of Leipzig, Malplaquet was about the size of Austerlitz; Oudenarde considerably bigger.

[Rekila]

We have play various SYW games using both FOGR and FOGN, and FOGN works better. I will even say that by the time of the SYW, linear tactics were quite unsatisfactory. The Prussian, Austrian and French, feel the need to try new tactical systems and FOGN shows that better that more specific XVIII century rules. We play with only one small change of the rules; infantry units assaulted by cavalry can`t change to square but don’t need to test for cohesion if assaulted frontally in an extended line supported on both flanks. Emperor and eagles has a minimal rule adaptation for revolutionary armies and something like that could be made for the SYW.

[Blucher007]

I was going to try Koenigs Krieg. Anyone played them?

The issue for me is that FOGR covers up to 1700 pretty well and 14 years extra isnt much of a stretch. They key issue here in regard to the argument which to use FOGN or FOGR is that the SWS marks the change to what we consider modern armies, but it is the very start of the change so except for the general withdrawal of pike from infantry units, there is little difference in the amies prior. The command issues were the same. Structures were less formal and less coordinated. Individual officers told regiments to go do stuff and they went of interpreted their orders and did stuff, not always the right stuff depending on the colonel or brigade commander. Thats what I see from my reading.

So can any one recommend a set of rules fo the SWS?

[Jilu]

The basic units should be regiment level even maybe batallion, there were no divisions, quality of Army leaders should not be as generic as in FOGN (to many exceptional leaders in my view).
Batalion guns, some units had them others not.
Skirmishers/croats/light inf functioned differently.

[hos459]

The basic units should be regiment level even maybe batallion, there were no divisions, quality of Army leaders should not be as generic as in FOGN (to many exceptional leaders in my view).
Batalion guns, some units had them others not.
Skirmishers/croats/light inf functioned differently.

Can't agree with just about any of that I'm afraid. SYW is a periord that interests me greatly, and with a bunch of AB SYW sitting there I'd happily rebase I can see myself trying it out.

The differences SYW - Napoleonic come IMHO far more in the troops statistics (ie Army Lists) than actual rules differences.
Looking at it my suggestions so far would be:

• SYW as a subset of FoG N rules rather than Renaissance (Renaissance for WSS and earlier) with its on Army List Book, perhaps with a few pages of rules ammendments and discussion plus QRF charts (?)
• Rules amendments I can think of include as suggested above, about Steady extended line inf supported on both flanks not taking a CMT (or at least getting a huge bonus) when charged by cav. Period accepted practice borne of battlefield use was that Steady Inf would usually very comfortably see of cavalry in such a position.
• 'Divisions' will need redefining. Basically becoming each line or section of line (usually but not always the infantry centre being having its first line a Division in extended line, its 2nd line a Division in extended line, and the cavalry in a Division in tactical on each flank).
• Deployment system will need tweaking in ways I suspect will only show in playtesting.
• Battlegroup rules will need tweeking, or an addition to. basically you will need to be able to 'move' and advance the whole Division as body, and even the whole Army. One possible suggestion being the Commander attaching himself to a unit which becomes the Regulating unit and (varied by Commander skill) a portion/all of the remaining army can simply follow/conform to its movements. Even into assaulting. Personnaly I'd like to see such an adjustment for upto Brigade/Division depending on nation as a napoleonic rule but thats a different subject. Any unit breaking the 'chain' by change of formation or action prevents all those below them conforming (and requires Command points/etc etc).
• Skirmishers etc etc I can't see any need for change, just wouldn't be anywhere near as many of them.

More besides, but basically I'd love to see a SYW ammendemnt and would think it would be quite popular if done right.

[deadtorius]

It would be nice but does cover a global battlefield as the Frenchies and English were bashing away with native allies in North America, or English and Dutch and East Indians in India.... whole pile of new rules you might need in those instances.

[Rekila]

We have played SYW battles for a year using FOGN with great success. The only important rule changes we made were:
Square can’t be formed as a reaction to being assaulted, only in the movement phase as a complex move.
Units in extended line don’t have a - 1 dice on cohesion test.
Regimental guns aren’t represented and artillery is limited to small units, with artillery attachments representing small batteries or the concentration of regimental guns, etc. Artillery attachments can be given only to line infantry or artillery units.
Light units can be used only as skirmishes, with two main types: Average-irregular (Grenze , freikorps) or poor-drilled/conscript (free battalions or legion britanique) . Light units (only) can have cavalry attachments to represent mixed mounted and infantry companies. Small light units (like Prussian jaegers up to 1760) are represented as skirmishes attachments.
Light cavalry is divided between irregular (most types) and regular (Prussian and late, Austrian and British light dragons)
Divisions are used as a generic name for the big formations in which the army is divided for battle (wings, rearguard etc) they have few restrictions and all can be mixed and have from only two units to more than ten! To represent the fact that some brigades operate with independence, we are liberal with officer attachments, which can be given to any unit after terrain. Also a unit with an officer attachment can get additional command points directly from the army commander.
More for fun that anything else, infantry is also allowed various formations, like turning half of their bases to the rear in extended line or the middle bases to one side while In column. We call that “extended line semi-square” and as it happens rarely we don’t have yet precise rules for that!
After some break months, expended, rebasing our old WRG armies (rebasing, repainting and expanding!!!) We are about to begin a new series of historical based games, the first one should probably be a small one based on the Monongahela.

[Jilu]

ok for the SYW...

what about the battalion guns? Frederick in thelast years added 12Lb guns to his batalions to increase firepower of his troops as these wereof lower quality than before. The austrians used mainly 3Lb guns there is no light artilery in FOGN.

Croats and freicorps were used to skirmish yet there were no skirmishers to screen the infantry,these were mainly used to occupy difficult terrain or to harass before and after the battle.

Cavalry sould not reduce the fire power on infantry,..squares were rarely used if at all, most of the time the infantry did a stand and fire and also turned rear ranks if the cavanlry came from the rear.

Prussian grenadiers did fight in skirmish formation when needed.

No cav attachement, skirmishers should be allowed.

There should be no Divisions: there should be a right/center/left/ reserve not much else

Cavalry was not used to punch through infantry, so no shock cav.

Bases should be in "line" not "square" as in FOGN formations were much less deep, basicaly troops were deployed in 2 or 3 ranks, for ease of explaining one battlion in front and one behind, yet with more space than in napoleonic times. so bases of regiments in a line "look" would be better.

i have played 7YW for a long time and researched a lot in the past, i may have forgotten some parts put i am positive about all this

[Rekila]

We use battalion guns in our first games, one artillery attachment for regular line unit. That means a lot of guns! And it didn’t work! The infantry battle tended to be a middle range firefight between the artillery attachments, and was quite unrealistic. We have obviously not play enough games to resolve all problems. But what we have founded yet is that the only important rule change for the SYW is to suppress the -1 dice for being in extended line. Without this (and without skirmishes or battalion guns) extended line is the best formation for regular infantry. Armies have more cavalry that in the Napoleonic period, but as to assault frontally steady infantry in extended line is almost suicidal, it happens rarely now in our games. Also you need your cavalry to fight the enemy cavalry. The same happens with the skirmishes units, that tend to fight each other for terrain and not to be placed in front of the main line, were they are a nuisance (as that gives cavalry a good chance to attack the infantry line). There are in reality various battles in one, the cavalry battle, the infantry battle and the lights battle. Some games were decided by the infantry battle and others by the cavalry battle, but normally is the infantry battle the most important. If you win the cavalry and skirmishes combat you can put the enemy infantry at a disadvantage. Apart for the “extended line semi-square” that we use to represent some era formations like turning the third rank etc, other changes could be to make more moves complex, like passing trough skirmishes etc. But this is in general quite unnecessary as those situations rarely happen. As I have already said with only one important rule change, FOGN runs very well for the period.

[donm]

Jilu

Would be very interested to know your source for this

Prussian grenadiers did fight in skirmish formation when needed.

Cavalry was not used to punch through infantry, so no shock cav.

I take it you have not read about Frederick's cavalry colums.

Don