FOGN 2nd Edition

[richafricanus]

I like the suggestions on buildings Brett, esp the one that you can't be shot out of a building and that when you 1st move in you can't be defending, allowing for the see-saw nature of village fighting. However, if you can still shoot someone in a building to wavering, then getting them out with a charge is still going to be more of a formality than it should be. Perhaps troops in buildings shouldn't be able to drop below disorder from firing? Pretty much you need to go in to get them out.

I also like the suggestion of different gradings for buildings which is especially relevant for scenarios. Maybe a simple system of reducing dice used to reflect a more serious structure. 4 dice for a simple building all the way down to one dice for a stone granary.

[BrettPT]

However, if you can still shoot someone in a building to wavering, then getting them out with a charge is still going to be more of a formality than it should be. Perhaps troops in buildings shouldn't be able to drop below disorder from firing?

There is a kind-of built in check against this. The defenders can attempt to rally back to disorder in their recovery phase, immediately preceding your assault.

[deadtorius]

On a different note....

another option could be to require large units to use 2 CPs to attempt a CMT, unless they are led by a commander. This would reflect large units being more cumbersome and also bring the total CMTs per unit into balance across an army, whether it uses large units or small.

- ie an army of 10 large units, with a Skilled CC and 3 Competent DCs gets to attempt a CMT with 8 units at the moment - 80% of the army. The same army with 15 small units can also CMT 8 units, however this is only 53% of the army. If it cost 2CP for a large unit to attempt a CMT, then that large unit army could attempt 5 CMTs a turn (50% of the total force).

Most of my Austrian armies have large units. Normally I try to stick to 3 infantry and an artillery unit per division, runs into problems if I go much larger than that. Normally I have a competent division commander and maybe a brigadier(preferred) Corps commander is usually skilled.

My Prussian divisions are two small and a large (Landwehr). Division commander is competent, corps commander will likely be exceptional.

Under your proposal my Austrians would need 4 points if both my large units without a brigadier require a CMT. Can't do it as at most I am going to be able to get 3 command points total. No brigadier present and I can only ever make one CMT with the divisions command points. Yes the commander can join a unit but then if the other unit is more than 4 MU away, not hard with large units, and then I need 3 points to get the CMT so my Corps commander is stuck due to the increased command costs.

Prussians in a similar situation would need 2 points to get both the small units to CMT. Only requires the exceptional CC to give away one point and I can make two tests. If the division commander joins one of the units then its not too hard to get within 4 MU of the other unit to spend 1 point for a CMT. Corps commander has points to spend on another unit or two or still has the option to move.

I think your math does not work as you look at an army as a whole, not individual division composition, which is a big difference in the actual costs. I think you see it seems to be the other way around, per division the small units will require half the command points of divisions with large units.

I suggest we leave the command point costs as it is. Unreformed armies, I go big since I need the -1 hit most of the time as I am being out shot at distance, I move slower, and making my command structure worse is not helping anything in game. It also sticks it to the poor Austrians once again....

[richafricanus]

A couple of other areas to consider for clean up in v2
1. The situation where one unit of cavalry against a line of cavalry can pull one unit out of the line still doesn't seem right to me, and the way the rule is written is also unclear. Perhaps a better way of managing the situation is for the chargers to move first to within 4MU of the target. Then all enemy cav who can intercept or countercharge are moved.

2. The definition of a Defensive Position seems to have a typo and is unclear. Currently it reads that you are in a Defensive Position "if uphill of all enemy units a charge from any enemy would be at a disadvantage in combat for being 'enemy downhill'." (the typos here aren't mine but as it's written in the rules).
I assume it meant to say you are in a defensive position if you are higher than all enemy who if they charged you, they would count as downhill of you?

[deadtorius]

1. The situation where one unit of cavalry against a line of cavalry can pull one unit out of the line still doesn't seem right to me, and the way the rule is written is also unclear. Perhaps a better way of managing the situation is for the chargers to move first to within 4MU of the target. Then all enemy cav who can intercept or countercharge are moved.

Not that I have read a whole lot about cavalry actions in this period but there is a case where in the 1813 campaign there is a detailed account of a cavalry action that lasted hours, can't recall which battle it was off hand. According to that account the rules are quite accurate.

Enemy comes out and declares charge, friendly unit meets them. Both melee one side runs away back to own lines, the enemy pursues. reserve troops charge the enemy, most likely they are tired having just fought. Enemy retires to their lines, pursued by the fresh reserve troops. Enemy reserve then engages the pursuing reserves, who then fall back to their lines. Repeat the process for hours.

So the rules seem to be more accurate than what most players want to do. This was taken from an action that involved cavalry divisions and is apparently one of the few detailed accounts of how an all cavalry battle worked. Based on this I would say the game is fairly accurate in how you can pull an enemy cavalry unit out of line. As has been pointed out if you have two cavalry units side by side or there about, the unit not being charged can intercept and with the intercept range can possibly end up with a rear support from the original target. Of course I have seen situations where the enemy then moves up a few units to provide flank support, but that is the draw back to an I go you go move system I guess.

[BrettPT]

Maybe its Liebertwolkwitz you are thinking of? A big cavalry bash the day before Leipzig.

Yes I agree with you Dead, the pulling cavalry units out of a line gives a realistic result. I also like how it brings an element of tactics into cavalry combat, to minimise the opportunity for your opponent to pull out and destroy a single unit. Much better game mechanism IMO than a simple multi-unit, one round pile in.

[deadtorius]

That was the one Brett. From what I have read about it the rules seem to simulate cavalry actions fairly well. Even looking at Waterloo seems like A similar situation with numerous British units pulling out specific French units in combat, then losing cohesion and control pursuing them where the second French line waits to chop them up.
personally I like how the rules work, except when I am facing French Guard Shock then it's not so good as anything the Guard can pull out will likely get killed

[Blathergut]

mwhahwhehehehehehe...

[BrettPT]

Bloody guard cavalry. No issue with the expensive (ie 100 points a unit) types, but the cheaper versions (especially Average Drilled Guard) are the most under-priced/over effective unit in the game.

[marty]

As points changes aren't wanted its hard to be sure what to do with Guard Cav. I wonder if simply replacing the current separate chart they have for combat hits with the ability to count as receiving 1 hit less (like a large unit) in close combat would be better. It would have to stack with the large unit modifier as well. This would leave them still quite resilient but they would no longer be almost unkillable. Would also be simpler

Martin

[hazelbark]

I think the other approach is to make them more expensive for army demoralization. Guard mounted cost double toward demoralization. Not a radical changer just forces you to be less carefree.

[deadtorius]

I like Martys idea. At present even sending cuirassier into a unit of guard infantry who don't form square will likely see them survive. I find them almost impossible to kill, I can shoot them up and drop cohesion but someone always gives them a charismatic commander or sends charismatic corps over to visit them and they just pop back up again. If they are steady its impossible to close with them and hope to not get destroyed.

I find few of our games ever get to any actual break point most of the time, I rarely bother to keep a tally and when we do check neither army is broken most of the time anyway. So for me adding to the break point is pointless and does not resolve any underlying issues the combats bring up in the first place.

[hazelbark]

I find few of our games ever get to any actual break point most of the time, I rarely bother to keep a tally and when we do check neither army is broken most of the time anyway. So for me adding to the break point is pointless and does not resolve any underlying issues the combats bring up in the first place.

Well something else is afoot if your games don't have a conclusion. Could you clarify, because this is very much the opposite of what I find. the 20% difference rule tends to be pretty decisive I find.

[Blathergut]

Unless something bad happens moral-wise in the first few turns, and a cascade of wavering/broken units appear, we finish up around 5pm with neither side at that total breaking point. Units tend to be disordered/halted/driven back to 3MU but the other side unable to exploit since it's in a similar state.

I had a unit of wavering guard cuirassiers that luckily, nothing from the Austrian lines could charge. It falls back and recovers cohesion. Repeat similar situation along the line.

Sometimes one side or the other will just collapse, but just as often not. For the French, usually, charisma makes a difference, but we've seen a charismatic Nappy fail to recover repeatedly.

Army breaks have happened when the Austrians end up piled up. The French tend to be gung-ho and in their faces but frequently halted/backed to 3MU. Once you learn in this game to stay tight, beef up with artillery attachments (the +2 dice as something charges you is a game changer), and keep artillery interspersed with line units, the other side's options are limited until/unless something cracks and doesn't recover and cracks again.

[hazelbark]

Would that we are geographically closer. I am have certainly had games like that, but I do not find those the rule.

[Blathergut]

Are you going to Historicon? Anything FoG(N) 28mm happening?

I think Dead.'s getting a bit frustrated facing guard (even Saxons!!)(unreformed!!!!) and cuirassiers, so next time I think I will just run a swarm of average everything and no rivers!

[Blathergut]

Oiiiii....looked through the list of games and tournaments...I don't have enough fingers and toes to count all the rules sets being used for napoleonics!!!...but I didn't see FoG(N) listed anywhere, tho could have missed it...

[hazelbark]

Are you going to Historicon? Anything FoG(N) 28mm happening?

I think Dead.'s getting a bit frustrated facing guard (even Saxons!!)(unreformed!!!!) and cuirassiers, so next time I think I will just run a swarm of average everything and no rivers!

I am running ADLG. Had I known you were bringing an army or coming I would have arranged. Look me up at the Ancients area ADLG.

[bahdahbum]

After some games, I am wondering about the interaction reformed vs unreformed .

I understand the fact that SK detachments from the reformed infantry enable those units to shoot at 6 MU . But reading some accounts from different historical battles, I got the impression that the "attacker" , usually french, got to close range ( 2 MU ) in order to engage the ennemy before assaulting him, generally trying to break the ennemy's morale . The SK being there to "help" while coming in .

In all our games, the reformed infantry just stays out of close range till the very last moment .

Any better information ?

And while being at it : why not having simultaneous firing instead of you go I go Firing ?

[bisonbob]

Hello, I am a fairly new to the rule set, but really enjoying it so far.

One thing that might be an idea for version 2.

I have noticed that ... there is not really an incentive for players to spend their army points on skilled or exceptional division commanders.... ( in the last competition I went to no army list had a divisional commander better than competant!). Quite frankly it seems a better points investment to add an officer attachment than upgrade a divisional commander. That makes me think that there are not enough things in the game to spend ADC's on...... how about this ...... what if the division commanders could spend an ADC's point on an extra firing and or combat dice as well as the current CMT tests?

We could justify this that better commanders could also contribute to tactical fire fights and combats, better formation, ground positioning etc. The players then get more choice what to spend the ADC's on manoeuvre and or more combat / firing dice... which may add more options and we might see some exceptional division commanders?

Cheers