Page 19 of 22

Divisional commanders

Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2015 1:57 pm
by bahdahbum
It is being discussed and there are some ideas being tested . The DC might intervene in the initiative test with some other improvements .

Re: unreformed vs reformed

Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2015 10:47 am
by bisonbob
bahdahbum wrote: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 ?
In my experience (limited as it is), for reformed vs reformed.. the you go I go firing interaction really works outstandingly well, to me what this interaction does makes this rule set uniquely interesting and makes where you want to attack a dangerous and risky proposition where you have to mass the odds in your favour and it really makes you have to think hard. Having the 6mu range band where the firing occurs makes sense to me, (watching on "you tube" videos of period canons firing canister and the range it impacts, makes the 6mu bracket sensible area for a lot of lead to be flying)

As far as the interaction between Reformed and Unreformed line, .... ummm in my humble view, quite frankly the current rule set makes this interaction untenable. Unless the unreformed is an army chosen of massed light infantry or using a lot of cavalry divisions, there really isn't a fun game between reformed and unreformed line.

The difference between reformed and unreformed isn't subtle, it's a sledge hammer: can't shoot till 2, move 1/3 slower, for 2 points difference, these are so drastic it makes too much handicap for a fun game.

If I took the current rule set and did the minimum changes to give un-reformed line a sporting chance for being 2 points cheaper I would:
- Unreformed move 6 MU if outside 6MU of enemy, 4 MU if within 6Mu of enemy.
- Unreformed shoot in the 6MU range bracket (one less dice than a reformed unit gets). I know this is awkward if you are assuming only skirmish companies or canon are doing fire in this range bracket, and perhaps unreformed don't have any of these? ..... but hey in spirit of "lets make a game of it".

This may see players using more unreformed armies, and keeps the fun and good dynamics that the rule set has for the reformed vs reformed interaction.

Cheers

unreformed vs reformed

Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2015 1:30 pm
by bahdahbum
Unreformed shoot in the 6MU range bracket (one less dice than a reformed unit gets). I know this is awkward if you are assuming only skirmish companies or canon are doing fire in this range bracket, and perhaps unreformed don't have any of these? ..... but hey in spirit of "lets make a game of it".
There is something in what you wrote that is interesting and never was discussed . In the games, reformed may shoot at unreformed from 6 MU 350 - 400 meters if my memory serves me right . Unreformed cannot shoot back till the 2 MU distance is achieved .

BUT when considering buildings, another logic is in use . Units in a building cannot shoot outside the 2 MU, but may shoot back at a reformed INF unit shooting from 6 MU because the "defender" shoots at the approaching tirailleurs, light infantry, shutzen etc... . Why is it not the case in the open !

Of course there would be cases were the unreformed could not shoot back because of the angle and there would be a discussion about the impact of nearby cavalry ... and will an unreformed unit be able to shoot back at all firers ? ( my answer would be no, they shoot back at ont of the firers, the closest most in front and with 3 dice max !)

An interesting opening for great discussions

Re: FOGN 2nd Edition

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:32 pm
by Saxonian
This is something I actually brought up a while ago, before the idea of a 2nd Edition was mentioned (can't remember where it was though!!).

I agree that this is a pretty glaring and unresolved anomaly in the relationship between reformed and unreformed firers.
IIRC the reply was along the lines of volley fire by formed troops against skirmishers was largely ineffective. I have not read widely enough to comment on how often this occurred, or how effective it was, but I agree it is something that is definitely worth the discussion. Taking into account the -POA for shooting at skirmishers, it will most often be ineffective anyway I would think......but it would be nice to have at least the chance to get that 'Hail Mary' dice roll!

As a long-time user of unreformed infantry (did the name give it away just a bit :) ) I would also like to raise the issue of the difference in move allowance for unreformed.
There certainly was a difference, but my (admittedly somewhat thin) reading, mainly on the Austrian army, has indicated two things:
1- By about 1809 and the reforms instituted by Archduke Charles, the Austrian army was largely using column to manoeuvre around the battlefield, with extended line being used in more static defensive situations.
2- The theoretical length of a pace varied little between nations, and the main difference came in the number of paces per minute for standard manoeuvre - this being more like around 20% rather than 33% - so a 5MU move rather than 4MU.
The speed of the charge move seemed to be pretty standard across all nations at about 120 paces per minute, so perhaps unreformed could assault at 6MU.

I understand that this may change game balance in unintended ways, but this is the time to bring it up for discussion and testing.

Re: FOGN 2nd Edition

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 5:21 pm
by hazelbark
Saxonian wrote: I would also like to raise the issue of the difference in move allowance for unreformed.
I know you have a lot of people discussing your issue for version 2. so great minds and all that jazz.

Re: FOGN 2nd Edition

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:17 am
by Saxonian
Something that came up in a game on the weekend......

If a unit declares a charge on a wavering unit, and the target fails its test and therefore breaks, and there is no other valid target onto which the charger can re-direct (or they choose not to re-direct), do the chargers have to move their full move distance after the original (now fleeing) target? (I hope that all makes sense!!)
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but couldn't find it in the rules.

And further, if a Divisional Commander was attached to the chargers who fail to make contact (for the reason above or if the assault was stopped by fire), could he then use his CP's to allow other units to perform CMT's?
If the charge contacts he cannot use them as he is in contact, and there is nothing I could find to prevent this. But my thought was that he would be pretty much fully occupied with the assault to do anything else.

Re: FOGN 2nd Edition

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:35 pm
by bahdahbum
Your question should be in the rules question section, not here . But anyway , the chargers will have to move full move and the general can use one CP to give an order to an unit if that unit is under his command and within his command range from the spot where the charging unit he commands has stopped moving ( so I would guess, no unit was in range )

Re: FOGN 2nd Edition

Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:47 pm
by deadtorius
If a unit declares a charge on a wavering unit, and the target fails its test and therefore breaks, and there is no other valid target onto which the charger can re-direct (or they choose not to re-direct), do the chargers have to move their full move distance after the original (now fleeing) target? (I hope that all makes sense!!)
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but couldn't find it in the rules.
The charging unit makes a full move following their initial target as close as possible.
And further, if a Divisional Commander was attached to the chargers who fail to make contact (for the reason above or if the assault was stopped by fire), could he then use his CP's to allow other units to perform CMT's?
Yes the commander could use his command points, keep in mind his range is reduced to 4MU if he is attached to a friendly unit, so it is likely he will be out of range and have to spend 2 points to give 1 command point.

If the charge contacts he cannot use them as he is in contact, and there is nothing I could find to prevent this. But my thought was that he would be pretty much fully occupied with the assault to do anything else.
A commander in combat has a command range of 0 and can not issue command points. Might be in the updates somewhere but I know it is written like that.

Re: FOGN 2nd Edition

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:11 am
by Bar853
Wondering if version 2 has progressed? Are there any updates?

Re: FOGN 2nd Edition

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 12:53 pm
by bahdahbum
No news from Terry or other people in charge since june 2015

Re: FOGN 2nd Edition

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:05 pm
by Blathergut
I would assume that means there is no further continuation of FoGN 2, but that is just my humble, unofficial opinion. I sometimes wonder if the group here could come up with a consensus on an unofficial FoGN 2, but that is probably an impossibility.

For example:

a) Unreformed infantry should move the same as reformed infantry.

b) Unreformed infantry should stay as is, moving more slowly than reformed.

Would we ever get agreement?

Re: FOGN 2nd Edition

Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:19 am
by marty
If I was going to do a simple FAQ "Sorta V2" I think having unreformed/British move as reformed is a bit much.

Perhaps just:

1) Only present their rear ends to enemy if outcome move 6" or more
2) Dont lose a dice from CT's when in line

I would favour getting rid of the Guard melee hits chart and simply have guard units count as receiving one less hit (stacks with large unit)

I would also get rid of the extra unit for attackers who score 3 more. The game already favours the attacker, giving them an extra unit is really too much. I would get rid of exceptional commander allowing a re-roll on CT's (except perhaps for exceptional divisional commanders).

In non-historical/comp games I would favour treating all armies as base intiative 0 (ie you want to attack, buy a better general). No free advantages.

And of course all the things that have been discussed in rules section but never made it to FAQ.

If you were willing to tackle points issues: superior is overpriced for infantry, The best artillery is overpriced, Artillery attachments are too cheap compared to skirmishers and light infantry should probably be more expensive.

But spent whole of last weekend at comp and played another game last night, so things obviously are far from unbearable as they are.

Martin

Re: FOGN 2nd Edition

Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 9:04 am
by Bar853
Looks like Slitherine are clearing all the FOG rule books to make way for other things! These books will be going out of print and will no longer be available, so get them while you can.. There is comments from some regular contributors about what is happening with FOG N ver 2 and a reply from the site manager to raise it in the appropriate forum.

Well I would like to raise it! Is there going to be some form of Version 2 FOG N.

If there is "not" to be a version 2 then could an electronic version of FOG N be released that will allow the users to make there own corrections based on the current amendments.

I like the game system but I don't play enough to memorize every rule, so I am always referring to the rule book then to the amendments then to the online forum to sort out any queries. I don't wish to change the rules. I am happy enough as they are, if that is all there is...

But i would like to see a version 2.

Re: FOGN 2nd Edition

Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:01 pm
by bahdahbum
If I was going to do a simple FAQ "Sorta V2" I think having unreformed/British move as reformed is a bit much.

Perhaps just:

1) Only present their rear ends to enemy if outcome move 6" or more
2) Dont lose a dice from CT's when in line
Dear Marty,

My feeling is that it is just "unfog" . British units were not the superhuman you would want them to be .If we start this way, I would like the feench to have a better "elan", the russians a better morale, and so on ...

British were not better than other, but had a smaller army and tgey are already fighting in line, but in tactical . If in extended line, it is a real thin line :D

Better not to start making some differences because of nationality except for "elan" and training

Re: FOGN 2nd Edition

Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 10:26 pm
by marty
The British, uniquely in FOGN, already have a seriously negative "national characteristic" (pay the same as all other reformed but move slower). I dont think what I am suggesting would make much difference (I still wouldn't be going to extended line very often).

After all it would simply be allowing them the same slight, situational boost as all other infantry that move as unreformed. They would still be poorer value than standard reformed infantry.

Martin

Re: FOGN 2nd Edition

Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 10:34 pm
by Russ1664
Yes please to a version 2 of FOGN, as has been discussed there are several parts that need more re-working. I would again make make a plea for simplification, where sensible and possible. Several others have already noted the inability to play games without reference to the rules, we probably can't stop that need completely, but any help to reduce the need would be gratefully received. Unfortunately, in our club the rules have fallen out of use in favour of simpler, but perhaps less rich Napoleonic rules, but I am keen to try and get them played again.

So very happy to help with testing etc.

Re: FOGN 2nd Edition

Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:07 am
by bahdahbum
The British, uniquely in FOGN, already have a seriously negative "national characteristic" (pay the same as all other reformed but move slower). I dont think what I am suggesting would make much difference (I still wouldn't be going to extended line very often).
As the british did assault in columns , just let's say they are reformed.
Yes please to a version 2 of FOGN
The only problem being that Osprey has the rights and Terry is absent and did not react for more than 7 month . I fear FOGN is dying except for a few hardcore players ( us )

Re: FOGN 2nd Edition

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:20 pm
by marty
Just in case anyone missed it (it was in another oddly titled thread)
Re: PanzerCorps Team Developer???
Postby terrys ยป 05 Feb 2016 23:24

Hi guys, I guess I owe you an update on where we are.

I've shelved a full update to version 2. It really doesn't justify the time and effort involved (given number of sales and overall take-up).
I am working on a version 1.5 update though - It's about half complete.
This will be published on the Field of Glory site and be available for free download.

Depending on commitments elsewhere, it should be ready in about 2-4 weeks.
Sounds good really. If there isn't going to be a V2 (and while I would love that I can understand why it cant happen) a bit of an update/faq could be helpful. Personally I play a lot of different games but find myself devoting more and more time and attention to FOG N.

Martin

Re: FOGN 2nd Edition

Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 5:42 am
by richafricanus
Thanks Martin for pointing this out. Gotta smile at the irony considering how often in FOG N a rule is found under a completely random heading...

Re: FOGN 2nd Edition

Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:28 pm
by hazelbark
Great find.