FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

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

Moderators: hammy, Blathergut, terrys, Slitherine Core

Blathergut
Field Marshal - Elefant
Field Marshal - Elefant
Posts: 5661
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by Blathergut » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:24 am

dead....if you see this...send me an email...I don't have your addy (comp. crash)...wondered if you might be free/up for an attempt at these V2 rules this long weekend.

geoff
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:25 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by geoff » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:06 am

marty wrote:just saw "all intercepts require a cmt"! That's a pretty big change that is going to create a lot of cmt use in opponents turn, something that is pretty rare at the moment. Not sure this is a great idea. Now cavalry not only don't reduce infantry fire by much but they often wont intervene to protect vulnerable friends. It was, for instance, one of the last hopes I could see for keeping irregular LI alive (ie stick em with some cavalry to shepherd them as they no longer evade and still cant fight worth a damn).

Martin
Actually, I think it may be a good thing. After all, the cavalry is responding to something rather than initiating so maybe a level of control from higher command is required. Certainly plenty of instances during the Napoleonic Wars where senior commanders had to berate squadron/regimental commanders for not using initiative in these situations. Certainly makes you leave a commander within range of where you have a critical situation developing. Adds another level of uncertainty as well - should I join with my DC or not?
Now that I've said I'm in favour, you watch it bite me on the @rse :)

marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by marty » Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:28 pm

Had a game with all the changes.

Impressed by how much quicker things become through a combination of effects.

I like the effect of the changes to artillery in the lists because it speeds up the game as a result of there not been artillery units all over the place. It also combines nicely with the new artillery firing arc and target priority rules to allow long range artillery fire to have more effect. It is perhaps also necessary because of the removal of infantry skirmish formation. I am a little concerned though that early period games with single unit of artillery will seem very short on artillery. Artillery attachments just don't seem enough to represent the importance of artillery, as good as they are.

Looks very promising to me

Martin

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

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by shadowdragon » Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:30 pm

An interesting article on artillery doctrine...

http://www.reenactor.ru/ARH/PDF/McConachy.pdf

I wonder if it would have been better if small / large artillery units were 1 / 2 bases instead of 2 / 3 bases and represented 6-10 and 12-20 guns respectively.

By the way, the rules state that a small artillery unit is 12-19 guns and a large unit 20-30 guns, but I don't recall what it says about attachments. Discussion on the boards about limiting artillery has suggested that one unit base = one attachment base, but both points and the number of firing dice suggest it's probably more like one unit base = two attachment bases.

KendallB
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:01 pm
Location: North Shore, New Zealand

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by KendallB » Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:54 am

A base of artillery represents a battery of 6-8 guns. So 2 bases makes 12-16 guns - a small unit.

An attachment is closely supporting the unit it is assigned to. It has less dice, especially at long range but can move within 6MU easily. Artillery units get to fire at long range, provide ACV and have more dice but don't move well, especially within 6MU. A massed battery (unit) can also pick its targets, being under command of a senior officer.

That would justify 14 points for an attachment base and 20 points for an average drilled medium artillery base.

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

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by shadowdragon » Sun Feb 19, 2017 3:06 am

KendallB wrote:A base of artillery represents a battery of 6-8 guns. So 2 bases makes 12-16 guns - a small unit.

An attachment is closely supporting the unit it is assigned to. It has less dice, especially at long range but can move within 6MU easily. Artillery units get to fire at long range, provide ACV and have more dice but don't move well, especially within 6MU. A massed battery (unit) can also pick its targets, being under command of a senior officer.

That would justify 14 points for an attachment base and 20 points for an average drilled medium artillery base.
Found it....page 82: 1 artillery base: 6-9 guns

Sarmaticus
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 4:31 pm

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by Sarmaticus » Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:33 pm

shadowdragon wrote: I also agree that there's too much artillery available. I don't find that all available artillery is in the shop window. Quite a bit is held back in reserve - probably for a number of reasons.
One reason batteries were held in reserve, other than for tactical reasons, was that in some armies batteries were replaced rather than re-supplied when they ran out of ammunition. Clausewitz attributes the worse performance of the Prussian batteries at Ligny as due to the eagerness of gunners to fire off their ammo as fast as possible and clear out of danger, to be replaced by another.

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

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by shadowdragon » Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:44 pm

Sarmaticus wrote:
shadowdragon wrote: I also agree that there's too much artillery available. I don't find that all available artillery is in the shop window. Quite a bit is held back in reserve - probably for a number of reasons.
One reason batteries were held in reserve, other than for tactical reasons, was that in some armies batteries were replaced rather than re-supplied when they ran out of ammunition. Clausewitz attributes the worse performance of the Prussian batteries at Ligny as due to the eagerness of gunners to fire off their ammo as fast as possible and clear out of danger, to be replaced by another.
Ammunition Is certainly a factor when gaming battles larger than a standard FoGN 'corps sized' one. Fatigue is another factor too.

marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by marty » Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:13 pm

Had another test game last night.

Tried out the Brits with the new points values. These actually had little impact as they were counteracted by the increase in the cost of light infantry (who are still worth it but not the auto-includes they were before). Still if I fielded fewer lights a british army could be a little larger.

Played the "reserves" deployment option and we saw the defender reserve a division and the attacker go for a flank march. Certainly creates a bit more variety in the game.

Things again played out pretty quickly. The change to defensive fire, where other units only contribute a dice or two, makes a broader range of charges more possible. There is the potential for some of these charges to look a little odd (ie I'll speed across the front of a unit right in front of me and hit someone else). On balance this is probably a good thing in terms of upping the pace of the game.

Impetuous mounted are much less of a problem than they were before. The cavalry clash resolved itself more quickly than it would have thanks to the changes to how pursuits work and the automatic removal of broken units.

Martin

richafricanus
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 335
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:38 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by richafricanus » Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:45 am

Good to hear you're enjoying the changes Marty. Agree there could be the odd occasion where a unit could get in a charge across the face of enemy but on the whole I think it works.

But if you're finding the game more fluid and more stuff happens faster, that's good.

I suspect impetuous cav will often leave have their commander frustrated by missed opportunities in the pursuit phase but yes are easier to control before then.

marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by marty » Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:37 am

I was wondering if it would be a good idea if units that are defending a building who suffer a shooting result that would normally force them to outcome move shift to occupying the building. Would represent them falling back deeper in to the town to avoid the fire.

Martin

richafricanus
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 335
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:38 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by richafricanus » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:33 am

I get the concept Marty, but I think it's an unnecessary complication. I'm finding the building rules are working well as they are. This would potentially make shooting the way to eject enemy from buildings which is what we've tried to change.

pugsville
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:42 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by pugsville » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:25 pm

Do Infinity pursue cavalry they beat break in close combat? (not in square) passing player occurred the other day when my intercept charge was broken by a large guard unit.

marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by marty » Sat Mar 04, 2017 12:35 am

Maybe I'm slow but I don't understand the question

Martin

richafricanus
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 335
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:38 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by richafricanus » Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:41 am

You obviously never studied 'pug-lish' Marty. Me neither! :D Dave, and now in English...?

marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by marty » Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:59 pm

Had another quick, decisive practice game last night. This time played Geoff in the "all out attack" scenario option. Having the attacker start on the center line certainly makes the start of the game pretty buttock clenching for the defender but the defenses help.

On the subject of the defenses, can a small field fortification hold a small artillery unit with an artillery attachment? It is still a small unit but is represented by 3 bases.

Some other thoughts. The base cost of artillery is perhaps too low. I think this was probably the case in V1 but the removal of skirmish formation has taken their only natural predator out of the game. The changes to CMT's also help artillery deploy far more reliably and effectively (ie as long as you stay out of 6" you always get the second move to deploy). The replacing of pivots with a more generous firing arc (a really good change that speeds up the game) makes it a little easier to avoid artillery once you are in close but makes the artillery better at concentrating fire at long range, so is probably about neutral in effect.

A 40 point battery is the same cost as a standard small infantry unit and is, too my mind, simply much more useful/important. I realise the number of such units is going to be restricted but their points should still match their usefulness. Without a change to their points I think we will see a trend towards taking as much artillery as possible (even more so than in V1). I ran two large batteries last night and would certainly do so again in any game where I was concerned about having the best chance of winning. It certainly makes the armies from the earlier list book less attractive. I would suggest making a normal, drilled artillery piece at least 24 and a heavy probably 28 or so (26 for horse). Another possibility would be to change the new CMT rules for artillery. Perhaps they could always have to roll for CMT's or require 2 pips, like conscripts or irregulars. It could be argued this makes sense as they were often a corps rather than a divisional asset. The CT charge could also be standardised/simplified so they require a 5 to stand when charged.

I also think it would perhaps be better if the move out of 3" rule as a result of shooting always happens even if you block their path with another unit. The potential for shennanigans is massive. Not just leaving an infantry unit within 2" to return fire but potentially creating opportunities for a cavalry unit to charge from within 2". I would simply have any friendly unit that is not in combat move back out of the way. Another possibility would be to have any unit that cannot move back to 3" drop a level, after all a unit that is desperate to get back but cant is unlikely to be happy about it. We should not be rewarding deliberately creating a log jam.

I'm not sure the current effect of rifles justifies their existence. It would perhaps be better to simply remove them. I'm not convinced they were so different they need rules in a corps level game.

Not priority one I realise, but I would also take a look at the rules for the "special" artillery attachments like rockets. They are a bad joke at the moment. Perhaps they could simply be treated as a normal artillery attachment or alternatively give them some reason to exist. Maybe they could set fire to buildings if the one dice they contribute rolls as 6 or something.

Martin

Daemionhunter
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:41 am

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by Daemionhunter » Sun Mar 05, 2017 7:33 am

I don't think artillery are too cheap. I haven't felt that they dominate the game too much. They should dominate to some degree. We have named the period Napoleonics and the eponymous gentleman favoured artillery. It should therefore be suitable powerful. 40 points of artillery can control/dominate one 6 inch section of the board. However, a 48 point unit of light cavalry can mow them down pretty smartly and 40 drilled infantry unit might do the same around 50 per cent of the time. There's a 25 per cent chance they'll just run off and then a further chance their shooting will fail. Even with 3 hits if the enemy closes its pretty much guaranteed to be all over now for the artillery if they're unsupported or any support is also engaged. We haven't seen them dominate in the playtesting we've done. I shot up and ran down two large Austrian batteries a couple of weeks ago.

I'd also like the chance to comment on the fate of large units. I have found large units good value especially with a gun attachment. It's an easy way to concentrate force. However, there is a trade-off. They are more cumbersome. Two large units of average drilled infantry can walk through more fire and concentrate force more easily. However, three of same are more manoeuvrable and can outflank our gang up on one of their larger brethren. Three small units have 18 dice in assault and 9 in shooting (12 at close range). Two large units have 16 in assault and 8 for shooting (12 at close range). It takes 18 hits to rout three small units and only 14 to do the same to two large ones. Two large units take less command points to manoeuvre of course. The points are very neatly balanced between the two and no changes are required.

I have not had trouble with either scale previously and don't believe the current ACV penalty is justified. No-one will take large units now. Two large units are only worth 4 ACV whereas 3 small units are worth 6 a material difference.

geoff
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:25 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by geoff » Sun Mar 05, 2017 8:16 am

The ACV change for large units is a really good innovation. Their advantages are legion and the last thing we want is armies that can have lots of them getting an extra bonus for being hard to break.
As regards the 3mu push back at close range, I have said before that I find this very gamey. As someone who intends to run unreformed a fair bit, I don't want this rule being in their just for a gamey benefit. As Marty pointed out, the chance for cavalry to get a unit hard up behind them Will allow them a charge from within 2mu. I don't think this was the purpose behind the idea.

BrettPT
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1263
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by BrettPT » Sun Mar 05, 2017 8:29 am

fwiw the ability to stop a unit being driven back to 3mu by having rear support hard behind is in v1, without any issues I am aware of.
Never felt it to be gamey or cheesy in the least. Simply good use of infantry rear support.

richafricanus
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 335
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:38 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: FOG N 2nd Edition - it's back!

Post by richafricanus » Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:08 am

Marty, I've just sent the first full draft and in that you will see we've changed the set up scenarios from the ones you've been using :oops: They're also great fun though. Let us know what you think.

We've also dropped references to rockets, howitzers, mortars, etc as being too obscure and rare to warrant their own lines in the rules. But people can field them for colour as part of a normal battery.

Post Reply

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