Yesnikgaukroger wrote:I assume you mean like Regimental Gunsravenflight wrote:Agreed. We're makkng them like commanded shot, which while more difficult to orchistrate, do not reduce an army's bg count if lost post recovery from a rout.
Search found 1966 matches
- Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:40 am
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: Commanded Shot - proposal
- Replies: 97
- Views: 17865
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
- Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:32 am
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: Commanded Shot - proposal
- Replies: 97
- Views: 17865
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
Agreed. We're makkng them like commanded shot, which while more difficult to orchistrate, do not reduce an army's bg count if lost post recovery from a rout.
- Tue Dec 20, 2016 7:55 am
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: Duty and Glory
- Replies: 31
- Views: 2835
Re: Duty and Glory
Perhaps reducing cost (of DH) is all that is needed. I mean, if you (for extreme example, not suggesting it) made Average Armoured DH 3 points each base, then I'm almost certain that people would get more than the minimum required. My point (pardon the pun) being, that if you fix the points the choi...
- Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:18 pm
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA
- Replies: 100
- Views: 7356
Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA
Personally, I can see a can of worms coming out of this. Then please explain further - it'll help everyone. If there are concrete examples of any interactions you feel would become less historical they'd be a great illustration and help no end. I'm not so much talking about history, which I can't c...
- Mon Dec 19, 2016 8:04 pm
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: Duty and Glory
- Replies: 31
- Views: 2835
Re: Duty and Glory
I've been trying to work out WHAT. it is that I don't like about this (changing the minima etc) proposal, and I think I finally have. I don't like it because it will affect an army that I run, and am happy with the design. Now this in itself is not enough to stop a change. I'm not saying this for a ...
- Mon Dec 19, 2016 7:47 pm
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA
- Replies: 100
- Views: 7356
Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA
I'm unsure. I'm concerned Gendarmes will lose their only advantage... and they (generally) already start at adisadvantage against the next technological leap, the Cuirassier. This maybe realistc, but beedsto be reflected somehow (pounts?) I'd also like to discuss the wording some. As you have it sta...
- Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:58 pm
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: BG Autobreak - proposal
- Replies: 60
- Views: 11444
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
Yes, which is 3 BG's, and with the poor troops and artillery etc, meant that it was pretty easy to get to 17 (I think it was). Now, it would be 15. So... less than 16... so not necessary to make a rule about it.nikgaukroger wrote:Well it optionally gets them (all 2 BGs) in the Parliamentarian troops.
- Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:56 am
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: BG Autobreak - proposal
- Replies: 60
- Views: 11444
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
Pretty sure the Marsden Moor version does. Or did I get the wrong army?nikgaukroger wrote:Point of order - Scots Covenanters do not have commanded shot.
- Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:46 am
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: BG Autobreak - proposal
- Replies: 60
- Views: 11444
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
Yes. But that is because of Artillery (already covered by minimum foot BG per artillery proposal) and Commanded shot (already covered by getting rid of the commanded shot as separate BG's)urbanbunny1 wrote:I've seen a few Scot Covenant armies at a similar head count (all at 800 points)
- Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:07 am
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: Musket*
- Replies: 15
- Views: 1524
Re: Musket*
Keep in mind we're doing a 1.1, not a 2.0. Still interested in hearing your proposal of course, just reminding everyone (myself included) that we're not trying to re-invent the wheel.DavidT wrote:I also have a radical proposal for Swedes which I will raise in a separate post.
- Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:48 am
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: Dragoons - proposal
- Replies: 53
- Views: 10354
Re: Dragoons - proposal
Yes. The move as MF is about move distance and how terrain affects them, otherwise they behave the same as now. Wording would need to be bashed out to ensure this was clear 8) I was fairly certain that's what you meant, but wanted to be sure before I put my extremely valuable seal upon your proposal.
- Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:46 am
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: Musket*
- Replies: 15
- Views: 1524
Re: Musket*
Yeah, like I said, I was only throwing it out there. As to the highlanders et al, you COULD put something in like MF Musket* 1 full front rank and 1 half rear rank Warrior Musket* 1 per 2 bases for up to 2 ranks... you could also give them the potential for 3 ranks to increase depth (if you wanted t...
- Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:42 am
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: Dragoons - proposal
- Replies: 53
- Views: 10354
Re: Dragoons - proposal
Just to clarify, this would mean that (in open terrain) a BG of Dragoons that pass a cohesion test would be able to do a full move retire 3" (in 15mm) correct?nikgaukroger wrote:Our official proposed change to dragoons is:
Any move that starts, ends or goes within 6MU of enemy is as MF. This includes evade moves.
- Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:40 am
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: BG Autobreak - proposal
- Replies: 60
- Views: 11444
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
Army break point cannot exceed 1 point per 50 troop points of the army maximum size for that game - e.g. for an 800 point game the maximum army break point is 16. I'm not so sure this one is so necessary with the proposed change in the Commanded Shot rules. The only time I've seen excessive break p...
- Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:24 am
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: Musket*
- Replies: 15
- Views: 1524
Re: Musket*
Just a little outside the box, but what if we made the count for long range less but the count for short range full dice. So (for example) 1 dice per 3 at long range for musket*. They aren't going to stay there... they don't want to stay there... they will get out-shot, so they move up. They are now...
- Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:20 am
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: Other Artillery stuff
- Replies: 36
- Views: 2978
Re: Other Artillery stuff
I'm in favour of the hitting mounted on the same as foot FWIW. For me, I'd prefer to see mounted hit the same as foot, but keep the artillery being able to shoot into the flank sectors. I know that there isn't much precedent for shooting into the flank, but I think if a player wants to do so he sho...
- Fri Dec 16, 2016 2:33 am
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: FoG:R Update - BG autobreak
- Replies: 29
- Views: 2876
Re: FoG:R Update - BG autobreak
I would like Elites to be an exception to the autobreak on >50%. The Swiss were known to fight on when any normal man would have run away and having them as Elites reflects this nicely. It makes Elites worth those extra points. Poor & lights AT 50%; average & superior at > 50% or 1 base. Elite at >...
- Fri Dec 16, 2016 2:30 am
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: Captured Artillery
- Replies: 33
- Views: 2951
Re: Captured Artillery
Given the rule currently exists to simulate thus, but has a number of potential issues in "real world" open play I see no reason why it can't be laid out as a "default" of being removed, but an optional rule as well that can be used if event organisers (or scenario designers) want to Use a rule for...
- Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:40 pm
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: Captured Artillery
- Replies: 33
- Views: 2951
Re: Captured Artillery
Is there any record of artillery being captured and used to any appreciable effect on a battle? Any recapture at all?
- Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:31 pm
- Forum: FOGR Update
- Topic: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA
- Replies: 100
- Views: 7356
Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA
Nik I am ok with the two step program for mounted on mounted action, provided there is a (admitidly small) reduction in the cost of said armour for mounted (as it will still be useful against Bows and long range Shot). It will make some of the Duty and Glory historical interactions closer. Regards ...