Triumph of Nations Errata

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

Moderators: hammy, Blathergut, terrys, Slitherine Core

BrettPT
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1264
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by BrettPT » Fri May 16, 2014 2:48 am

Yup. In 1813 at the start of the campaign they were keen but pretty woeful. They weren't permitted to charge at Leipzig (officers being afraid of their lack of cohesion) but were kept as rear support for the rest of the Guard cavalry. Av Conscripts seems a fair grading in 1813.

I think their first charge was at Hannau, were they 'saved' the Grenadiers a Cheval they were rear supporting by charging some Bavarian cavalry that were giving the Grenadiers strife. Napoleon was suitably pleased (and they got a after match salute and cheer from the Gros Talons) and after that the GdH got to serve in the front lines.

By 1814 the GdH were well oiled regiments. They covered themselves in glory in the 1814 campaign. Av drilled guard status deserved in 1814 IMO.

MikeHorah
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:57 pm

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by MikeHorah » Fri May 16, 2014 6:59 am

In 1813 French cavalry generally were of lamentable quality - not just the GDH falling off their horses when breaking into a trot - and, as important, incapable of looking after them. The destruction of the cavalry in 1812 had reduced it to the quality of 1792-95 or worse. At Leipzig the 2nd carabiniers refused to charge ( damn those d rolls :lol: ) The losses of experienced officers and NCOs in 1812 were critical when it came to training the new recruits in the cavalry and the infantry in 1813.

My question to folk is have we gone far enough in the 1813 lists to reflect that ? I suppose if you go to far no one would ever bother to field it despite Lutzen, Bautzen and Dersden.

Bautzen would probably have been numbered among Napoleon's greatest victories had it not been for Ney's confusion and inability to focus and the lack of cavalry to pursue. It is a battle I would love to re fight in FOG(N) but it needs lots of time, space, players and figures . Not even sure if a 12x6 in 15mm would do the job.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by hazelbark » Mon May 19, 2014 9:57 pm

MikeHorah wrote: My question to folk is have we gone far enough in the 1813 lists to reflect that ? I suppose if you go to far no one would ever bother to field it despite Lutzen, Bautzen and Dersden.
We've done a few 1813 battles. And the Spring 1813 French is fun in its own right.

I think the autumn French Cavalry Corps has Spring infantry. scratches head.

They are a good change of pace. Both sides have a enough conscripts around to make it lively.

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2044
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by shadowdragon » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:02 pm

I've built my Neapolitan army and am looking at the Scandanavian countries, so I've got these observations / questions about the cavalry for the Neapolitan 1815, the Danish Auxiliary Corps and the Swedish Corps.

Neapolitan 1815: The list allows one to field both a "Guard Hussars" and a "Guard Velites a Cheval" unit, but from all the information that I could find in reference books and on line, the Guard Velites a Cheval were converted into the Guard Hussars in 1813. However, the Guard Lancers (different from the Guard Chevau-Legers) do not appear in the lists. Whether the Guard Lancers should be a separate entry or included with the Guard Chevau-Legers is another question. The wiki order of battle for Tolentino gives the strenghs as 398 for the Guard Chevau-Legers and 313 for the Guard Lancers. However, the Guard Hussars are listed as having a strength of 426 and the Guard Cuirassiers as 200. If those are worthy of being separate units then perhaps there should be one for the Guard Lancers. Suggest that the entry that reads "Guard Velites a Cheval" should be "Guard Lancers" and appropriately equipped.

Danish Auxiliary Division, Autumn 1813: The Holstein Cavalry (Rytterre) Regiment is listed as "light cavalry". Shouldn't this be "heavy cavalry". (Some excellent work digging up info on the Danes here: http://blundersonthedanube.blogspot.ca/ ... art-7.html ). There's always a debate as to whether or not a certain rating is deserved but I thought that the philosophy was that troops were given the benefit of their nominal classification unless there was evidence to the contrary. Certainly nations with questionable cavalry performance like the Spanish get the benefit of the doubt and their heavy cavalry is classified as such. Suggest that the Holstein Cavalry be classified as "heavy cavalry".

Swedish Army of the North 1813-1814: The Swedes can field Life Guard Cuirassier, Dragoons (heavy cavalry), Hussars, and the Life Guard Dragoons - 1 light cavalry and 3 heavy cavalry. I think the confusion is that the Nafziger list for Leipzig has the 1st division with a "Guard Dragoon" regiment with the Cuirassiers and two Hussar regiments in the 2nd division. However, Nafziger lists for the Swedish forces in Germany for May 15 - June 5 and for 1-15 July list the 1st division as having the Livgardet til Hast and the Smaland Dragoons, both of these were light cavalry regiments. In addition to these regiments the Swedes also deployed the Karabineir (Dragoon) regiment. References:

http://www.hat.com/Othr7/Berg02P.html
http://pancerni-fishtales.blogspot.ca/2 ... -1814.html
http://s112.photobucket.com/user/camcle ... t=6&page=1
http://www.napoleon-online.de/Kavalleri ... netti5.jpg
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6991/kno ... ishcav.jpg

The latter website lists the following as the Swedish cavalry regiments deployed to Germany and Belgium - Livgardet til Hast (guard light cavalry), Smalands Light Dragoons, Life Cuirassiers, Skanska Hussars, Morner Hussars and the Karabinier (Dragoon) regiment. Suggest the either the Dragoons or Life Guard Dragoons (depending on whether one thinks the Karabiniers are guards) be reclassified as "light cavalry" and possibly labelled as the "Horse Guards" or "Horse Guards and Light Dragoons" to represent the combined regiments of the Livgardet til Hast and the Smalands light dragoons.

Russ1664
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:15 pm

French Imperial Guard Autumn 1813

Post by Russ1664 » Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:51 am

Page 81 - The maximum for Middle Guard (6) is insufficient to form a Middle Guard Division as per Customised Army bullet 3 and composition of divisions page 158. ( unless it has 2 arty units as per bullet 6)

Checking Bowden it seems the Middle guard was subsumed into the Young guard during this campaign rather than as a separate middle guard division. Perhaps bullet 3 should only allow Old and Young Guard Divisions, with Middle guard troops adding to the Young Guard.

BrettPT
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1264
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by BrettPT » Wed Sep 03, 2014 1:09 pm

donm wrote:Prussian 1813 list.

In the notes it says 'If used, guards must all be in the same mixed division'

As there are no Guard cavalry in the list this could prove difficult.
I think this means that you cannot split guard units over more than one division. It doesn't preclude you from having line units in your guard division. Adding the uhlans for instance would allow the division to be mixed.

Cheers
Brett

bahdahbum
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:40 pm

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by bahdahbum » Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:55 pm

The Middle Guard did not really exist anymore . It was indeed integrated in the Young guard and formed a brigade in the 1st division . The rest of the division was Young guard voltigeur .

bahdahbum
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:40 pm

Strange Dutch-Belgian army

Post by bahdahbum » Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:34 am

Ok 1815-2015 , the bicentenial is arriving ( theme of our turnament in january 2015 in Brussels see www.iwchallenge.be ) . I have got some questions concerning the différences between the Dutch-Belgians allied ( pg 139 ) and the Dutch-Belgians as a corps (pg 141 )

As allied they get SK attachment of riffles, but they dissapear when you want to use a DB corps ...only SK muskets remains ( by the way, there were 6 bataillon's of light infantry, never used as a unit but dispersed in divisions and no riffles ).
As allied division they may have 8 bases of light infantry, but only 4 as a separate corps !
As allied they may have 8 bases of Nassau infantry, but only 6 as a separate corps ...
As allied the DB artillery is average, as a corps some must be POOR...so they did become poor after their first battles :evil:

Seems strange and inconsistent

it was not the best army of the world, even if many vétérans were still there but ..a funny army :D

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: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by pugsville » Sat Dec 27, 2014 2:15 am

Prussian Army Corps 1815 ,minimum Artillery units 4!! Surely this cannot be right (4 med bases, 2 heavy, 2 horse) Seems really restrictive must have 4 divisions and never use div from the guard corps because you already have 4 divisions?

Or I have missed some TON errata?

bahdahbum
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:40 pm

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by bahdahbum » Sat Dec 27, 2014 12:00 pm

I found an answer for the DB 1815 rifles . They are in the West indian brigade :-) . They took no part at the Waterloo campaign but they did latter . So historically speaking, they should only be available to the DB Corps .

B. West Indian jäger

Short dark green coat with lapels closed with 7 yellow buttons, piped yellow. Yellow collar piped green. Cuffs, cuff-flaps and turnbacks yellow. Epaulettes green fringed yellow and a yellow horn embroidered for corporals and jägers; NCO's fringed gold and a gold horn embroidered. Dark grey breeches, black shoes. Black French shako with brass shako plate (hunting horn with in it the letter 'W', above it a crown), orange cockade without loop and yellow button. Jagers had a green pompon, flankers a green pompon with yellow top and yellow shako cords. light brown leather pack with black straps. Black belts, black cartridge box. Armed with a rifle and a sword bayonet. Also short infantry sabres were issued. Black musket-slings.

Philip
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:21 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by Philip » Sat Dec 27, 2014 7:45 pm

pugsville wrote:Prussian Army Corps 1815 ,minimum Artillery units 4!! Surely this cannot be right (4 med bases, 2 heavy, 2 horse) Seems really restrictive must have 4 divisions and never use div from the guard corps because you already have 4 divisions?

Or I have missed some TON errata?
This is the errata that fixes the problem with this list:
Page 144: Prussian Guard Reserve Corps (Table)
6pdr field artillery/12pdr field artillery (Minimum Bases)
MERGE: Both minima (“4” & “2”) to a single “3”

Errata to the Errata - Page 144 is the Prussian Infantry Corps not the Guard Corps.

Russ1664
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:15 pm

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by Russ1664 » Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:52 pm

Austrian Army Corps 1812

Page 62. Points cost of Grenadiers should be 10 not 13

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4173
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by deadtorius » Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:31 pm

looks like they mixed it up with the cost for reformed grenadiers. You are correct. 10 points it should be

Russ1664
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:15 pm

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by Russ1664 » Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:30 pm

Page 104 Austrian Reserve Corps

I think there is an inconsistency in the core cavalry section with Cuirassiers not covered in the Dec 2014 errata?

The cost of the second row Cuirassiers - Heavy cavalry, Superior, Drilled, Shock is costed at 20 points. I think it should be 17 (10+4+3) However, is it the definition that should be changed?

If they were Veterans then they would be, Heavy cavalry, Superior, Veteran, Shock costing (13+4+3) i.e. the 20pts. I'd welcome clarification on which is correct.

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: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by KendallB » Sat Feb 28, 2015 7:48 am

My opinion is that the grading is always correct but the points need to be confirmed.

Russ1664
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:15 pm

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by Russ1664 » Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:30 pm

Yes my thoughts also.... but you can always hope!

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: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by pugsville » Tue May 26, 2015 6:05 pm

Just on initiative levels what are the supposed to represent? Aggressiveness? Or ability to set the terms of Battle

Why is Russian Infantry Corps of 1812 a 1? The decision to avoid fighting superior numbers is situational. The Russian forces generally were skillful in there movements I dont see why they should be marked down. The French were running away in the second half of the campaign why are they not lower initiative for that?

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by hazelbark » Tue May 26, 2015 8:25 pm

pugsville wrote:Just on initiative levels what are the supposed to represent? Aggressiveness? Or ability to set the terms of Battle

Why is Russian Infantry Corps of 1812 a 1? The decision to avoid fighting superior numbers is situational. The Russian forces generally were skillful in there movements I dont see why they should be marked down. The French were running away in the second half of the campaign why are they not lower initiative for that?
Let's see in 1812 the Russians conducted how many offensive battles?
Nearly all would be Cavalry Corps during the retreat.
Certainly not any of the actions around the major battles.

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4173
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by deadtorius » Wed May 27, 2015 12:25 am

Brings up a question that has always bothered me, in 1805 the Allies made the first move towards the french at Austerlitz. Yet they have to be the ones standing still during almost all 1805 games as they have a low initiative. Granted Nappy drew them into a trap and he managed to exploit their movements to his advantage, probably one of his best performances. 1809 Austria takes the initiative and moves into Bavaria. At Eggmuhl they attacked the French positions. At Aspern Essling they once again moved on the french. Similar thing at Wagram. However in 90% of our games my Austrians are defending and must stand and wait for the French to move on them.

I agree with Russia. In 1812 from what I read it seemed the Russians were normally encountered by the French waiting for the enemy to arrive so in some kind of prepared position type situation as it were. During the retreat it seems like a mostly Cossack battles even but agree it was the cavalry that was able to keep up with the French.

MDH
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: Triumph of Nations Errata

Post by MDH » Wed May 27, 2015 1:32 pm

deadtorius wrote:Brings up a question that has always bothered me, in 1805 the Allies made the first move towards the french at Austerlitz. Yet they have to be the ones standing still during almost all 1805 games as they have a low initiative. Granted Nappy drew them into a trap and he managed to exploit their movements to his advantage, probably one of his best performances. 1809 Austria takes the initiative and moves into Bavaria. At Eggmuhl they attacked the French positions. At Aspern Essling they once again moved on the french. Similar thing at Wagram. However in 90% of our games my Austrians are defending and must stand and wait for the French to move on them.

I agree with Russia. In 1812 from what I read it seemed the Russians were normally encountered by the French waiting for the enemy to arrive so in some kind of prepared position type situation as it were. During the retreat it seems like a mostly Cossack battles even but agree it was the cavalry that was able to keep up with the French.

I am a bit two ways about this whole initiative attacker/ defender conundrum we get in many rules sets. It is partly a function of " I go you go" which is itself totally artificial but it is a handy game mechanism for an artificial game - which equal points games are by definition. War ain't golf or horse racing with handicaps- or tennis with " seeding" . No level playing fields . So its bound to be a bit artificial.

D rolls ought to help but the combination of a high I rating and exceptional generals can make it a bit predictable. Maybe we should set a maximum and/or a minimum plus on the d-roll of 3 and 5 respectively so the worst case is not more than a net difference of +2? But see the new set up proposals!

When doing a historical reconstruction you can of course, in the game design, decide who has the initiative as at Austerlitz and dispense with d rolls and indeed all the set up stuff or pick and choose. .

The only rationale in a Corps game is, one assumes, that there are engagements going on either flank, and that in one sector of larger battle field one side will be going forward and the other holding , one side maybe probing or even both sides not doing much at all . It was pretty rare for both armies to be attacking at the same time and at the same place - intentionally at any rate . Even in encounter battles one side eventually settled into a more defensive posture than the other . Wagram over two days was back and forth.

You can view many large battles as a series of theatrical "acts" which play themselves out but that is ex post hoc observation.

Many year back in the early days of Wargames Developments one guy came u with the idea of the " variable bound" but I cannot recall quite how that worked!

Post Reply

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