Extended line and unreformed

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

Moderators: hammy, terrys, Blathergut, Slitherine Core

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

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by Russ1664 » Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:14 pm

I think it would be an excellent idea to give an extended line of infantry more dice at short range, whether Reformed or unreformed infantry. The " single rank " page 107 definition is clearly intended to represent the units within the brigade being able to bring a higher proportion of muskets to bear on the enemy than brigades in tactical. Yet within the game this does not happen, as Deadtorius neatly summarised, there are many more disadvantages to the formation and only very few advantages (I would add reduced vulnerability to artillery at long range to advantages). Yet the original reason (firepower) for the formation is not reflected in the rules. In contrast the rules do allow, albeit large infantry units, to be in a deeper formation and to benefit from self supporting but at the expense of only shooting as a small unit.

So yes please to extra shooting dice (at short range) for extended units this would then give the players more tactical options to consider. How many dice would need to be determined and tested. However, I believe whether unreformed troops should be penalised as much as reformed troops when taking Cohesion and or Complex manoeuvre tests when in extended line is a separate issue.

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

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by shadowdragon » Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:51 pm

What you're proposing, Alastair, would mean the French and other reformed troops are stuck in columns when at close range no matter how long they stay there if they choose not to assault their opponents. As I understand it this wasn't really their doctrine. In addition it would put the French at a disadvantage to other unreformed troops such as early period Austrians, Russians, etc. when at close range. I don't see why the French should be caught and stuck in column if their unreformed opponents are in plain sight, without a heavy skirmisher screen and not well deployed to take advantage of terrain. I think there's some analysis (John Lynn) that shows a significant number of French attacks were in line, including Soult's attack in the Pratzen heights at Austerlitz; as well, I believe it's now accepted by many that the French advanced on the British at Maida in line not column, which has been used as the classic line versus column encounter.

I think if one puts the various FoG factors together for the British - better quality / substantial skirmisher advantage - and deploys well one does get the desired results. Certainly Dan's report from Cancon shows that...

viewtopic.php?f=197&t=55703

It's a fair point about point values though but I don't tend to play in tournaments so I'm agnostic on this issue. Probably there's a case to be made that the later (peninsula onwards) British infantry should just be reformed.

adonald
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:33 pm

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by adonald » Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:24 pm

I like the idea that unreformed units in EXTENDED LINE (not what I was talking about before, but I am now) not dropping a morale level for cohesion purposes if not on a hill. The difficulty in working through this in my mind is around - what IS extended line anyway? In the rules, unreformed troops are assumed to be in battalion line formations in their tactical footprint - that's why they move slower than reformed infantry that are assumed to be in battalion column formations within the tactical footprint.

So what IS extended line? Is it a brigade with all its battalions in line side by side, and no reserves? Or is it (say) only two lines of battalions in line formation? The first description was quite rare, even for unreformed troops. The second was very common - the second line being the reserve for the battalions in the first line. A brigade (FoGN unit) with all its battalion in a single line was very vulnerable to a flank attack (where Colbourne's brigade was rolled up by flanking French cavalry in the rain squalls at Albuera before it could form square) but it sure as hell can chuck out firepower.

Again reviewing previous posts, in the FoGN game an extended line fighting two reformed units in tactical will get hammered at close range, because the firepower from the extended line is spread over two units, while the returning firepower is absorbed by only one. It will likely break even if intact before the firefight. The only benefit of extended line in this case is that you are (briefly) tying down two units with one, but experience tells me that the skirmishing fire of the two approaching tactical units will badly damage the extended line unit (as it is only fighting at medium range as one unit). It’s adds insult to injury to have to recover cohesion losses at one level below your morale class.

At Australia’s National Convention at Cancon this year (where my Australian cousins were very gracious) I used a British Peninsula army, and from time to time I put my flanking infantry unit (or two) in extended line when under long range artillery fire (a number of my opponents had three artillery batteries) and I was happy to let them bang away at the extended line. They were veteran infantry, and would have tested as trained, but I only did it when my opponents had committed their cavalry in another battlefield sector, and my only threat was the long range artillery fire.

I’d NEVER use it at close range because of the effects I have described above. The extended line will die.

Perhaps unreformed troops should get an extra die or two in tactical formation to reflect their linear formations, which, if in extended line, will give them more dice as two unreformed units side by side. This would be in addition to retaining their morale classification. They’d still be weak against two reformed units coming in with their medium range firepower against the one extended line unit.

Maybe the easiest thing is make the British REFORMED again (they were in the beta test rules). It’s not like they aren’t already paying for it.

Alastair Donald

KeefM
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:08 am

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by KeefM » Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:30 pm

The key issue here is game effectiveness vs points cost.

If something is less effective in the game for the same points cost then the game becomes unbalanced. In this regard, both Richard and Alastair are correct to say that British infantry are disadvantaged - the 2MU movement reduction for the same points cost is significant in game terms.

Equally, the same is true about the cost effectiveness of rifles. For 4 points per small unit, you only lose 1 dice in the presence of cavalry AND get to shoot down generals on 5's. The difference is even more pronounced for rifle attachments for a mere 2 points more than a normal skirmisher and even more so for unreformed units.

adonald
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:33 pm

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by adonald » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:53 am

Equally, the same is true about the cost effectiveness of rifles. For 4 points per small unit, you only lose 1 dice in the presence of cavalry AND get to shoot down generals on 5's. The difference is even more pronounced for rifle attachments for a mere 2 points more than a normal skirmisher and even more so for unreformed units.
Thank you for the support on the British, but the rifles are minor - let it go.... :P I've never killed a general with my riflemen (although they may be avoiding me) and the whole cavalry reducing firing thing is another broken process - especially the cavalry attachments.

Alastair Donald

KeefM
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:08 am

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by KeefM » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:44 am

A 2 or 4 pt cost for a unit to increase its shooting effectiveness by having rifles by 25% should not be set to one side :-) !!

adonald
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:33 pm

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by adonald » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:52 pm

What you're proposing, Alastair, would mean the French and other reformed troops are stuck in columns when at close range no matter how long they stay there if they choose not to assault their opponents.
Yes, because at the moment the exact opposite is happening - the French ALWAYS form their firing line. If you find my proposition an unpalatable thought, think of it from the British point of view… and that’s the reality at the moment, not a proposition.
I don't see why the French should be caught and stuck in column if their unreformed opponents are in plain sight, without a heavy skirmisher screen and not well deployed to take advantage of terrain.
I did think the French players would twitchingly* react to this... :twisted:

It’s a problem when the rules don’t distinguish between the British ‘unreformed’ and (say) Austrian ‘unreformed’, except of course that the British are assumed to have a skirmish screen. However, the French DID struggle to form from column into line when under fire, particularly against the British. I don’t know enough about the Austrians, frankly, so I don’t know what they did to try and negate the French skirmish screens or whether they tried to prevent the French assault columns from forming line at close range (which was in the French drill manuals, but they didn’t always try to do). I’m talking about the British being doubly hit in the rules – having to pay full, reformed infantry price, but manoeuvring as if in line as unreformed troops, but getting NO benefit from it. At least the Austrians are cheaper!

Alastair

*involuntary facial ticks when confronted with an unpalatable truth...

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

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by deadtorius » Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:27 am

Never played British but I see your point regarding costs.

As for the Frenchies shaking out into line, I think MDH point was that the French move up to close in their movement phase. You get to shoot first, with your extended line you get to fire as 2 units so double dice. I am guessing the way he sees it progressing is that the French will each take enough hits to knock them down 1 level of cohesion (they can't shake out of column) or you drive at least one unit back with 3 hits, 4 if you are really lucky. In a perfect world I agree that would be the most likely outcome, however my own Austrians have failed to even hit close range French in past games (luck of the dice or lack of luck I guess) and then take a face full of dice and drop cohesion or get forced back themselves. Its happened to me many times, which is why I don't use extended line with Austians. Too risky in my books. So obviously in my case the French shook out and let my poor boys in white take a face full, probably because their officers were having orders translated into one of the 8 various languages of the Austrian army, and no one noticed what the French were doing.
So in a way one could say the game does mirror the ability or non ability of the french to shake out of column in an abstract fashion, through cohesion loss and thus lower number of shooting dice.
As for skirmisher attachments and cost, take those away from the unreformed army and you have no way of shooting at the French from medium range. As it is the French in our games often stop at medium range and blast away at my Austrians or early Russians. If I get knocked down to disordered trying to close is both difficult, CMT required, and dangerous, French get first shot next turn and I will be lucky to still be standing there after they do to return fire. Skirmisher attachments is the only way I can even out the medium range dice and in the case of the Austrian army each division can have 1 skirmisher and 1 artillery attachment. Put 3 units in a division and one of them is strictly close range shooting. Upping skirmisher attachment costs hurts the poor slow unreformed armies more than it does their reformed counterparts.
Like it or not, cavalry is one of the unreformed survival tactics as it reduces medium range shooting. In games where I use mixed divisions and put the horse up front, my survival time goes up compared to games or divisons that dont get the cavalry screen. I'm not sure what you would like to see regarding cavalry and attachments. As it is now its one of my main survival tactics with Austrians.

rambling thoughts at best.

adonald
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:33 pm

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by adonald » Thu Feb 05, 2015 2:27 am

You get to shoot first, with your extended line you get to fire as 2 units so double dice. I am guessing the way he sees it progressing is that the French will each take enough hits to knock them down 1 level of cohesion (they can't shake out of column) or you drive at least one unit back with 3 hits, 4 if you are really lucky.
Hmmm, I'm not talking about extended line here specifically, that's a red herring. And they rarely get double dice - a smart enemy will always ut two tactical units into one extended line. I'll spell it out:

I'm talking about units in tactical formation
Unreformed units in tactical are considered to be in a series of battalion lines (there's a diagram in the rules somewhere) - that's why they only move 4MU.
Therefore, there would be (say) 1,200 muskets (at two battalions 600 men strong) firing to the tactical footprint's front with two battalions in the rear as support (very conservative - it would usually be 'three up and one back').

Reformed units are considered to be in column, that's why they move at 6MU.
When they get to CLOSE RANGE if they are in column ('cos their moving 6MU), they are shooting with (say) 200 muskets to their front (two columns, one company wide each).
Against the 1,200 muskets of the unreformed tactical troops, 200 is 1/6th of the unreformed troops - BUT THEY BOTH GET THE SAME NUMBER OF DICE IN FOGN!
The authors assume that the reformed troops always shake out into line at their optimum range and NEVER have a problem with this - and yet it was the big issue with the French (reformed) and British/Portuguese (unreformed) in the Peninsula. I don't know if the French always shook out into line against the Austrians - but in the rules, they always do.

Given that the authors modelled the different movement rates at this level, why didn't they model the different firepower?

Especially since the British pay the same price as reformed troops, but are less capable.

I suggest that unreformed troops get an extra 2 dice at close range (6 dice) to reflect they are in battalion lines in the tactical base footprint - and that's a VERY conservative application of the scale of extra firepower that an unreformed tactical base has against a reformed tactical base - it even allows for the reformed troops shaking some of their battalions out into line - otherwise they'd be lucky to get one die at close range if they were entirely in columns.

The extended line issue only comes in when an unreformed unit is in such a line - it would then have 6 dice per half unit, or 8 dice if shooting at one target (support from the ther half unit). That would make an extended line more tenable. AND they shouldn't lose a CT die.

Thanks for the insights re: how Austrians cope.

Alastair

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

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by shadowdragon » Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:05 pm

adonald wrote:
What you're proposing, Alastair, would mean the French and other reformed troops are stuck in columns when at close range no matter how long they stay there if they choose not to assault their opponents.
Yes, because at the moment the exact opposite is happening - the French ALWAYS form their firing line. If you find my proposition an unpalatable thought, think of it from the British point of view… and that’s the reality at the moment, not a proposition.
I don't see why the French should be caught and stuck in column if their unreformed opponents are in plain sight, without a heavy skirmisher screen and not well deployed to take advantage of terrain.
I did think the French players would twitchingly* react to this... :twisted:

It’s a problem when the rules don’t distinguish between the British ‘unreformed’ and (say) Austrian ‘unreformed’, except of course that the British are assumed to have a skirmish screen. However, the French DID struggle to form from column into line when under fire, particularly against the British. I don’t know enough about the Austrians, frankly, so I don’t know what they did to try and negate the French skirmish screens or whether they tried to prevent the French assault columns from forming line at close range (which was in the French drill manuals, but they didn’t always try to do). I’m talking about the British being doubly hit in the rules – having to pay full, reformed infantry price, but manoeuvring as if in line as unreformed troops, but getting NO benefit from it. At least the Austrians are cheaper!

Alastair

*involuntary facial ticks when confronted with an unpalatable truth...
The diagrams are on page 83. The description says, "...based on their nation's use of line (l'ordre mince) or column (l'ordre profond) for battlefield manoeuvre." Note that one of the reformed diagrams has the regiment in l'ordre mixte (used by Desaix at Marengo and Suchet at Jena). My understanding of reformed is the greater number of skirmishers and greater tactical flexibility at brigade level - in part because of using columns for manoeuvre.

From everything I've searched out the French practice seems to have been to form a line (or to try to) when faced by a defender in good order but to close with the column of the defender was in disorder. Exactly what happened at Dennewitz...Ney's infantry approached the Prussians in column until at 80 yards and then formed line after which a firefight ensued.

References:

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infan ... tics_4.htm
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military ... maida.html

So, versus continental armies with their troops in plain sight, there's no twitching reaction. ;-)

What happens in the Peninsula versus the British? All the things you mentioned earlier...the French end up trying to form a line while at very close range to the British line; likely they are in disorder and end up facing a counter-charge by the British while in the middle of a formation change. All of this is below the level of abstraction of FoGN. The question is whether or not the rules reflect the results of that typical Peninsular engagement (taking into account all of the factors not just formation), if not, then something should be changed. Plus it has to apply to other theatres such as French versus unreformed continental armies such as the early war Prussians. (The Prussians are a good example of how they dealt with the problem...they adopted "reformed" tactics and organization after the disaster of 1806-07.)

I'm opposed to your suggestion of an extra 2 dice at close range for unreformed troops since it provides an advantage at all times not just the moment of a reformed unit assaults or merely moves into close fire range of an unreformed unit but also for all successive turns, even if the reformed attacker maintains good order, and even if the reformed unit is the defender against an unreformed attacker. Perhaps if the extra dice for unreformed infantry was just against an assaulting unit or the first time an attacker moves into close fire range - maybe - but that would have to be tested.

Definitely I would support either of reducing the price of British infantry. I would also see value in the British infantry being treated as reformed since I believe there is an argument that they were reasonably flexible at the brigade level when compared to 1806 Prussians.

P.S. I'm sure my 1806 Prussian troops would love those extra two dice you propose but sadly I don't think they deserve them. :D

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

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by shadowdragon » Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:50 pm

Anyway, Alastair, I think we are just circling the buoy...I will try not to repeat my arguments and I do indeed understand your point. :D

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

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by hazelbark » Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:17 pm

I think the big element of reformed versus unreformed is really the deployment of large numbers of skirmishers and more tactical maneuverability. I think the shaking out to line is worrying about stuff that isn't really to be factored in for the full picture.

1) I am fine making unreformed infantry a tad cheaper, but that needs to have perhaps less reward of attaching a skirmisher unit. Maybe increase the cost of these attachments in unreformed armies so they don't get as radical a boost.
2) I don't think the British troops need to be cheaper. I find these armies perfectly effective and viable.
3) The cavalry reducing firing is an interesting bit, but you're right something isn't right there. Some of which can be fixed by up costing he attachment and then also allowing the attachment to add a die in melee. But there are problems with that that link to the scale issue. Add further that cavalry deadening enemy skirmish fire was more of a byproduct than a doctrine.
4) Giving reformed infantry more dice at close range is something I would be cautious with. It main effect will be to cause more double drops or make these units more viable with disrupted and more capable to shooting away a cavalry charge. The later concerns me greatly. There is too much incentive for veteran infantry in good order to not form square.

Carriage
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:01 am

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by Carriage » Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:55 pm

I think if one puts the various FoG factors together for the British - better quality / substantial skirmisher advantage - and deploys well one does get the desired results. Certainly Dan's report from Cancon shows that...
2) I don't think the British troops need to be cheaper. I find these armies perfectly effective and viable.

I'm not sure I necessarily agree with these two comments. In response to the first, assembling fortress Spain gave me a good chance to not lose and obtain a small win, but in terms of actually trying to break the enemy corps to post the big wins to win the tournament, I think I would have had trouble. We also saw that in the game in Russia against Andreas. It seems like it's okay for casual games where the size of the win is less of an issue if you care about the win at all. I struggled to find a way to actually force a result especially when enemies back up 3 inches and I move forward 4. Alastair took a good amount of cavalry (perhaps historically too much) and this allowed him to pursue harder.

In response to the second, why do they need to be more expensive as current? As far as I can tell the bonuses that the British get are:
1. Easy access to many veterans, though not all lists
2. Easy access to rifles.
3. Placing attachments after deployment.
4. Moving faster in extended line compared to other reformed troops.

The first advantage may not actually be an advantage. To me it seems more difficult to use as all your men need to be involved. If you have a holding division avoiding a fight, drilled troops can not shoot just as well.
The second is good, but perhaps not worth as much as losing the movement? Austrians also have decent access and aren't penalised(?).
The third is an advantage and I'm not sure if other lists have it. It does allow flexibility, giving the attachments better value. However, I'm not sure this outweighs the movement.
The fourth, as discussed by many of you doesn't seem to be an advantage as it's rarely used.

I'm going to keep playing them regardless, but it does seem strange that they pay as much for arguably less.

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: Extended line and unreformed

Post by pugsville » Fri Feb 06, 2015 3:31 am

I would like to see something about british point costs. Currently they are overpriced for effectiveness. I would like them fully reformed or cheaper.

Carriage
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:01 am

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by Carriage » Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:06 am

The flip side is, is it unbalanced enough that it's worth releasing an errata for that people are going to have to know about/download?

adonald
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:33 pm

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by adonald » Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:56 am

The flip side is, is it unbalanced enough that it's worth releasing an errata for that people are going to have to know about/download?
I think so. That's why I raised it.

British, Portuguese and Hanoverians to be reformed (the Hanoverians are anyway in the German confederation list)
Extended Line not to drop a die for CTs
Note that one of the reformed diagrams has the regiment in l'ordre mixte
. The Anglo Portuguese did it too in the Peninsula.

Alastair

KeefM
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:08 am

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by KeefM » Sat Feb 07, 2015 2:03 am

2 extra dice at close range for unreformed infantry is most-assuredly NOT the answer IMHO . . . if so, then on average no small unit could ever close cos unreformed shooters would score 3 hits and drive you back to 3MU. Currently, on average, 2 hits forces a CMT to close.

I'd support Brits being either costed between unreformed and reformed OR being costed at the same as reformed but allowed reformed movement.

But, if so, then rifle costs also needs addressing: either by adding an additional point per base OR by reducing the shooting effects at medium range to-1 dice for all shooting whether by rifles or muskets. Or drop rifles as a distinction at all. After all, this level of detail should be way below the Corps level purported to being used by FoGN.

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

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by deadtorius » Sat Feb 07, 2015 2:44 pm

But, if so, then rifle costs also needs addressing: either by adding an additional point per base OR by reducing the shooting effects at medium range to-1 dice for all shooting whether by rifles or muskets. Or drop rifles as a distinction at all. After all, this level of detail should be way below the Corps level purported to being used by FoGN.
Dropping the benefit of a rifle then makes the extra points cost meaningless and then makes skirmisher attachments generic. At present with my Austrians I will gladly pay 10 points for a rifle attachment as opposed to a musket armed Grenzer attachment. It hardly makes a game breaker vs the French, who can still out shoot the Austrians at medium range. In the medium ranged shooting the unreformed are at a distinct disadvantage than any reformed opponent, especially if you don't have any friendly cavalry about. The Brits don't suffer from this problem as they can still shoot 3 dice at medium range. Its easier for reformed army to knock their unreformed opponents cohesion down and then close for the kill, including the 6MU charge if you drop the unreformed to wavering from med range. I still find it harder to win with my Austrians or to even successfully close to close range with them than it is for the reformed French to drop my cohesion then charge in or move up and shoot me from 2 MU and rout my units. Maybe its just dice luck, or lack there of on my part, but that is what my experience with unreformed has been.

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

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by shadowdragon » Sat Feb 07, 2015 3:53 pm

Carriage wrote:
I think if one puts the various FoG factors together for the British - better quality / substantial skirmisher advantage - and deploys well one does get the desired results. Certainly Dan's report from Cancon shows that...
I'm not sure I necessarily agree with [this comment]. In response to the first, assembling fortress Spain gave me a good chance to not lose and obtain a small win, but in terms of actually trying to break the enemy corps to post the big wins to win the tournament, I think I would have had trouble. We also saw that in the game in Russia against Andreas. It seems like it's okay for casual games where the size of the win is less of an issue if you care about the win at all. I struggled to find a way to actually force a result especially when enemies back up 3 inches and I move forward 4. Alastair took a good amount of cavalry (perhaps historically too much) and this allowed him to pursue harder.
My apologies, I didn't mean to misrepresent your report. I hadn't intend my comment to refer to the overall competitiveness of a British Peninsular army in a tournament but only to French (or other reformed) infantry attacking defending British infantry. It did seem to me in your reports that your French opponents either avoided or struggled against your defending infantry. I can see that it would be difficult to force a result against an opponent with lots of artillery and cavalry.

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

Re: Extended line and unreformed

Post by shadowdragon » Sat Feb 07, 2015 3:57 pm

KeefM wrote:Or drop rifles as a distinction at all. After all, this level of detail should be way below the Corps level purported to being used by FoGN.
I don't necessarily agree with that. It does seem to me that rifle units were, in some cases, treated like corps assets to be distributed to the divisions and brigades. Plus dropping the distinction would take away some game variety which is always pleasing - at least to me.

Post Reply

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