FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

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

Moderators: hammy, terrys, Blathergut, Slitherine Core

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

FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by shadowdragon » Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:02 pm

I can't say I agree with unreformed infantry (with no skirmisher or artillery attachment) being unable to fire at reformed infantry at medium range. They should at least be able to return fire. In the open it makes sense that they can't reply due to issues around volley fire and fire discipline but within buildings those issues do not apply. So, as proposed reformed infantry can stand off at medium range and whittle away the cohesion of reformed building defenders with impunity. Are skirmishers in the open that much better than unreformed infantry in a building when both are within musket range? Can't agree with this at all. I understand the discussion in the forum that led to this, but unreformed or not infantry defenders of a building should not be more vulnerable to infantry in the open...no matter how many skirmisher they have. This needs more thought otherwise it will dramatically affect unreformed armies ability to defend buildings.

Also, surely unreformed, with a skirmisher attachment, defending a building are equivalent to reformed...re chart on page 31.

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

Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by richafricanus » Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:16 am

Brett and I have chatted on the whole firing & buildings question and as Shadow and Pug have highlighted it's all quite complicated. To simplify it we're proposing everything fires with 4 dice in and out, inf up to medium range, guns up to long range, and everyone ignores attachments and unit sizes for working out firing dice. This would mean that cav units with artillery attachments couldn't fire at buildings and infantry with artillery attachments wouldn't fire at units occupying. These feel like rare enough occurrences to ignore for simplicity's sake.

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

Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by Daemionhunter » Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:35 pm

The simplification in many respects is good. However, large artillery units are unfairly penalised when shooting at buildings, in particular large heavy units.

A small unit of medium artillery for 40 points gets 4 shots at a building rising to 5 with an attachment. A large heavy unit for 72 points only so gets 4 shots albeit hitting on 5s rather than 6s.

Large units should get an extra shot. In particular large artillery should be getting more shots. As this is now being presented with in a table it should be relatively easy to add another column without making it too hard for games to interpret. I think this added complexity is well within the capacity of most gamers.

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

Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by richafricanus » Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:03 am

But then do we allow large infantry units a fifth dice as well? And do large units in buildings fire with 5 dice against each opponent? This wasn't broken in v1 so I'm not sure we should be changing it, and at the same time giving large units another advantage.

Blathergut
Field Marshal - Elefant
Field Marshal - Elefant
Posts: 5734
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada

Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by Blathergut » Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:40 am

Just keep it simple. Four dice for everything seems good.

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

Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by Daemionhunter » Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:48 am

I'd give large units an extra dice. They should have an advantage as they cost 50% more.

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

Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by hazelbark » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:30 pm

The argument of size not mattering is that only a certain number of troops could be brought to bear on any one side of a village.

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

Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by shadowdragon » Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:03 pm

hazelbark wrote:The argument of size not mattering is that only a certain number of troops could be brought to bear on any one side of a village.
Eugene at Sacile and Jerome at Waterloo are good examples of more troops not being much of an advantage. On the other hand Massena at Aspern-Essling is a good example where leadership and management of reserves show how a smaller force can hold a long time.

When I did analysis of armoured-manoeuvre warfare for the military it was a rule that urban areas were 'sinks' that could suck in nearly unlimited numbers of troops - such is the nature of the complex geography. Standard doctrine was to bypass and isolate.

Basically, if it's not broken don't fix it. There are plenty of reasons that large units are worth the price. They don't have to have a 1.5 advantage in every situation but should across all situation. After all they still get to ignore a hit and in the built up area combat they don't have the disadvantage of enemy ganging up on them. It's one on one. Since the ignore one hit is to mitigate the ganging up problem, they should lose it if they get more dice in built up area combat.

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

Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by BrettPT » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:25 pm

Good discussion.
Will have a chat with Richard but I find Shadows' comments on large units pretty compelling.

On unreformed shooting at medium range from buildings:
I'm not sure that defenders being able to shoot at medium range - or not - makes much difference to building survivability.
The defenders will be receiving 6+ to hit shots from reformed opponents regardless and will be start losing cohesion if enough outside units can concentrate fire on the building.

Your argument is based around the defender's shooting reducing the cohesion of their outside opponents, which will consequently reduce the incoming fire. However with 4 defending dice at 6+ to hit, you only have about a 1/7 chance of doing the 2 hits needed to drop each opponents a level. So not much chance of knocking cohesion off the units outside.

Without revisiting all the conceptual discussions and justifications that were discussed in early v1 days about unreformed shooting out of buildings, we're aiming for consistency & simplicity wherever possible.

(a) Unreformed not shooting from a building at medium range is consistent with them not shooting at medium range generally.
(b) An alternate argument is that allowing unreformed to shoot at medium range from a building would be consistent with units generally being able to shoot at medium range from a building!

Will continue to discuss.

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

Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by shadowdragon » Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:58 am

BrettPT wrote:Good discussion.
Will have a chat with Richard but I find Shadows' comments on large units pretty compelling.

On unreformed shooting at medium range from buildings:
I'm not sure that defenders being able to shoot at medium range - or not - makes much difference to building survivability.
The defenders will be receiving 6+ to hit shots from reformed opponents regardless and will be start losing cohesion if enough outside units can concentrate fire on the building.

Your argument is based around the defender's shooting reducing the cohesion of their outside opponents, which will consequently reduce the incoming fire. However with 4 defending dice at 6+ to hit, you only have about a 1/7 chance of doing the 2 hits needed to drop each opponents a level. So not much chance of knocking cohesion off the units outside.

Without revisiting all the conceptual discussions and justifications that were discussed in early v1 days about unreformed shooting out of buildings, we're aiming for consistency & simplicity wherever possible.

(a) Unreformed not shooting from a building at medium range is consistent with them not shooting at medium range generally.
(b) An alternate argument is that allowing unreformed to shoot at medium range from a building would be consistent with units generally being able to shoot at medium range from a building!

Will continue to discuss.
With respect to unreformed defenders returning fire at medium range....

1) We don't explicitly depict skirmishers and use an abstraction that they are up to 4 MU in front of the marked supports, which informs the rules but has to be balanced with other issues such as playability and simplicity.

2) Consistency is desired but has several dimensions - historically, playability, internal rule consistency.

3) In terms of historical consistency - muskets don't change ranges just because a unit is reformed or unreformed but there's a compromise. Medium range engagement between reformed infantry could in theory be up to 10 MU since medium range engagements will likely be skirmisher on skirmisher where both sides skirmishers could be up to 4 MU ahead plus the basic 2 MU range = 10 MU, but we gain internal rule consistency and don't really lose much if we restrict such engagements to a common 6 MU medium range - after all the skirmishers COULD be up to 4 MU ahead but don't have to be. When it comes to medium range engagements between reformed and unreformed infantry, we know that the unreformed troops didn't waste volleys or such volleys were ineffective - perhaps because the opposing skirmishers could hear the commands and anticipate the fire. So, despite skirmishers being within musket range of unreformed line troops not giving the unreformed troops a return fire capability is consistent with historical results.

4) When it comes to unreformed troops defending buildings, we are no longer in a situation where volley firing applies. The defenders are using aimed fire, not dissimilar to the aimed fire of skirmishers even if the unreformed troops aren't as good as the reformed skirmishers - however, the greater defensive benefits of buildings probably balances out the difference in ability. The key point here is that the reformed skirmishers are far more vulnerable to the reformed defenders than when facing them in the open...there are good historical examples.

5) But does it make a difference? If not, keep the internal rule consistency that unreformed troops can't shoot at medium range.

6) However, despite the 1/7 chance for one-on-one engagements, it does make a difference when there are 2 or 3 enemies firing at medium range. There's a 1/4 change of the defender causing at least one of the opponents to lose cohesion if there are two of them and about 40% if there are 3 of them. (I'm assuming that 2 to 3 would be typical if the enemy is serious about defeating the building defenders. I might also point out that the chance of the defender losing cohesion is about the same.

7) Taking away the defender's ability to return fire gives their opponents a pretty good chance of whittling the defender down to wavering with no cost to those opponents. Perhaps it might take 4 or 5 turns which is probably too long a time to waste in a competition game, but I play exclusively scenario or historical games which typically go on much longer than tournament games.

8 ) One alternative, is that unreformed building defenders get to fire at medium range only at infantry capable of firing at them but not at other troops. Perhaps too complicated but I think it's more reflective of actual engagements. I think it was unreformed troops defenders firing at artillery that initiated the discussion on the boards. Fair enough, but my preferred option is to keep as it is in v1, which is your second consistency point.

9) There's another option - infantry fire to and from buildings at medium range is ineffective for both reformed and unreformed, which is probably the most realistic of the options.

10) That doesn't mean we can't test your first option of unreformed not firing at medium range. However, a scenario needs to be designed to test that specific point. Perhaps a refight of Sacile.

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: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by marty » Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:58 am

I'm a fan of option 9. No shooting to or from buildings outside of 2" for infantry. Artillery only.

Martin

Saxonian
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:00 am

Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by Saxonian » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:55 am

marty wrote:I'm a fan of option 9. No shooting to or from buildings outside of 2" for infantry. Artillery only.

Martin
My fear would be that this would make buildings a death-trap for any troops defending them.
Artillery unit (or units - they have to be in one division now) blazes away with relative impunity, while the assault infantry sit happily within charge distance but out of close range until the defenders waver, at which point they charge in.
This obviously requires committing your artillery to the job, but if you decide that possession of that particular town is crucial, it simplifies the process

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: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by KendallB » Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:07 pm

Only firing at close range dramatically reduces the building's zone of cotrol to a point where it is easy to ignore the enemy in it

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

Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by BrettPT » Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:21 pm

KendallB wrote:Only firing at close range dramatically reduces the building's zone of cotrol to a point where it is easy to ignore the enemy in it
This is important to my mind. While the defenders may not cause much in the way of cohesion loss at 6MU, they do have a zone of annoyance with a reasonable chance of doing a single hit and forcing CMTs to advance.

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

Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by shadowdragon » Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:40 pm

BrettPT wrote:
KendallB wrote:Only firing at close range dramatically reduces the building's zone of cotrol to a point where it is easy to ignore the enemy in it
This is important to my mind. While the defenders may not cause much in the way of cohesion loss at 6MU, they do have a zone of annoyance with a reasonable chance of doing a single hit and forcing CMTs to advance.
Agree. The zone of control is a persuasive argument for keeping a 6 mu range. Plus my reading of battle accounts suggests that both reformed and unreformed defenders sent out small parties to disrupt the enemy. Perhaps not formally skirmishers but having a similar medium range effect.

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

Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by richafricanus » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:41 pm

We have tried to avoid fixing what isn't broken in working up the v2 changes and I think this is a good example of where we are at risk of introducing changes unnecessarily. I've chatted to Brett and we think we should stay with the early simpler proposal in this thread to allow all units that shoot to or from buildings 4 dice, ignoring unit sizes, attachments and POAs. All infantry units shoot up to medium range and artillery units to long range.

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

Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by shadowdragon » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:43 pm

richafricanus wrote:We have tried to avoid fixing what isn't broken in working up the v2 changes and I think this is a good example of where we are at risk of introducing changes unnecessarily. I've chatted to Brett and we think we should stay with the early simpler proposal in this thread to allow all units that shoot to or from buildings 4 dice, ignoring unit sizes, attachments and POAs. All infantry units shoot up to medium range and artillery units to long range.
Sold!

Blathergut
Field Marshal - Elefant
Field Marshal - Elefant
Posts: 5734
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada

Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by Blathergut » Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:10 am

sounds good

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

Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by richafricanus » Sat Mar 11, 2017 12:23 pm

If I'm not mistaken, this will mean heavy artillery attachments no longer have any point of difference versus medium attachments?

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

Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings

Post by shadowdragon » Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:51 pm

richafricanus wrote:If I'm not mistaken, this will mean heavy artillery attachments no longer have any point of difference versus medium attachments?
Oops. Maybe need to reconsider. If v1 isn't broken why are we changing it?

Post Reply

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