FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Blathergut, Slitherine Core
-
- Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
- Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada
FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
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.
Also, surely unreformed, with a skirmisher attachment, defending a building are equivalent to reformed...re chart on page 31.
-
- Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:38 am
- Location: Melbourne
Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
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.
-
- Corporal - Strongpoint
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:41 am
Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
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.
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.
-
- Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:38 am
- Location: Melbourne
Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
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.
-
- Field Marshal - Elefant
- Posts: 5875
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
- Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
Just keep it simple. Four dice for everything seems good.
-
- Corporal - Strongpoint
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:41 am
Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
I'd give large units an extra dice. They should have an advantage as they cost 50% more.
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
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.
-
- Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
- Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada
Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
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.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.
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.
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
- Posts: 1266
- Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
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.
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.
-
- Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
- Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada
Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
With respect to unreformed defenders returning fire at medium range....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.
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.
-
- 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
I'm a fan of option 9. No shooting to or from buildings outside of 2" for infantry. Artillery only.
Martin
Martin
Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
My fear would be that this would make buildings a death-trap for any troops defending them.marty wrote:I'm a fan of option 9. No shooting to or from buildings outside of 2" for infantry. Artillery only.
Martin
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
-
- 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
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
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
- Posts: 1266
- Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
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.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
-
- Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
- Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada
Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
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.BrettPT wrote: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.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
-
- Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:38 am
- Location: Melbourne
Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
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.
-
- Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
- Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada
Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
Sold!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.
-
- Field Marshal - Elefant
- Posts: 5875
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
- Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
sounds good
-
- Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:38 am
- Location: Melbourne
Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
If I'm not mistaken, this will mean heavy artillery attachments no longer have any point of difference versus medium attachments?
-
- Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
- Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada
Re: FoGN v2 Firing out of Buildings
Oops. Maybe need to reconsider. If v1 isn't broken why are we changing it?richafricanus wrote:If I'm not mistaken, this will mean heavy artillery attachments no longer have any point of difference versus medium attachments?