V2 Army Lists

[richafricanus]

In scope for version 2 is to update the army lists, primarily to reflect the revised points, but also to make revisions where appropriate. If anyone would like to send through recommendations for revisions, either on specific lists or general principles, please feel free to post them here for discussion, or send me a pm.

The more contributions we get, the better we can make the lists, so please contribute. I know of several players who didn't hold back in their criticism of certain lists when they first came out, so please don't hold back now!

[geoff]

I'm sure it's been mentioned before but the Russian Guard Cossacks need to be re-classified in all the lists they appear.
Instead of Irregular/Guard they should be average or superior/drilled/guard/lancers.

[marty]

The 1805 Austrian Army on the Danube is now even bigger and probably needs a fourth division. This is particularly the case as it can include a "reserve" mixed division of grenadiers and cuirassiers but can still only have 3 divisions.

Martin

[richafricanus]

Russian Guard Cossacks need to be re-classified in all the lists they appear.
Instead of Irregular/Guard they should be average or superior/drilled/guard/lancers.

Geoff, can you expand on this a bit. What are you basing this on?

The 1805 Austrian Army on the Danube is now even bigger and probably needs a fourth division. This is particularly the case as it can include a "reserve" mixed division of grenadiers and cuirassiers but can still only have 3 divisions.

Marty, shouldn't the command structure reflect the Austrian's poor command control in this period? If you're planning to take a pile of cr@p (not that YOU ever would ), it's going be hard to control.

[shadowdragon]

Russian Guard Cossacks need to be re-classified in all the lists they appear.
Instead of Irregular/Guard they should be average or superior/drilled/guard/lancers.

Geoff, can you expand on this a bit. What are you basing this on?

The 1805 Austrian Army on the Danube is now even bigger and probably needs a fourth division. This is particularly the case as it can include a "reserve" mixed division of grenadiers and cuirassiers but can still only have 3 divisions.

Marty, shouldn't the command structure reflect the Austrian's poor command control in this period? If you're planning to take a pile of cr@p (not that YOU ever would ), it's going be hard to control.

Re: guard Cossacks, see this discussion

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 69&t=38307

[richafricanus]

Okay thanks, that's clear. I will trawl through the history of the discussions on the forum as we update the lists, but I f anyone has any particular past discussions they want to push to the top of the list, please shout.

[richafricanus]

We are proposing to reclassify Austrian Grenz as either (at player's choice) Avg Drilled or Superior Conscript Reg light Infantry to reflect the role they really played. Anyone have any views on this?

[BrettPT]

Basis for the Grenz thinking:

1. They were Permanently organised into regiments, although of a militia variety.
2. Along with the Hungarian Grenadiers, their French enemies rated them highly.
3. They fought formed up as often as they fought in skirmish formation.
4. They seem to feature at the sharp end of assaults on villages.
5. Various authors note their 'warlike' demeanour.

There is little evidence of them being a horde of irregular skirmishers, suitable only for fighting/hiding in rough terrain (which is the troop type 'irregular light infantry' will represent).

My thinking is Superior Conscript LI. Superior because of their generally high morale, conscript because of their militia nature.
- With, perhaps, an option to make them average drilled - representing units that have been under the colours for a while. More experience in the field, but with their initial enthusiasm wearing off a bit.

[geoff]

Basis for the Grenz thinking:

1. They were Permanently organised into regiments, although of a militia variety.
2. Along with the Hungarian Grenadiers, their French enemies rated them highly.
3. They fought formed up as often as they fought in skirmish formation.
4. They seem to feature at the sharp end of assaults on villages.
5. Various authors note their 'warlike' demeanour.

There is little evidence of them being a horde of irregular skirmishers, suitable only for fighting/hiding in rough terrain (which is the troop type 'irregular light infantry' will represent).

My thinking is Superior Conscript LI. Superior because of their generally high morale, conscript because of their militia nature.
- With, perhaps, an option to make them average drilled - representing units that have been under the colours for a while. More experience in the field, but with their initial enthusiasm wearing off a bit.

Agree with this Brett. My own reading of 1805 and 1809 campaigns shows them performing very well on many occasions as drilled troops but in a light infantry type roll. That's not to say they weren't poor on occasion but so were some of the Austrian line troops.
As to grading, average drilled is probably best. The dice can take care of days when they performed above or below average. Happy with superior/conscript though if it goes that way.

[marty]

Leaving the history to one side for a moment, from a purely game point of view Superior Conscript is probably the most unfortunate rating a light infantry unit could get. They manage to be bad at what is most important to light infantry (skirmish fire) while still been expensive thank to the relatively useless superior rating (a re-roll on one for tests where you are only throwing one dice is crap and why spend all those points to be lights if you just want to charge people). I know superior is not going to be as expensive as before but still, a very unfortunate rating.

My reading of the history is that their morale tended to be variable and was as often poor as it was good.

Whatever you decide don't make superior conscript the only rating available, that would be a major kick in the teeth for all Austrian armies.

Marty, shouldn't the command structure reflect the Austrian's poor command control in this period? If you're planning to take a pile of cr@p (not that YOU ever would ), it's going be hard to control.

Well as they can only have one skilled divisional general their command is going to be a bit limited. I don't consider it a "Pile of Crap" army so much as a "wall of mediocrity" and it is worth remembering this is not a choice. The army has close to 30 bases of compulsory unreformed infantry almost none of which can be in large units. I field all the cav I can take, just about, including curassiers and the army is still huge. The list changes you are suggesting will allow the army only one unit of artillery ie forcing me to take even more infantry. There is little point spending points on attachments as you just cant get enough to matter (partially because they are purchased per division and they can only have 3). I may now have points to field a reserve division, with a bit of list tinkering, but if I did so my other divisions would go from very large to ridiculously large. Where is the reserve division coming from if the army still only has three divisions? As the Austrians didn't really have a formal corps structure at this point (or at least not one they stuck to) do we really need to force them to field huge divisions?

Martin

[BrettPT]

Just on the Grenz thing,

Superior Conscript Grenz will be 11 points a base (9 for conscript LI, +2 for being Superior).
Average Drilled Grenz will be 14 points a base.

Current thinking (well mine anyway) is to generally allow both options across the range of Austrian lists.

[marty]

Oh the version I have has them at 13. As long as both options are there its not a big problem.

Martin

[richafricanus]

Sorry Marty, that's a recent points change. Will issue a summary update soon, as well as a proof read full version to testers.

[marty]

Looking forward to it. Hoping to have another test game this weekend.

Martin

[Daemionhunter]

I like the additional flavour some Superior Conscript Light Infantry provides. 5 shots then in with the bayonet for 11 points a base, great value in a mixed division with an artillery attachment. Doesn't the 1813-1814 Austrian Infantry Division list allow two artillery attachments per division? 116 points for two units of Superior Conscript Light Infantry with artillery attachments and large unit of Average Drilled Hussars with an Officer marching behind them for another 60 points. March up with 12 dice from the infantry and then charge the cavalry through for the coup de grace!

[marty]

Not as sexy as it sounds. In any shooting system where you need a 5 to hit re-rolling 6's is a big problem. You just don't reliably generate hits. Superior conscripts are also not necessarily that great at charging people as in spite of the 1 hit reduction on hits as you charge if you need a CMT to close you only test on one dice. Strangely in FOG N the morale of a superior conscript is ie lower than average drilled because 2 dice is always better than one with a re-roll. Been a good assault unit in FOGN is often about how well you rally afterwards and all conscripts fail this test. If you are charging with the cavalry in the division you mention why bother paying for superior on the grenz at all?

At 11 points you would perhaps consider superior conscript grenz, but only if you really needed to save a few points. The Average drilled ones are just better. Best value of all are the poor drilled ones you can have currently.

It is a bit odd that in the current lists grenz are average or poor and they suddenly shift to superior.

Martin

[BrettPT]

It is a bit odd that in the current lists grenz are average or poor and they suddenly shift to superior.

Maybe Mike hadn't read Gill's 3 volumes on the 1809 campaign when he did the v1 lists?

v1 also has a definition for Elan (ie superior, average or poor) that created fuzzy thinking. v1 Elan description: Some troops were better fighters because of their morale, training and/or weapon skills. We have sharpened the definitions for v2 so that:

Elan rating = Morale.
Training rating = Training.

This clarifies thinking when classifying troops. Hi brave were they? (elan rating) and how well trained were they (training).

[BrettPT]

Strangely in FOG N the morale of a superior conscript is ie lower than average drilled because 2 dice is always better than one with a re-roll.

It should be remembered that a CT is a test to maintain or recover unit Cohesion. It's not unreasonable that the ability to pass a CT should in many cases be based principally on how well organised (ie training level) the unit is. Bravery helps of course.

Breaking a few CTs down:
Reacting to an assault - training more important than elan if forming square against cavalry; probably both of equal importance if standing and shooting; perhaps bravery more important if testing for being wavering
Seeing Routers - Elan probably more important
Being burst through - Training more important (need to open up those gaps)
Recovery - Training more important (trying to get the unit back into good order)

[marty]

Gill is definitely an awesome read on the 1809 campaign.

Some interesting insights in to your thinking on elan Vs training.

On the subject of conscripts how are you guys treating conscripts getting two dice for CT's when rear supported? I think it would be a simplification/improvement if this applied to all CT's even if the unit was supporting itself by been in a deep formation.

Martin

[BrettPT]

On the subject of conscripts how are you guys treating conscripts getting two dice for CT's when rear supported? I think it would be a simplification/improvement if this applied to all CT's even if the unit was supporting itself by been in a deep formation.Martin

We tossed this idea around as it would add consistency. However we have (for now at least) shelved it because large units have enough advantages as it stands without giving them another little buff.