Search found 37 matches
- Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:55 pm
- Forum: Rules Questions
- Topic: Direction of retire
- Replies: 18
- Views: 5623
Re: Direction of retire
I like this bi-setting angle solution
- Sat Sep 20, 2014 3:22 am
- Forum: Rules Questions
- Topic: Rear support -effect
- Replies: 6
- Views: 1830
Re: Rear support -effect
Interesting I cannot see in the rules where there is a limit to + or - dice - happy if you could point me in the relight direction. If I apply the rules, as written, then Unit has rear support +1 and each opponent -1 So 2 attackers both with support would mean -2 If the rules said Unit has rear supp...
- Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:18 am
- Forum: Rules Questions
- Topic: Rear support -effect
- Replies: 6
- Views: 1830
Rear support -effect
Unit A is attacked by units X and Y, both X and Y are supported by Z
X gets +1 for support and A -1
Y gets +1 for support and A -1
So A loses 2 die.
Did we get it right ?
X gets +1 for support and A -1
Y gets +1 for support and A -1
So A loses 2 die.
Did we get it right ?
- Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:19 pm
- Forum: Army Design
- Topic: Polish List
- Replies: 5
- Views: 1492
Re: Polish List
I would agree with edb1815
My understanding is also that the REFORMED status included intrinsic light infantry.
Paul
My understanding is also that the REFORMED status included intrinsic light infantry.
Paul
- Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:53 am
- Forum: Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion
- Topic: Game time
- Replies: 5
- Views: 1984
Game time
How long are people finding that it takes to play a game.
Say 800pts
From the games I have played - none to completion because of time - it looks like 4-4.5 hrs
Say 800pts
From the games I have played - none to completion because of time - it looks like 4-4.5 hrs
- Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:05 am
- Forum: Rules Questions
- Topic: Passing through squares
- Replies: 9
- Views: 1850
Re: Passing through squares
I can only hope that you didn't get it right. Far too "gamey", the square has fought (with ineffectual results) so why fight again ! If its 61mm then there is a completely different outcome. What if its 59mm ? I think that the pursuit/passthrough move is afteer passing through. So the seco...
- Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:08 am
- Forum: Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion
- Topic: French v Prussian (1813)
- Replies: 5
- Views: 1490
Re: French v Prussian (1813)
Not so flexible
"declare all firers against a specific target"
means that that you cannot see the result and then add more.
If the factors are the same you don't then need to fire all in turn - just roll all in one go.
"declare all firers against a specific target"
means that that you cannot see the result and then add more.
If the factors are the same you don't then need to fire all in turn - just roll all in one go.
- Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:23 am
- Forum: Rules Questions
- Topic: Rules ??: Capable of Firing??
- Replies: 3
- Views: 928
Re: Rules ??: Capable of Firing??
Terry only in your own turn. You fire 2nd in youropponents turn, so if he didn't pivot during his own phase he would not be 'capable of firing at them this phase.' The rules (pg 51) don't say that artillery can only pivot in their own turn. It just says that (in the fire phase) artillery can pivot f...
- Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:10 am
- Forum: Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion
- Topic: French v Prussian (1813)
- Replies: 5
- Views: 1490
Re: French v Prussian (1813)
Mike Thx. Had thought that might be for Cav. It has some impact as its possible to take a hit and not lose cohesion then for the pursuit (2nd combat). The shooting section mainly deals with multiple targets rather than multiple shooters. The issue was having seen the cumulative hits you could pivot ...
- Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:41 am
- Forum: Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion
- Topic: French v Prussian (1813)
- Replies: 5
- Views: 1490
French v Prussian (1813)
Used John's list from the Army spreadsheet, the forces gave a good balanced game. The French defended and baring some small maneuver waited for the Prussians.Used the light infantry in skirmish to mask units from some artillery and to occupy some bad going in the centre of the table that the Prussia...
- Sun May 27, 2012 9:04 am
- Forum: Rules Questions
- Topic: Combat , support and 2nd combat
- Replies: 11
- Views: 2066
Re: Combat , support and 2nd combat
Alan
I would agree, many people in the club(s) I am involved with do just what you say. I am sure that I have already seen a copy on eBay
I would agree, many people in the club(s) I am involved with do just what you say. I am sure that I have already seen a copy on eBay
- Fri May 25, 2012 1:10 pm
- Forum: Rules Questions
- Topic: Combat , support and 2nd combat
- Replies: 11
- Views: 2066
Re: Combat , support and 2nd combat
Mike Your suggestion Move assaulters to 2 MU (sometimes less); Resolve Defensive Fire against each assaulter by defender, suppports, and units having the assault path to contact within their firing arc (max 1 DF per firer). If CMT failed/not taken, then Cav+Arty Att may and Inf must remain at 2 MU (...
- Fri May 25, 2012 10:06 am
- Forum: Rules Questions
- Topic: Combat , support and 2nd combat
- Replies: 11
- Views: 2066
Re: Combat , support and 2nd combat
what or where is 32891 ? How do I find it ? If units other than those being assaulted fire in the assault phase (as part of charge reaction) then this [to me] is a news and changes many things ....... should they not also then have to take a reaction test ! So if artillery and wish to fire - they ma...
- Fri May 25, 2012 8:06 am
- Forum: Rules Questions
- Topic: Combat , support and 2nd combat
- Replies: 11
- Views: 2066
Re: Combat , support and 2nd combat
I am not sure how the second (non target) artillery unit would fire. The target does not fire - so it cannot get support (+2 dice). As there is no fire (in the assault phase) the cavalry move to contact So we move to the general fire phase. The rules (pg 48) specifically state that the cavalry is NO...
- Thu May 24, 2012 9:21 am
- Forum: Rules Questions
- Topic: Deployment
- Replies: 15
- Views: 3061
Re: Deployment
Mike The 3 x 3 just takes too long. As I said, there may be some need for detachment but in real terms what are we considering 1. irregulars or light infantry in a terrain feature 2. building this could be managed. I took it that the 3 x 3 model (and division limitation) was simulating a column of m...
- Thu May 24, 2012 5:39 am
- Forum: Rules Questions
- Topic: Deployment
- Replies: 15
- Views: 3061
Deployment
In the games played so far one main criticism from all has been deployment. the 3 x 3 method just seems to long winded. The division criteria is great so why not just deploy division by division. Suggestion would be Deploy 1 division at a time, each unit to be deployed in command (maybe some allowan...
- Wed May 23, 2012 2:24 pm
- Forum: Rules Questions
- Topic: Combat , support and 2nd combat
- Replies: 11
- Views: 2066
Combat , support and 2nd combat
Interesring second full game. As always interesting situations occur. I charged an artillery battery, most likely getting in the flank. To do this a moved across the front of another artillery battery. We could not find any rules that allows the battery I crossed to do anything, if I contact the fla...
- Tue May 22, 2012 2:31 am
- Forum: Rules Questions
- Topic: Rallying Artillery: Rare??
- Replies: 7
- Views: 1833
Re: Rallying Artillery: Rare??
I thought a commander only had to be within 4MU of a unit to recover cohesion, the commander did not have to attach.
Why would not any Artillery commander be able to attach to artillery ? Many armies (France, Russia) had specific Artillery generals.
Why would not any Artillery commander be able to attach to artillery ? Many armies (France, Russia) had specific Artillery generals.
- Wed May 09, 2012 3:06 pm
- Forum: Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion
- Topic: Borodino
- Replies: 10
- Views: 2368
Re: Borodino
Mike
A good resource - it was my starting point. OB's close to Nafziger. Map isn't scaled, used 4miles from another source. Based on this map/deployment I will need 4 miles x 4 miles, while the venue could handle 8x8 my arms aren't that long.
Thx.
A good resource - it was my starting point. OB's close to Nafziger. Map isn't scaled, used 4miles from another source. Based on this map/deployment I will need 4 miles x 4 miles, while the venue could handle 8x8 my arms aren't that long.
Thx.
- Tue May 08, 2012 2:34 pm
- Forum: Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion
- Topic: Borodino
- Replies: 10
- Views: 2368
Re: Borodino
Was planning on an 8 x 6 with 15mm troops.
Plan to play test some sections to see if the scale and forces will work. I have used brigade basis and not regiments so I don't think figure density will be issue.
Plan to play test some sections to see if the scale and forces will work. I have used brigade basis and not regiments so I don't think figure density will be issue.