Quick General Question on concepts and formations

[Seldon]

So after reading and re-reading and after the first playtest in our group I have a couple of questions that are not really "rules" related but that would help me understand the design concepts of the game if the Authors can have a look and answer

So the concept of the tactical formation is very interesting and the examples in the reference section of how the battalions would form withing the foot print of a unit are great.. however with that in mind I have some questions regarding the extended line formation...

What does the extended line formation represent ? I assume it is not simply all battalions in line since indeed unreformed infantry are already considered in line, so is it something else ? Like Grand Bandes or what else ?

For example I am building a British army, but in general in most of my games I should expect my troops to be in tactical formation, not in extended line.. after all in tactical formation that would already represent for the brits deploying in line correct ?

It would also help me understand why it is harder to form square from extended line, since even reformed infantry could have some or all of their battalions in line ( when represented by tactical in the game ) if the brigade/regimental commanders think they should.. and it would be the same amount of time to form square as long as at least some of the battalions were in line... but since probably extended line represents something else then that is why it takes longer , right ?

It is easy for players used to the tactical game to see extended line, tactical and square as the tactical game's line , column and square but I believe that is not what the authors had in mind given how the rule mechanics work and given the pictures in the book .. am I wrong ?

Finally, I know we will get all the army lists that we need, but since the rules can apply to other theaters of war, War of 1812, South American Wars of independence, I was curious about another design concept..

Unreformed means they tend to maneuver in line and not have light companies skirmsihing
Reformed means both they know how to maneuver in column and also have light companies skirmishing..
( that is why the brits who maneuver in line but have intergral skirmishers move as unreformed but shoot as reformed ), so armies that were used to maneuver in column but did not use light companies ( maybe they just used third rank as skirmishers ).. would they move as reformed but shoot as unreformed?

Finally, since a unit is about three battalions, how should I represent a unit that has maybe 2 battalions with muskets and one battalion with rifles ? Is the rifle characteristic used as long as at least one of the "three" battalions have rifles or when they all have them and if only on has them simply use attachment with rifles ?

Again.. I know all this is not really rules related, but more related to design concepts that the authors have in their mind and not really necessary to play the game, but it would certainly help me when I plan my games and scenarios...

much appreciated,
Francisco

[hazelbark]

What does the extended line formation represent ? I assume it is not simply all battalions in line since indeed unreformed infantry are already considered in line, so is it something else ? Like Grand Bandes or what else ?

As a non-author it looks to me like a brigade mostly in line deployed to cover a wider than normal forntage. Not thinned ranks. But no local battalion in reserve.

For example I am building a British army, but in general in most of my games I should expect my troops to be in tactical formation, not in extended line.. after all in tactical formation that would already represent for the brits deploying in line correct ?

I think mostly tactical but extended looks powerful when defending a position like a hedge line or wall or obstacle.

so armies that were used to maneuver in column but did not use light companies ( maybe they just used third rank as skirmishers ).. would they move as reformed but shoot as unreformed?

The authors have elsewhere commented that they thought about this, but decided that most armies that behaved this way were also sluggish enough not to get the benefits of faster column movement.

Finally, since a unit is about three battalions, how should I represent a unit that has maybe 2 battalions with muskets and one battalion with rifles ? Is the rifle characteristic used as long as at least one of the "three" battalions have rifles or when they all have them and if only on has them simply use attachment with rifles ?

The way the game works. Rifles really has a minor effect. Slightly less effected by enemny cavalry and a better chance to kill officers. So some and all is irrelevant at this scale, which fits my theory of there use at a mass level in this period. Different from say 1864.

[terrys]

Seldon wrote:
What does the extended line formation represent ? I assume it is not simply all battalions in line since indeed unreformed infantry are already considered in line, so is it something else ? Like Grand Bandes or what else ?

As a non-author it looks to me like a brigade mostly in line deployed to cover a wider than normal forntage. Not thinned ranks. But no local battalion in reserve.

An extended is normally only used in a defensive situation where there is a defensive position and you wish to deploy all you regiments in line behind it - or on a hill. Rather than multiple line supporrting each other (as shown on page 83) there will be no battalions posted to the rear.
(which is why units on line lose a dice for Ct's). We made it harder to form square while in extended line (as a reaction move) for the following reasons:
1) Orders from the regimental officer have further to travel.
2) The quares, once formed, will be unable to provide support to each other and a cohesion loss is the best way to represent this.
It really just a mechanisim to simulate orders not arriving in time, or squares being formed in poor psitions due to curcumstances.

Finally, since a unit is about three battalions, how should I represent a unit that has maybe 2 battalions with muskets and one battalion with rifles ? Is the rifle characteristic used as long as at least one of the "three" battalions have rifles or when they all have them and if only on has them simply use attachment with rifles ?

The way the game works. Rifles really has a minor effect. Slightly less effected by enemny cavalry and a better chance to kill officers. So some and all is irrelevant at this scale, which fits my theory of there use at a mass level in this period. Different from say 1864.

There are 2 ways to do this:
1) Pay for the unit to have rifles.
2) Pay for a rifle attachment.
Both would give the unit the benefit of having rifles.
My preference in situations like this would be to pay for a rifle attachment, but include a single 'full' stand of rifles in the unit. You can then see that the unit is a mix of battalions of line and rifles rather than a standard line regiment with a company or 2 of rifles supporting it.

[timt9cole]

"Seldon wrote:
What does the extended line formation represent ? I assume it is not simply all battalions in line since indeed unreformed infantry are already considered in line, so is it something else ? Like Grand Bandes or what else ?


As a non-author it looks to me like a brigade mostly in line deployed to cover a wider than normal forntage. Not thinned ranks. But no local battalion in reserve.

An extended is normally only used in a defensive situation where there is a defensive position and you wish to deploy all you regiments in line behind it - or on a hill. Rather than multiple line supporrting each other (as shown on page 83) there will be no battalions posted to the rear.
(which is why units on line lose a dice for Ct's). We made it harder to form square while in extended line (as a reaction move) for the following reasons:
1) Orders from the regimental officer have further to travel.
2) The quares, once formed, will be unable to provide support to each other and a cohesion loss is the best way to represent this.
It really just a mechanisim to simulate orders not arriving in time, or squares being formed in poor psitions due to curcumstances"



If we look at the way British divisions deployed historically in the Peninsular War we can see they tended to go for two equal length lines (one supporting the other). So at Salamanca, the Fifth Division of three brigades (3 "Regiment" equivalents) had all of one brigade in the first line, all of another in the second line and the third spilt between the two. In FOGN terms this means a unit in extended line with a second unit in extended line behind it and the third unit on their right in tactical. This was the formation adopted for both defence and attack. It may be in FOGN that you need to take off your historical purists hat and fight with the three units in tactical side by side.

Regards
Tim

[Seldon]

Thanks for the answers, they are very helpful...

Tim, I would assume the same regarding the example you referenced... it looks as three tactical formations side by side would be the best way to represent this given that the line at Salamanca was indeed supported, so what you say makes sense.. I'm ok taking the historical purist hat as long as I am using the mechanics in the way the author intended them to work representing such a historical situation.

thanks
Francisco

[MikeHorah]

Finally, I know we will get all the army lists that we need, but since the rules can apply to other theaters of war, War of 1812, South American Wars of independence, I was curious about another design concept..

Unreformed means they tend to maneuver in line and not have light companies skirmsihing
Reformed means both they know how to maneuver in column and also have light companies skirmishing..
( that is why the brits who maneuver in line but have intergral skirmishers move as unreformed but shoot as reformed ), so armies that were used to maneuver in column but did not use light companies ( maybe they just used third rank as skirmishers ).. would they move as reformed but shoot as unreformed?

Finally, since a unit is about three battalions, how should I represent a unit that has maybe 2 battalions with muskets and one battalion with rifles ? Is the rifle characteristic used as long as at least one of the "three" battalions have rifles or when they all have them and if only on has them simply use attachment with rifles ?

Again.. I know all this is not really rules related, but more related to design concepts that the authors have in their mind and not really necessary to play the game, but it would certainly help me when I plan my games and scenarios...

much appreciated,
Francisco

It's less about knowing how and more about what their preferred doctine was and/or how good they were at it. For example in 1813 the newly raised provisional infantry in the Grande Armee in Germany did not actually train to form line just from column to square and back again ( because of the dire shortage of cavalry) but that was not the case with exisiting formations eg in Spain. They preferred the column of divisions to the line but their tactical regulations still allowed for a line . In the 1790s the move away from the line ( which was in in the French army 1791 regulations) was partly about the difficulties of the levee en masse maintaining formation when going forward less about when in defence or than actually forming it - and as Terry has siad forming square from line is slower .

re 1812 and S America. We have not lost sight of those campaigns although they are very different especially S America so maybe some rule mods would be be needed. I have had an interest in the Liberators ( Bolivar O'Higgins etc) for quite a while.Its a great period ( era?) to try to model. The main snag is the armies were so much smaller so some of FOG(N) may not work so well and just to shoe horn them in would not do full justice to that period I feel. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes - a two pint problem but worth the effort. Getting table top terrain to match would also be a challenge for some of the engagements in the Andes . Like Suvarov In the Alps.

Oh and FOG(N) units can very well be two (largish or full strength) battalions. If you look at page 110 you can see the number of men units represent. Certain types like riflemen tended not to be present in even whole Btn strength let alone more - more often distributed companies - attachments are a better way to represent them eg Austrian Jaegers and the 95th and 60th Rifles. If one thinks about it a whole Btn of rifles would not be very effective in a line of battle in the open (maybe better in buildlngs or behind walls or in woods ) as their rate of fire compared with muskets would be much slower than the rest making them vulnerable to assault. The longer range would not make up for it much and volley fire is controlled fire not fire at will aimed shots that specialist light infantry were trained to deliver and "shoot and scoot".

I get frustated when gamers turn up with several Btns of rifles in Grand Manner ( three of Austrian Jaegers out of 17 Btns the other week 100% of the whole in the regular Austrian army) Like machine gunners. That's why we need lists!

[david53]

I get frustated when gamers turn up with several Btns of rifles in Grand Manner ( three of Austrian Jaegers out of 17 Btns the other week 100% of the whole in the regular Austrian army) Like machine gunners. That's why we need lists!

Or all British Guards or all French Guard,

Lists are good,but not so good if I can't make all my Westphalian's Regiments foot Guard types

[Seldon]

Those are the kinds of insights into the author's point of view that I was looking for.. thanks to you both..

Indeed for San Martin and O'Higgins Fog-N is not an option. I have the full armies for the Chile campaign in 15mm, but this would default to 4 or 5 infantry units and 3 or 4 cav regiments in FOG-N.. For that I need to use a tactical system.. But eventually I might expand to the war on the north and though even there a tactical system would work better, for a large action like Carabobo Fog-N could be used to play it as a quick game ( for a convention for example)... So it was just out of general curiosity... in any case rifles were only present in the war in the north.. but... your comments help me to understand your concepts better..

For example, of course I discarded that line takes longer to form square, but my feeling was that there had to be something else regarding the extended line and the comment about the cohesion consideration of squares not supporting each other clarifies that...

thanks again

Francisco

[MikeHorah]

I get frustated when gamers turn up with several Btns of rifles in Grand Manner ( three of Austrian Jaegers out of 17 Btns the other week 100% of the whole in the regular Austrian army) Like machine gunners. That's why we need lists!

Or all British Guards or all French Guard,

Lists are good,but not so good if I can't make all my Westphalian's Regiments foot Guard types

I too persevere with my Westphalians on the assumption that I coud not possibly be as bad a general as Jerome but his ghost lingers. My two fine regiments of Cuirassiers were beaten hollow by British Light cavaly and line dragoons last week . Something to do with D Rolls....... he regularly throws 4x6's in 15 dice and I regularly fail to throw more than 2. And the Jerome Hussars and Guard lancers failed to rally when all I needed to do was throw a 2 or more. But the foot guards performed well so touche . Not FOG() so maybe I will do better there!

[Blathergut]

How do you get needing a 2 or better to improve cohesion? I only see 5+ on the chart!!!

[MikeHorah]

How do you get needing a 2 or better to improve cohesion? I only see 5+ on the chart!!!

As I said not FOG(N) - Grand manner - just proved the " curse of Jerome" lingerring on my army.

[edb1815]

Those are the kinds of insights into the author's point of view that I was looking for.. thanks to you both..

Indeed for San Martin and O'Higgins Fog-N is not an option. I have the full armies for the Chile campaign in 15mm, but this would default to 4 or 5 infantry units and 3 or 4 cav regiments in FOG-N.. For that I need to use a tactical system.. But eventually I might expand to the war on the north and though even there a tactical system would work better, for a large action like Carabobo Fog-N could be used to play it as a quick game ( for a convention for example)... So it was just out of general curiosity... in any case rifles were only present in the war in the north.. but... your comments help me to understand your concepts better..

For example, of course I discarded that line takes longer to form square, but my feeling was that there had to be something else regarding the extended line and the comment about the cohesion consideration of squares not supporting each other clarifies that...

thanks again

Francisco

I played in a South American liberation game at a convention and the author used LASALLE for the rules. I forget the battle, perhaps it was a "what if" scenario, but it was approximately 10 btns a side if memory serves. My understanding was that a battalion level game was perfect for those campaigns.

[Seldon]

haha.. what convention was that.. it could have been one of mine , I did Maipu ( historical, not what if ) at Cold Wars and at Millenium last year..
Tactical games are ideal for that level.. still for a few actions FOG-N can give a quick game..

Cold Wars



Millenium





Francisco

[edb1815]

If I recall correctly it was John Fletcher's game that I played in. It was at CW but in a different room.

[Seldon]

then you played with or against me it was Vilcapugio ran by John and also done with Lasalle ..





that battle is smaller than Maipu, so certainly not a FOG-N game

Small world