NatCon 2013

[Philip]

Here are the results from NatCon 2013 (held in Upper Hutt, NZ).

We had six games of 4-hours duration held over three days.
800 point armies.

The winner of the competition was Keith Marshall, scoring 127 out of a possible 150 points.
Keith's French army also won the Best Painted Army prize, having been painted by Andrew Hunter.

1. Keith Marshall – French Infantry Corps d’Armée 1812 (127 points)
2. Kit Goldsbury – Anglo-Netherlands Army in Belgium 1815 (121)
3. Al Donald – Allied Army in Spain and France 1814 (83)
4. Philip Abela – Army of the Netherlands, Dutch-Belgian Reserve Corps 1815 (72)
5. Kendall Blue – Russian Army of Moldavia 1809 (59)
6. Brett Preston-Thomas – French Army of the Moselle 1794 (51)
7. Shaun Robinson - French Infantry Corps d’Armée 1812 (50)
8. Stu Todd – Saxon Army of 1809 (37)

A few hard-fought games ran for the full 4 hours, with several timing out without a result. Many games finished within 3 or 3.5 hours, and a few triumphs/disasters were over in 2 hours.

Most players had participated in several tournaments held over the past year, and the games ran pretty smoothly. Even the beginners were playing the game quite easily by the end of the tournament.

There were a few issues with some details in the rules that I'll discuss in other threads. Overall, an excellent tournament.

It was good to see the level of interest from visitors, so I hope we will see a growth in the numbers playing FOG-N.

Philip

[Stu]

Wa-hoo! Still maintaining my excellent tournament record... dead last; again

Stu

[sonic]

No problem with that record Stu, I have just ordered most of the foot I will need to field an 1812 Saxon army. So no doubt I will be doing a lot of learning.
Steve Hill

[KitG]

I was robbed.

Again.

[hazelbark]

Would love to hear about army design choices.
Generals
Cavalry
etc

[sonic]

Yes please

[KitG]

Well we had 8 players, which worked out ok because there were 6 games over three days (it was Easter).

Keith Marshall used the 1812 French list - a very big mixed army with 30 ACV and four divisions. The principal characterics of this army were a lot of light cavalry - four units (two were superiour drilled) spread over a couple of mixed divisions and one cavalry division. Three artillery batteries, two light infantry units, two large & one small conscript line infantry, two average drilled line infantry units. Most infantry units had a gun or skirmish attachment. Generals were all competent. Relied upon high army aggression to be the attacker.

Me - used 1815 Anglo-Dutch list (which is useless) - quite a large army with 27 ACV and three divisions. Principal characteristics were a lot of cavalry (Horse Guards, a large AD shock impetuous unit, Light Dragoons, KGL Hussars AV) many attachments (7 in total) and moderate artillery (two batteries - the minimum, which is just a points sink for this army). No light infantry units. Generals were all competent, CC was charismatic.

Al Donald - used 1812-13 Britsh Peninsula list - quite a small army with 20 ACV in three divisions. Principal characteristics were: Lots of heavy cavalry (a guards heavy shock, KGL heavy shock and British heavy shock - a real kitchen sink) and every infantry unit in the army had an attachment and a couple managed two - three infantry units were lights with rifles. Al used no artillery batteries, but did have about 5 attachments of them. Competent Generals.

Phillip Abela - used 1815 Dutch list - the biggest army ever with ACV 36! Principal characteristics were: Lots of everything, but it is all average to conscript/poor. Four Divisions - Lots of everything - three artillery batteries. Four cavalry units (two shock heavy, three light cav, two of which were large). Didn't have much light infantry, one unit only. Predominately conscript infantry line units. Generals mainly competent, one skilled. Five various attachments, one of which was an officer.

Brett Peston-Thomas - used 1794 French list - big at 32 ACV in four divisisions. Principal characteristics were: Lots of extremely variable infantry. No artillery and minimal cavalry - just two units (one shock, one light). Some infantry units were just hopeless, average conscript that could only be in skirmish formation, others were good, average vet or superiour drilled. Generals were half competent and half skilled.

Kendall Blue - used one of those silly Russian list from the 1800's. Principal characteristics were: Lots of Cavalry - about 8 units all up (two were cossacks), a single horse artillery battery and a half dozen unreformed infantry, two of which were light. I didn't play this army, but from the sounds of it, it seemed to have a right shocker, which was odd becuase on paper it looked quite strong.

Shaun Robinson - 1812 French list - moderately big at 27 ACV. Used four divisions. Principal characteristics were: Two units Cuirassiers, two unit Light Cavalry. Three artillery batteries. A single veteran light infantry unit. Couple of large conscript units. One skilled divisional general, rest were competent.

Stuart Todd - 1809 Saxons - Moderately big 27 ACV. Used alot of cavalry that was fairly good - two shock cav units, one of which was superiour veteran. Lots of unreformed infantry, one of which was guard.

[KendallB]

Russian Army of Moldavia 1809

All infantry are reformed

Skilled CinC

1st Div (competent DC)
2 x Small AD Line, 1 x Small AD Light, 1 x Small AD LC

2nd Div (competent DC)
1 x Small AV Line, 1 x Large AC Line + cav & skirmish attachments, 1 x Large AC Line, 1 x Small AV Med Arty

3rd Div (competent DC)
2 x Small AD HC + arty attachments, 1 x Small AD HC, 2 x Small AD LC

4th Div (competent DC)
2 x Small AI LC

ACV = 32 as this is the number on the chart where losing 2 attrition points will only give 2 points to the opposition.

Chose this army as it's the only list that I have fully painted figures for (except for the 1807 Russians with 5 artillery units which on hindsight I should have taken). Changed the composition of the army from what I had started off with as originally planned. Never got the chance to test it out as my opponents never showed for the game. Had the HC as 2 x Large each with a gun purely as anti-Cuirassier as I'm not allowed them in list and everyone else (except KeefM) takes at least one unit, usually two. Cavalry division too large - usually have two divisions working together. Not quite enough firepower in the army - needed another artillery unit minimum.

As far as the games went, Stu was attacking and wouldn't come out to play; I was boxed in by terrain by Brett who shot me up (and I foolishly went into terrain to get him); I was doing very well against Al and was on the verge of a 40-20 when I got cascaded; was 0.5 ACV away from a 25-0 victory over Shaun when I got cascaded plus a couple of silly decisions resulted in a carnage mutual break but my cossacks routed his SD hussars; was overeager to get to grips with Philip before my left gave way and committed the cavalry too soon but the cossacks routed his large AD LC + officer; I really CBF against Keith but he came up, shot me and I ran away, i got about 5 hits in the entire game.

Utterly forgetable weekend but I did buy some nice resin stone walls for the terrain box.

[KendallB]

Your intelligence service let you down Kit. Especially since we were given everyone's army list!!

[KitG]

Nope, I never got it - I only saw Phillips before I went down and had a glance at the brochure that was prepared once we were down there.

[KeefM]

French 1812

all generals: Competent

Corps Commander

Cavalry Division
1 small LC (Hussars) superior drilled
2 small LC (1 ea Chasseurs/Hussar) average drilled
1 small Horse Artillery average veteran

Mixed Division
2 large Line Infantry average conscript (both with artillery attachments)
1 small Line Infantry average conscript
1 small Chasseurs LC superior drilled
1 small Hussars LC average drilled
1 small Horse Artillery average veteran

Infantry Division
1 small Line Infantry average veteran w artillery attachment
2 small Light Infantry (1 with a cavalry attachment)
1 small Field Arillery average drilled

Exactly the same list I used at BattleCry in February; mainly due to what figures were available at the time. If using this again there are some definite tweaks I would make to improve the overall efficiency but I claim those as private IP until folk get to see it next time around .

Having only 4 CPs across 3 Divisions is only slightly limiting IMHO. Sure, there were times whe I could definitely have done with another CP to use, but those times were largely neither here nor there; and certainly never influenced a game result (+vely or -vely). <And hence my wee thread on the main forum about a different CP idea for out-of-command units >

The army, contrary to first look, relies on the combinatin of concentrating veteran horse artillery at the same point as the veteran infantry. Two units of veteran Light Infantry operating together are pretty devastating and their own, and more so in conjunction with rapidly applied artillery. Whether defending or attacking. This came about through having failed totally to gain very much benefit from 2 (expensive) units of horse artillery during all 4 games at Battlecry - and being certain that there was a really good idea awaiting a better general (than I am). So, I spent a lot of time after that convention thinking about how best to maximise the expensive horse artillery with the other combinations in the army (I have no opponents where I live so I live vicariously through spending time in my own head messing around with toy-solider ideas !). In my first game against Philip's Dutch horde at Natcon there really wasn't the required space to put the idea into action. However, from that game on, I pretty much managed to deploy both horse batteries together to concentrate fire as needed to either force my attackks home (two batteries blasted Kendall veterans out of his line at a crucial joint in his army) or used to bust up incoming attacks (when defending against Brett's Revolutionary French his conscripts in a town he occupied well in my half of the table copped both batteries plus both Light Infantry units plus the veteran Line unit shooting at them and were routed out of the town inside of 2 moves). Having said all that, it would have been nice if the @$#%$$#! things would pass CMTs for second moves or prolonging every now and then; "veteran" my A .

Oh, and big conscript units with guns (side-by-side) are a pretty nasty prospect - whether on attcak or defence (all the credit, and many thanks, goes to Andrew Hunter for that particular army "upgrade'').

Contrary to Kit's comments, the overall army initiative (with a mere +1 general) means that it is often a 50-50 call as to whether on attack or not. At BattleCry, I was nominal attacker 2/4 games. At Natcon, I was nominal attacker in 4/6 games, although to be fair Kendall as nominal attacker hid out so I had to go and get him after my third turn ! When defending, I have found it best to deploy well back to the rear then use the resulting manuever space in front of you (and still well inside your deployment area) to muster the approoriate response to the incoming assault while still having sufficient space to do so (although, the game against Brett showed up an enormous traffic jam in my rear zone as I tried to reorient to his never-to-arrive flank march - a game in which we both looked at the very same battlefield and then came up with completely opposite conclusions as to which of us was going to win the big open space; and consequently completely out-deployed each other with our combined caution !).

When deploying, whether attacking or defending, the deployment sequence goes: Cav Div, Mixed Div then Infantry Div - depploying ALL the LC and Horse Artillery first, before placing the Conscript block; with the Light Infantry last as the key strike force. The rationale being that the LC and horse artillery can shift quickly as needed, whereas the conscripts really do signal where your hinge point is.

[KeefM]

I was robbed.

Again.

"Robbed" ??? A real shame you didnt get to play Kendall then .

[KitG]

Yeah that looked a real tough game KeefM, what with those Russians launching desperate assaults and fighting to the bitter end and showing real tenacity...

And regarding your army - What I am saying is that the army aggression meant you were the attacker becuase you were only using a competent CC.

[KendallB]

Surfboard cancelled on me. Do you want to play the game you never got to play?

I recall the last time I played you, you were well and truly beaten.

[KitG]

Actually the last time we played it was with a 1790s British list vs a 1790s Russian list.

And it was a draw, with the advantage to you certainly, but without the British army being broken.

Always happy to play you Kendall, particularly if Surfboard has bailed. As I have now finished the Foot Guards, I will even drop the large Scots Greys unit and the Horse guards unit, in order to further explore the theory of the British 1815 list being too overly dependent upon shock HC.

[hazelbark]

French 1812

Terrific write up. Much appreciated.

[hazelbark]

Well we had 8 players

So looks like the following trend continues.

non-competent generals are the exception
People are getting more cav

[KeefM]

hmmmm ...

Certainly cavalry give you the option of quickly prosecuting a major result in a competition timeframe. Based on what I have seen at the last two NZ competitions, I also wonder whether that isn't too much a function of folk engaging in cavalry vs cavalry contests (and which are both bloody and over very quickly !). Solid infantry are quite hard to bust up by cavalry alone.

Consider too, Kendall's 1807 Russians with 5 (yes, 5 !) artillery batteries. How would you go about closing on that gun mass? Cavalry charges into that might only serve, at best, to leave a buch of shot up and spent cavalry. Maybe this is the next evolution of army design - more guns ??

Also, as I found with my large French conscript units, large infantry units with gun attachments are very nasty. And more so when supported with other similar units. Conscripts are fragile for sure, but there are plenty of armies who can field large drilled or better units with guns (Russians and British for prime eg).

From my perspective (sample size n=1), and limited though my FoGN gaming experience is, it seems to be shooting that wins games ...

[Sarmaticus]

From my perspective (sample size n=1), and limited though my FoGN gaming experience is, it seems to be shooting that wins games ...

Which seems to fit with informed opinion of the period. Re cavalry: the main limitation on it's use in the Napoleonic period seems to have been the high cost of it's raising, training, maintenance and supply which meant that it was a diminishing proportion relative to the C18th and an expensive assset to risk. So it wouldn't be a surprise if players took a higher proportion of cavalry in games.
Most generals being competent seems ok too: most governments would have settled for that. Better commanders should be useful for specific, clever or difficult tasks - is that the case in the rules?

[richafricanus]

I'm surprised that there were no Guard corps or Cav corps used. We've been finding these pretty tough nuts and definitely all the games involving one of these get a result.