Can't you change the British 1815 list (again)?

[KitG]

I want to complain.

The difficulty is with the 1815 British or Anglo-Dutch list.

The issue is mainly with the compulsory minimum units within the context of an 800 point game and the troop ratings.

In particular:

1. Guards Division - can't really take it in an 800 point game. Agree on the history - all foot guards fought togeather in a single small division. If that must be kept, then can't you at least do away with the need to purchase an artillery battery? Maybe the issue is that the 1815 British list has two compulsory artillery units as its minimum - can't we have just one? Wellington complained about the scarity of artillery at Waterloo anyway. This small measure would help in some way to get the Foot Guards into their rightful place - on the table and hopefully uphill of the French Guard.

2. Brunswick division - has fairly well been rooted in the list by becoming a cheaper 'British' division. Now what's that about? For a start they are Germans and haven't sworn any oath of loyalty to King George and secondly they fought completely differently from the poms. Result - no one is going to pay the obligatory 240 points for an under performing British division that looks slightly different. At least let them be reformed fer pete's sake - the Dutch/Belgians and Nassauers are refromed afterall. Then we might actually start seeing people use these troops.

3. Hanoverians - continue to be a problem child for this list...Heartily agreed with the change of the Hanoverian regular line to AD, but the rating of the Hanoverian Lights (who were all regulars as well and included plenty of officers and NCOs lent to them by the KGL in 1815) as average conscripts grates somewhat. The Hanoverian Lights formed the majority of the Battalions in Kielmansegge's Brigade of Hanoverian regulars, there were four battalions of them in this brigade - this was the unit bang smack next to the main road taking everything from the froggies all day on the 18th June 1815. They took 45% casualties and only sagged a little - by the end of the day they were still there. The Nassauers of Kruse were behind them and they had broken after suffering less casualties. Not a bad effort and certainly not reflective of average conscript. They should be average trained as well. Also, they didn't have rifles - they were musket armed light infantry. There was a Hanoverian Jaeger detachment, but that was different from these guys, and as it was only about 300 men strong could be easily covered by the attachments.

4. Cavalry - The pommie heavy cav was the best in the world in 1815 at charging people and cutting them up. At 12 points a base for AD shock impetuous cav they are pretty cheapo and therefore become too numerous. Make the poms pay for their advantage by making them superior drilled - this rachets the points up and will reflect the ability of this British cav to charge home and fight well when they get there. It will also make them more expensive and therefore reduce the ability to take them in large numbers. And being drilled will not make it a given to rally them or pass CMT. I'd actually remove the superior vet option for shock cav from this British List - who is it supposed to represent? None of the British line heavy cav in 1815 aside from the 1st Royal Dragoons had any Penninsula experience and it seems a bit extravagant to include an option solely for a single regiment of only 400 odd sabres.

[BrettPT]

At 12 points a base for AD shock impetuous cav they are pretty cheapo and therefore become too numerous. Make the poms pay for their advantage by making them superior drilled -

What??? Lord Goldsbury, you do realise that should your submissions be accepted it will put the kibosh on your unit of kill-me-quicklies (large average drilled impetuous shock HC scots greys with attached gun & BC) - you'll never win a battle again!

[KendallB]

The Brunswickers going from fully reformed in 1814 to reformed but moving as unreformed in 1815 seems a bit odd as well. Making them fully reformed again wold fix that.

I've never been one to complain about points as it's a level playing ground but I think shock is well underpriced at +3 points considering what they can do. Then when you factor in the -1 point for impetuous it gets rediculous! My poor old Russian dragoons are only 8 points a unit cheaper (so I get a whole extra skirmisher attachment) but have no way of standing up to that kind of unit. And before people start offering me advice and tips, I have always used large amounts of cavalry - I won the NICon tournament last year using a cavalry corps - I know how to effectively use cavalry. To defeat a British (or any shock cavalry) requires one heavy with a gun and one, preferably two other units of cavalry. Even then, the heavy will be wavering and hors d'combat for at least two turns, perhaps more. My dragoons need a CMT to charge once spent or disordered, shock doesn't. All for the price of an extra attachment.

I'm switching to 1807 Russians because I can get a cuirassier unit (and 5 guns). Or will be using my Saxons a lot more. Or Prussians because they get Guard Cuirassiers.

[adonald]

I won the NICon tournament last year

But not a real tournament - I'd doubt most of the peaple following this would know what it was....

So, you want lots of guns, lots of shock heavy cavalry with gun attachments, lots of light infantry with the rest reformed - all for 800 points. Good luck with that.

Alastair

[adonald]

3. Hanoverians - continue to be a problem child for this list...

We'll, I agree with your general analysis, although one thng really bugs me - why are Hanoverians in 1814 REFORMED but in 1815 REFORMED for shooting but UNREFORMED for movement. Did the British issue them with vey tight trousers that inhibited their otherwise nimble manouvering less than a year earlier?

Also, the Hanoverian Militia at Waterloo should be Average Conscript, not Poor Conscript. They fought better than the Nassau troops.

Alastair

[KeefM]

Can you British army operators please stop whining about the lists ? It's worse than listening to a jet turbine; quieter maybe, but certainlly no less whiney, and at least a jet turbine will run out of fuel and shut down eventually .

Between you both, you took British armies to 2nd and 3rd places at the Nationals.

Sheesh - "its only a model" (to quote Monty Python). Would you prefer just to abandon lists altogether and just buy whatever any old fantasy concoction for 800pts ? Maybe we could just skip the rules altogether and go back to spring-loaded cannon firing actual matchsticks ?

You get rifle and gun attachments to distribute at will around fantastic infantry (and after you see what the other person has deployed). And on top of that you get to field a tidy wodge of uber-shock cavalry and/or bulk up with dross. Your rifle infantry get to shoot reasonably effectively at cavalry unlike the rest of us poor musket armed sods (Sam, Sam, Pick up tha musket.).

The British are a tough tough combination to bust up under any circumstances. And you want to improve on that some more ? There are, I suspect, plenty more folk's armies who could do with the same "adjustments".

Get over it . . .

[BrettPT]

Maybe the issue is that the 1815 British list has two compulsory artillery units as its minimum - can't we have just one?.

If you think 2 compulsory artillery batteries is constraining, you should look at the 1815 Prussian list (which has a minimum 4 batteries!), the minimums for this list add up to 710 points. It is impossible to field the 'optional' Prussian Guard division as you have already used up your 4 divisions in order to accommodate the compulsory artillery.

[BrettPT]

You tell'm Keith!

New amendment to rules suggested:

"Players who have never attempted to field either a 1792 French army, or a unreformed (non-British) infantry army without large units, may not gripe about their list."

[KitG]

Maybe the issue is that the 1815 British list has two compulsory artillery units as its minimum - can't we have just one?.

If you think 2 compulsory artillery batteries is constraining, you should look at the 1815 Prussian list (which has a minimum 4 batteries!), the minimums for this list add up to 710 points. It is impossible to field the 'optional' Prussian Guard division as you have already used up your 4 divisions in order to accommodate the compulsory artillery.

Then start a whine about the 1815 Prussians, then. I'd certainly support it. Although they did have masses of guns in 1815.

The issue is that the poms didn't have a great deal of artillery in the first place and secondly they used it differently, by splitting their batteries into troops and allocating them to various battalions - that is why dropping the compulsory RHA battery would be entirely in keeping with how the British army fought in 1815.

[KendallB]

But not a real tournament - I'd doubt most of the peaple following this would know what it was....

Funny, I seem to have trophies. Guess it was a real tournament after all.

I distinctly remember being a turn off riding down a blousing British army for a 40-20 that was hiding on hills and in buildings. My ears are still ringing from the whining about forming squares.

[KitG]

Can you British army operators please stop whining about the lists ? It's worse than listening to a jet turbine; quieter maybe, but certainlly no less whiney, and at least a jet turbine will run out of fuel and shut down eventually .

Between you both, you took British armies to 2nd and 3rd places at the Nationals.

Sheesh - "its only a model" (to quote Monty Python). Would you prefer just to abandon lists altogether and just buy whatever any old fantasy concoction for 800pts ? Maybe we could just skip the rules altogether and go back to spring-loaded cannon firing actual matchsticks ?

You get rifle and gun attachments to distribute at will around fantastic infantry (and after you see what the other person has deployed). And on top of that you get to field a tidy wodge of uber-shock cavalry and/or bulk up with dross. Your rifle infantry get to shoot reasonably effectively at cavalry unlike the rest of us poor musket armed sods (Sam, Sam, Pick up tha musket.).

The British are a tough tough combination to bust up under any circumstances. And you want to improve on that some more ? There are, I suspect, plenty more folk's armies who could do with the same "adjustments".

Get over it . . .

KeefM - if you actually read my post you will see that I am saying that pommie 1815 cav should be more expensive so there should be less of it. That is hardly going to make it better is it? Nor will increasing the cost of Hanoverian Light infantry by getting their ratings correct.

It's more the fact that certain troop types (AD shock impetuous) are too cheap and by virtue of the ratings other troop types are either too cheap (Hanoverians) or just wrong (Brunswickers, Hanoverian Lights).

It might be a model KeefM, but in the end it was a silly place and no one went there, did they?

Just like no one is going to use Brunswickers and the only British 1815 armys people will use will be ones with LARGE AD SHOCK CAVALRY IMPETUOUS. And I think that could be relatively easily fixed - and it would probably make the Btritish list more flexible in terms of choice, but harder to use as there would no longer be the simple option.

[KitG]

At 12 points a base for AD shock impetuous cav they are pretty cheapo and therefore become too numerous. Make the poms pay for their advantage by making them superior drilled -

What??? Lord Goldsbury, you do realise that should your submissions be accepted it will put the kibosh on your unit of kill-me-quicklies (large average drilled impetuous shock HC scots greys with attached gun & BC) - you'll never win a battle again!

Quite possibly, but I'd be equally happy to win less but use things like my Hanoverian Light infantry & Brunswickers more.

[KeefM]

tsk tsk Kit !

Isn't shifting "average drilled impetuous" to "superior drilled" an upgrade ? Or ditto improving the quality of the infantry ? Yep, they cost more points . . . BECAUSE THEY'RE BETTER !!!!!!!! HArdly a good argument to suppport your claim of a reduction in effectiveness ! Since when was being able to have superior in place of avergae a disadvantage ? Bah humbug . . . good try - but am not buying today

interestingly, there is far more traffic in these forums from British players than the sum-total of all other commentary on lists. Is this mere coincidence I wonder ? I agree with Brett for a rules amendment as described. I've never heard Philip or Brett complain about their dross lists.

<WARNING: snide dig imminent !> Anyway, as to average veteran shock being soooo cost effective, I have yet to lose a single unit to any. Ever. (Admittedly, sample size; n = 1; ie me.) Sure, they have some advantages; but plenty of cons too. I, for one, would much rather have average veteran dragoons at the same price.

<so, here it is> In fact, the outright effectiveness (both ran off without even getting in a charge) of both your life guards and ur scots greys in our game left me wondering if you wouldn't have been better simply bringing some more of those resilient poor conscripts to hide in towns instead for all the effect they had . Or, maybe if the scots greys could be fielded as superior drilled they might fair better next time ? Looking forward to it already


BTB, I offer personal lessons and 1-on-1 coaching in sledging at very reasonable prices.

[KitG]

Sigh - Keef - if you read what I said you will note that I argued for a change in troop type from AD to SD becuae it would INCREASE the cost, therefore making that unit more expensive and therefore no longer the default setting for British heavy cavalry. I also said that the option of a superior veteran shock cav unit should be removed from the list. And you don't make a list better just by changing the troop ratings because this also will affect the cost of the units - in this case it will make things more expensive. Hard to see how this makes a list better. Certainly makes it different.

If you want to talk about our game, you might want to mention the formation change your conscript infantry made within two inches of my cavalry without taking a CMT, and hitting the Scottish infantry on the hill on 5+ instead of a 6+ because they were at long range but in line...and your claim that a unit will get defensive fire if charged by a unit that is then intercepted.

[KeefM]

ah, Kit, you must be thinking of some other game ... my conscripts only fired into the flank ofyour LC at close range, certainly no formation changes were needed by any of my conscripts (though I think I did successfully get them into a town against Kendall only to have them remain thereafter occupying it) - and there were definitely no intercept charges in our game at all (indeed I've seen no intercepts in any of my games in two conventions.) Mind you, I do recall a non-Scottish Line Infantry unit of yours only making an outcome move of 1" on the said hill and thereby narrowly avoiding bursting through the two units to their rear when it seems the minimum outcome move is 3" in the rules. Ah, well. And, didn't your wavering poor conscripts in a certain town pass their CT for being charged (and which would have broken your army) ?

Cest le vie; which is, apparently, French for 'never mind, its just a game'.

[hazelbark]

I want to complain.

4. Cavalry - The pommie heavy cav was the best in the world in 1815 at charging people and cutting them up.

How do you figure? They really only ran down a disordered enemy force that was so mis deployed it couldn't form square, it was also rattled by and caught by surprise.

They proceeded to charge too far and get destroyed.

[hazelbark]

Lastly stop playing with 800 points. Try different point levels its allowed you know.

[KendallB]

The British cavalry were the best due to the quality of their mounts and because they said so!

Anything more than 800 points allows you to have your cake and eat it too. It forces difficult choices onto the player when making their list. Any more allows the minima and then enough for all the toys. This makes the less than stellar armies pretty much unplayable as their quantity advantage has been removed.

[hazelbark]

Anything more than 800 points allows you to have your cake and eat it too. It forces difficult choices onto the player when making their list. Any more allows the minima and then enough for all the toys. This makes the less than stellar armies pretty much unplayable as their quantity advantage has been removed.

Nope any point level favors some and not others. Try 700 too. Variety is the spice of life.

[terrys]

Anything more than 800 points allows you to have your cake and eat it too. It forces difficult choices onto the player when making their list. Any more allows the minima and then enough for all the toys. This makes the less than stellar armies pretty much unplayable as their quantity advantage has been removed.

we'll be using 900pts at Britcon this year. It'll be interesting to see so much 'cake' on the table.