Defender Decalring Assault in 1st Two Turns

[Blathergut]

I had missed this in the errata:

 Page 94: PRE_BATTLE INITIATIVE: RH Column: Add new bullet points:
After “The defender may not .......... except as follows:” and before “to counter-charge with cavalry”
• To declare an assault on an enemy unit that crosses the centre line.

[hazelbark]

Oh yea. That Cavalry in particular can come roaring out if you are sloppy.

[Blathergut]

Unreformed infantry are still hampered.

French move turn 1: just outside of 6MU from unreformed infantry (just beyond center line if unreformed deployed at limit).
French move turn 2: just inside of 6MU from enemy who is unable to fire or charge since more than 2MU and more than 4MU.

Now...if they'd only oblige and not have any cavalry nearby.

[KeefM]

Easily solved .

If the defender deploys within 10MU of the base line it is not possible to shoot at them with musketry in the first two turns.

[viperofmilan]

Easily solved .

If the defender deploys within 10MU of the base line it is not possible to shoot at them with musketry in the first two turns.

Exactly. I think the key to effective defensive deployment is to set up well back from center line, make use of off-table reserve option, and deploy on-table reserves, and especially artillery to counter attackers opening moves once the main axis of attack becomes clear. This can mitigate many of the inherent attacker advantages during the first 2 turns.

Kevin

[hazelbark]

Agree with Viper.
Defender has to be willing to deploy way back.

In hindsight I think the defender zone ought to be 2-6 MU more generous. While the attacker zone should be slightly less generous. But no matter play on!

[Blathergut]

Move table center line 6MU towards attacker side and let attacker deploy units partially off table at set-up. Maybe Dead. and I will try this in our next foray in northern Italy!

[Saxonian]

Important thing to remember is that while the unit(s) launching the assault can move out of the deployment zone, you still cannot move out units to support.
It is possible to engineer rear support, especially with a cav on cav combat (4MU counter-charge etc.), but flank support will be pretty much out.
So unless you have a favourable 1:1 match-up, you probably want to have two units in position to assault together.

[MDH]

Agree with Viper.
Defender has to be willing to deploy way back.

In hindsight I think the defender zone ought to be 2-6 MU more generous. While the attacker zone should be slightly less generous. But no matter play on!

( MDH is my new Handle - old one was Mike Horah)

Need to ensure when you vary these in either direction that you enable the game to be played out in the time available and don't disadvantage one side or the other unintentionally .The16MU gap is a critical one for obvious reasons as it is the maximum range of artillery so you need not to force a closer alignment than that. But neither players is presently forced to set up exactly on the maximum deployment line so making them closer together would not force that . But the further apart the more time you may need to play the game - so whay not just have a deeper table rather than change the parameters ?

But I do wonder if we have somewhat over focused folk on those two deployment limits to the exclusion of seeing the total battle field as an overall space within which to manoeuvre.

I think the idea of the defender setting up back from his deployment limit has merit as it gives some space for manoeuvre even on a narrow table . Once you cannot manoeuvre you have lost the initiative for real not just formally in terms of the rules .Personally when in any period I can no longer manoeuvre a game loses some of its joy for me and it can become a low tactical level scissors -paper-stone, d-roll dominated game.

On the other hand setting up as far forward as you can as defender gives you an earlier counter attack option if the your opponent is cautious or slow ( eg an unreformed army with poorer commanders ).

A bit of bluff and feint can be adopted by setting up further back too - eg setting up a cavalry division on one wing , or in the centre as defender and then rapidly moving it across or refusing one flank only to reoccupy it ( or the reverse) It maybe too give you the option to think terms of your divisions as your battle units rather than how (initially) you deploy the individual units within a divisional footprint . Setting up " en potence " ( the line hinged back like a swinging door ) is also a useful idea.

[hazelbark]

I think the idea of the defender setting up back from his deployment limit has merit as it gives some space for manoeuvre even on a narrow table . Once you cannot manoeuvre you have lost the initiative for real not just formally in terms of the rules .Personally when in any period I can no longer manoeuvre a game loses some of its joy for me and it can become a low tactical level scissors -paper-stone, d-roll dominated game.

I agree with defender deploying back. But they get pinned against the table edge and lose all ability to maneuver.

I think having a pure maneuver game pulls away from the history. There were many stubborn fights in this period. I think right now FOG N has the flow back and forth in a sector pretty well. The historical battles we have fought really reflect this well with the rules.

[MDH]

I think the idea of the defender setting up back from his deployment limit has merit as it gives some space for manoeuvre even on a narrow table . Once you cannot manoeuvre you have lost the initiative for real not just formally in terms of the rules .Personally when in any period I can no longer manoeuvre a game loses some of its joy for me and it can become a low tactical level scissors -paper-stone, d-roll dominated game.

I agree with defender deploying back. But they get pinned against the table edge and lose all ability to maneuver.

I think having a pure maneuver game pulls away from the history. There were many stubborn fights in this period. I think right now FOG N has the flow back and forth in a sector pretty well. The historical battles we have fought really reflect this well with the rules.

Don't disagree - more a comment on where my strengths (and weaknesses ) and preferences lie

I certainly would not wish to shift the balance in the game in that sense - and I do normally play on a deeper, and wider, table than many do and often in multi Corps games where decisions where and when to send divisions test one's space and time awareness - one thinks of Wellington watching the French manoeuvring along a parallel curse munching on a chicken leg, throwing it away saying " That'll do" then issuing orders that won the battle. Ditto Napoleon at Austerlitz waiting to launch his attack in the centre. ( not saying I am up to their standards )