Extended line and unreformed

[Carriage]

I've been playing a quite small Anglo-Portuguese list and have been thinking about extended line to help reduce issues with hanging flanks on open tables. In this thinking I realised that the issue of unreformed fleeing more than 4 ending up backwards is partially negated by the fact that extended line can do a full move backwards ending up facing that way, something you can't do in tactical.

Is this something people are aware of and I'm late to the party?
Does the cohesion disadvantage still make it not worth it?

[deadtorius]

If you check the forums for the latest updates you will see that all troops will only end facing backwards if they are forced back more than 6MU. It was changed to to the issue of reformed vs unreformed.

As for extended line, it has been proposed that the cohesion disadvantage be dropped as it really makes no sense for countries that actually used it like Austria and also British. It would also make it more likely to be used as its hardly ever been used. My Austrians have only used it in a couple of games and we have been playing regularly since the rules were published.

Here is what I have found using them.
Extended line you still only shoot as a single unit at med range. If you are unreformed with an attachment you can shoot out to 6 MU, however your extended line will cover at least 2 enemy units (small unit) to your front so makes you split your dice for shooting.
You will likely end up in shooting arc of at least 2 enemy units, possibly more so will take more dice incoming at medium range than you have going out.
Extended line makes you a bigger target so likely to be charged by 2 enemy units, not so bad for defensive fire, but if they both make it in to combat you have to split dice again. If only one half of the extended line is contacted the other half can provide flank support.
Skirmishers in extended line can cause a problem as they will most likely evade and if driven back through their own lines will force 2 friends to test instead of just 1 or even having a gap large enough for a unit in tactical to pass through. I find this especially true for Irregular LC like Cossacks as they evade further than foot.
Extended line puts the end of your line further out and possibly easier for cavalry to charge, especially light cavalry. If you are charged in the open you pass your test on a die roll of 6, not 5 or 6. Makes it harder to stand up to cavalry.
it takes two turns to change formation from extended line to any other formation, you change to tactical first then you can change to square or column.
On thing they are useful at is firing at buildings at close range. You get both halves of the unit for shooting but only get shot back at once. It came up in the forums as it was one of the few times I used extended line and we were not sure how to handle building return fire.
Extended line can be kinked when following a hills ridge line or a river bank. This can make for an effective defence. Especially as you can't shoot across a river with infantry.

Thats a list of everything I can think of about extended lines. I find more cons than pros using them but it depends on the situation. Its mainly the larger target thing that keeps me from using them that often, and also the Froggies use of Cuirassier in almost all our games now. I need to form square to stand up to them so extended line is more risky if they are lurking nearby.

Hope that helped you out.

[Carriage]

If you check the forums for the latest updates you will see that all troops will only end facing backwards if they are forced back more than 6MU. It was changed to to the issue of reformed vs unreformed.

I was under the impression that this wasn't in official errata.

Thanks for the info. Yeah, there are a number of downsides but given that my veterans would test with 2 dice, it may not be so bad. The reason I'm thinking about it is because I'm usually outnumbered and sometimes the terrain doesn't go my way and ends up quite open so it gives me a way to hold on one side and press on the other.

it takes two turns to change formation from extended line to any other formation, you change to tactical first then you can change to square or column.

I'm not sure this is true. I think you form tactical first to get the shape, the rules say that "An infantry unit can form square during the movement phase taking a full single move unless the unit starts in skirmish order" (p.40)

[MDH]

Thats a list of everything I can think of about extended lines. I find more cons than pros using them but it depends on the situation. Its mainly the larger target thing that keeps me from using them that often, and also the Froggies use of Cuirassier in almost all our games now. I need to form square to stand up to them so extended line is more risky if they are lurking nearby.

Hope that helped you out.

I think there is case for reviewing the way we do this overall for example we might make more of the reformed versus unreformed classification in the use of the extended line especially for small units. I say the latter because for a small unit which is most likely a two Btn regiment forming an extended line and reforming from it is much more do-able manoeuvre than for a large unit that may be 3 Btns. The latter is more likely to be formed two up and one behind in line in the unit footprint so in tactical .Two Btns in the 185o's etc would typically form up next to each other the 1st Btn on the right. So maybe there is room for some flex re small units of unreformed armies.

But I also feel that for conscript level units it is right to make extended line difficult to use in many circumstances and for most reformed armies likewise in using it in going forward even for non conscripts. There were times when newly raised units went into battle not having been trained to form a line much less in concert with other units as in a regiment.

In the 1790's most ancien regime armies still comprised regular trained soldiers for whom forming line was their " bread and butter". By the 1800's they were forced into large scale recruitment of conscripts and fresh volunteers so the use of line other than in specific circumstances was less feasible. I agree there is an issue with the British and Austrian armies. I felt we had that sorted with the Brits but am not sure if we have it right yet with the Austrians.

One of the features of FoG(N) is that we included the 1790's which hitherto few Napoleonic rule sets had tried to do or if that had with limited success. We wanted to be able to model the transition. But just how popular with FOG(N) gamers those earlier armies have proved to be I am not clear- maybe not that much. It sprang in part from my frustration in the 1990's, with all its anniversaries, right up to Marengo , at not finding any suitable rules, or were they so bland and all encompassing that there was little discernible difference between mid 18th century, Napoleonic and mid 19th century .

I see no way you can avoid the bigger target, wider front issue, or vulnerability to cavalry , versus open column, ( that was indeed as it was) .That is implicit in the spatial dynamics of the battle field, whether you have Btn based units or regiment based ones. And the fact that you have carefully to chose your moments to use it seems to me to be quite reasonable.

Having fought a lot of battles lately set in the period up to 1800 , with unreformed but quite good armies I find I use it when I am clearly anticipating an assault by infantry , unsupported by cavalry , preferably in favourable ground and with the right flank and rear support. Once I go over to the counter offensive ( as usually I have lost the initiative to the pesky French ) I revert to tactical. I have found it very effective indeed when I have been able to manoeuvre to a flanking position . Either the French withdraw or suffer badly .

[MDH]

1750's not 1850's!

[deadtorius]

But just how popular with FOG(N) gamers those earlier armies have proved to be I am not clear

For what its worth MDH, Blathergut and I do occasionally run pre Napoleon armies for both sides. I have even tried an early Austrian army against French 1809 list. So some of us do use them.

[deadtorius]

I'm not sure this is true. I think you form tactical first to get the shape, the rules say that "An infantry unit can form square during the movement phase taking a full single move unless the unit starts in skirmish order" (p.40)

Changing to and from extended line is a change of formation and will take a full move to change from tactical to extended line or from extended line to tactical. Thats one turns movement. Next turn you can change formation from tactical to square or column or back to extended line. A second turns movement. Thus the 2 turns I stated above. Might not have been too clear there.

You can still form square from extended line if you are charged by cavalry, compulsory test, but need to roll a 6 to pass, making it more likely your square will drop cohesion before the cavalry gets there.

[MDH]

But just how popular with FOG(N) gamers those earlier armies have proved to be I am not clear

For what its worth MDH, Blathergut and I do occasionally run pre Napoleon armies for both sides. I have even tried an early Austrian army against French 1809 list. So some of us do use them.

That is good to hear. But I have to confess earlier Austrians against later French , for me , would be a bit like the lance corporal having a fling with the Colonel's lady or having chips as well as rice with your curry ( I know you can do that and they do do it in Wales - half and half- but I have never quite understood why anyone would want to - chips without vinegar .... But then they put curry sauce on a bratwurst with frittes across the channel...

The still comparative shortage of figures from that period is an issue - AB and Battle Honours are very good in 15mm but the Brits are all c 1800 and the earlier Prussians I have seen on line look a bit naff. Russians are limited range, no Hanoverians, Dutch, etc etc, and in 28mm even less common. I can only really think of Elite in that scale . I had hoped we might prompt some further offerings .

[Carriage]

Changing to and from extended line is a change of formation and will take a full move to change from tactical to extended line or from extended line to tactical. Thats one turns movement. Next turn you can change formation from tactical to square or column or back to extended line. A second turns movement. Thus the 2 turns I stated above. Might not have been too clear there.

Yeah, I understood that but assuming there isn't an errata on this that I've missed, I don't think it reads that way. To me the rulebook reads that's the case for skirmishers but not for anyone else who move into tactical first (i.e. follow those rules to close up) and then in the same turn go to square. For what it's worth I've always thought it was the way you said but a reread has given me doubt.

[adonald]

As a British Army user I was disappointed to see the last minute modification of the British from 'Refomed' to "move as unreformed, fight as reformed'. As time as gone on, it makes less and less sense.

One of the 'things' about British vs. French warfare was the line vs. column conflict. In most cases, it was the French drill to deploy from column into line when they were close to the enemy. It can be said that, as time went on, against very poor opponents, they didn't need to form line as their opponents broke before they would have done so. This seems to have led to attacks in column that may have got into trouble when the enemy did not break and the French were unwilling to break out of column. The whole affair is somewhat murky.

However, when the British fought the French they endeavoured to restrict the French from forming line close to theirs:

1) The British shot the French officers with their riflemen, making it difficult for the leading formations to make clear decisions on WHEN to break out of column into line.
2) The British chose ground that masked their troops, making it difficult for the French to determine when was the best time to break out of column, often stumbling onto British lines at extremely close range.
3) The British chose ground where the approach routes to their positions were over rough and inhospitable ground, forcing the French to approach in column, and making it difficult to shake out into line.
4) The British deployed large numbers of skirmishers to mask their positions, so many in fact that the French often reported breaking the British lines only to be repulsed on the ‘second’ line, when it was them merely pushing aside the skirmish screen that was so numerous as to be a line formation from the French point of view, only to be repulsed by the actual British line’s volley and bayonet charge.

However, in FoGN, this whole mechanic isn’t modelled. The French have the same firepower as the British in ‘tactical’. If the British are in battalion lines (and therefore slow and unreformed in manoeuvre), then to generate the same firepower (dice) then the French must be in line too. But, the French are moving like they are in column – with much reduced close range firepower. And yet the French get the advantage of BOTH manoeuvring in column AND shooting as if they are in battalion lines.

In other words, they automatically get the best of both worlds. And the British advantage in the Peninsular is not even modelled/allowed.

We wouldn’t want reformed troops top suffer any disadvantages, now would we…. That might make it hard to win with them… And we wouldn’t want that, eh? That would take the delight out of using Reformed troops.

And of course it makes so much sense to the British cost the same price as reformed troops even though their actual advantage isn’t modelled in the rules.

Perhaps, and I know this would be an unpopular (but perhaps fair) thought, that unreformed troops get an extra 2 close range dice per tactical formation than reformed troops – to reflect their greater firepower by being in line; or if a reformed unit is hit by fire that includes rifles, they get two dice reduction on their close range fire for being trapped in column formation.

You know, just to be fair…

Alastair Donald

[MDH]

As a British Army user I was disappointed to see the last minute modification of the British from 'Refomed' to "move as unreformed, fight as reformed'. As time as gone on, it makes less and less sense.


However, in FoGN, this whole mechanic isn’t modelled. The French have the same firepower as the British in ‘tactical’. If the British are in battalion lines (and therefore slow and unreformed in manoeuvre), then to generate the same firepower (dice) then the French must be in line too. But, the French are moving like they are in column – with much reduced close range firepower. And yet the French get the advantage of BOTH manoeuvring in column AND shooting as if they are in battalion lines.

In other words, they automatically get the best of both worlds. And the British advantage in the Peninsular is not even modelled/allowed.

We wouldn’t want reformed troops top suffer any disadvantages, now would we…. That might make it hard to win with them… And we wouldn’t want that, eh? That would take the delight out of using Reformed troops.

And of course it makes so much sense to the British cost the same price as reformed troops even though their actual advantage isn’t modelled in the rules.



Alastair Donald

It’s not clear to me whether your disappointment with FOG(N) means you have not used it much if at all as a consequence. If so my comments will be otiose.

I believe the mechanisms you mention are modelled albeit maybe not in quite the way you might expect in Battalion or lower level games.

Skirmishers firing at Officers was hardly unique to the British nor were rifles. Firing as reformed encompasses the use of left flank companies sent forward to skirmish and skirmish attachments the addition of specialist light infantry ( in the Brits the rifles). So the same dice as the French at up to 6MU and extra dice for attachments – Thus the chances of causing disorder are greater than for fully unreformed which embodies damage to command and control. Counting officers in units is drilling down too far for this game. If you prefer that use Grand Manner.

In the Iberian Lists in E& E the British lists REQUIRE a minimum of two skirmish attachments per division and up to 2 per line infantry unit. The French can a maximum of one per division. So at least double that of the French.

The masking of troops in miniatures games without umpires is, as ever ,hard to accomplish and not just for this era and this set of rules or for the circumstances you cover . How pray would you manage that? If somehow we could contrive the players’ vision to be at ground level on the table we might begin to do that. Only computer games can really accomplish that. But see page 96 on crest of hills, which covers the position quite nicely

I was not aware that there was an absence of difficult terrain in the Spain and Portugal terrain list in the rules. But if that is insufficient for a given historical battle or scenario you can always add more thus affording the British player(s)more chances to do exactly as you say. But not every battle was like that ( Albuera).

Looking at the overall position you posit , so the reformed French advance on the British who are posted in extended line and in defensive postures in rough or even difficult terrain .Rough terrain makes the French fire and fight at a cohesion level lower so either not re-rolling ones if vets and rerolling sixes if drilled and difficult terrain is worse - two levels lower. Not so the stationary Brits who may fire as normal so long as they are stationary. As the French reach the 6MU point they come under fire in the next Brit active player turn, so potentially being disordered by fire and losing one in 3 dice for return fire before they have even fired a shot . Assuming they keep going they have to get to 4 and 2 MUs depending on terrain to be able to launch an assault taking further fire en route. Unless they stop or attempt to assault they are at a considerable disadvantage . If they try to assault the terrain still affects them badly and they take fire at close range from a British line counting as two units . They are extremely unlikely to get in and more likely to be reduced to wavering and fired at from close range even to break. If they are wavering before they reach the assault distance they cannot assault anyway .

So attack with two units to one ? That makes no difference to the terrain and on average only one of those units –if either - will have a skirmish attachment . They may get in with one even then firing and fighting at a level lower. But the defensive Bits are more likely to have flank support than the French .

This scenario is made even worse if the British unit has an artillery attachment or an artillery unit supporting the line that has been firing at beyond 6MUs. At longer range the Bits in line are harder to hit by French artillery than the French are in tactical, and if posted just beyond the crest they cannot be hit anyway at long range. In addition the French, given the terrain, and the army lists for Spain, have no heavy cavalry they can get easily to hand to force the Brits into square ( unlike at Waterloo) let alone shock cavalry .

All I can say is a French player would have to be mad to try to assault British lines so posted. He needs to manoeuvre round the flanks. That does not sound to me like an imbalance. It would have been an imbalance to treat the war in Spain as the benchmark or core conflict for designing the game and to do so from an anglo-centric perspective.

FOG(N) is a regiment based Corps level game designed to emphasise the Grand Tactical combined arms model – not the Lower level Btn to Btn tactical mechanics. You have to look at the bigger picture taking account the lists as well.

As to your suggestion. The British fire as reformed so altering the dice for unreformed armies would make no difference . You might like to try fighting with the 1790’s fully unreformed armies first to appreciate the difference .

[viperofmilan]

Looking at the overall position you posit , so the reformed French advance on the British who are posted in extended line and in defensive postures in rough or even difficult terrain .Rough terrain makes the French fire and fight at a cohesion level lower so either not re-rolling ones if vets and rerolling sixes if drilled and difficult terrain is worse - two levels lower. Not so the stationary Brits who may fire as normal so long as they are stationary.

Whoa! Where did this come from. If a unit doesn't move it doesn't suffer terrain effects for firing and combat? Where is this written?

Kevin

[MDH]

Looking at the overall position you posit , so the reformed French advance on the British who are posted in extended line and in defensive postures in rough or even difficult terrain .Rough terrain makes the French fire and fight at a cohesion level lower so either not re-rolling ones if vets and rerolling sixes if drilled and difficult terrain is worse - two levels lower. Not so the stationary Brits who may fire as normal so long as they are stationary.

Whoa! Where did this come from. If a unit doesn't move it doesn't suffer terrain effects for firing and combat? Where is this written?

Kevin

I think I have been misinterpreting that ! Doh Certainly the the effects on re- rolls Cohesion not training level . I still think assaulting a line in those circumstances is hard as you have to take more fire in getting there.

[MDH]

I can see how I have fallen into this way of thinking re hills.

Most of my hills are irregular in shape and flat on top and the position of the crest can be quite awkward to determine especially on 15mm . ( I have only been able to using mine -and Terry's - rules on a regular basis since last April )My regular and I have decided to treat slopes this way. The flat part is flat whether the slopes are gentle or steep. To be out of sight in dead ground on the top a unit has to be at least 2 MUs back from the edge where the flat ends and slope begins. (We would treat a lateral road as open if deployed in line along it .) This allows for the firing over the crest issue. So the situation I was describing was based unconsciously on that approach which ,now I think about it , most will not be using of course.

I so rarely move line infantry into rough or difficult terrain where there are enemy likely to engage me and using the QRS I just fall into this habit of thinking its movement that creates the problem ! I have probably done myself down on the rare occasions when I have assaulted enemy units at the edge or bottom of steep slopes, not treating them as disordered but even then I will usually have waited until my fire disorders them or worse anyway so it just never arises!

The text could have been be made more explicit however in various places - even for me!

[adonald]

Mike, thanks for the detailed reply, but I think you missed my point.

My four examples of how the British restricted the French deploying into line (not extended line) were merely to show that it was certainly not a foregone conclusion that the French would deploy at close range after approaching in column.

My point was that the game system, as written, assumes that the French ALWAYS deploy into line at close range - because they have the same firepower as unreformed troops in tactical at close range - who are assumed to be in line (not extended line) and yet, historically, the British tactics impeded the French ability to form line fom column to a large extent.

And yet, while the reformed troops are assumed to always succeed in their difficult manoeuvre of transitioning from column into line, the British are penalised in their movement AND for paying for their troops as reformed.

[quote][Looking at the overall position you posit , so the refiormed French advance on the British who are posted in extended line and in defensive postures in rough or even difficult terrain .Rough terrain makes the French fire and fight at a cohesion level lower so either not re-rolling ones if vets and rerolling sixes if drilled and difficult terrain is worse - two levels lower. Not so the stationary Brits who may fire as normal so long as they are stationary. As the French reach the 6MU point they come under fire in the next Brit active player turn, so potentially being disordered by fire and losing one in 3 dice for return fire before they have even fired a shot . Assuming they keep going they have to get to 4 and 2 MUs depending on terrain to be able to launch an assault taking further fire en route. Unless they stop or attempt to assault they are at a considerable disadvantage . If they try to assault the terrain still affects them badly and they take fire at close range from a British line counting as two units . They are extremely unlikely to get in and more likely to be reduced to wavering and fired at from close range even to break. If they are wavering before they reach the assault distance they cannot assault anyway ./quote]

No, I didn't mean that. I was not referring to extended line, I was referring to reformed troops in tactical versus unreformed troops in tactical. Reformed troops in tactical are assumed to be in battalion columns as the move an extra 2MU. Unreformed troops in tactical are assumed to be in battalion lines and therefore manoeuvre slower. In the rules, however, both reformed and unreformed troops have the same firepower at CLOSE range. The only way that can be is if the reformed troops are assumed to form into line at close range to shoot it out with their opponents.

I'm pointing out that, against the British, that was highly problematic. I don't expect it to be modelled at this level of wargame (brigade) but I expect it's EFFECTS to be, especially when other aspects at this level are (ie the British unreformed movement / reformed shooting is!

Unreformed troops in rough or difficult terrain are penalised in the same way as reformed troops in the same terrain. However, this is irrelevant to my argument.

The elephant is still in the room and is now rummaging through the bookcase...

Alastair

[adonald]

Hi Mike

Re you point on the British Pennisula lists having two skirmisher attachments - a Brirish division usually had at least three brigades, in the later stages one of which was Portuguese. The brigades either had a light infantry battalion (ie the 71st) or, if Portuguese, a Cazadore battalion, or at least a specialised rifle company in addition to the light battalion made up of the component light companies of the line battalions

That would make THREE skirmish attachments per division, not two. Of course, the Cazadore brigade never existed.

However, this has no bearing on my original point.

Alastair

[hazelbark]

As a British Army user I was disappointed to see the last minute modification of the British from 'Refomed' to "move as unreformed, fight as reformed'. As time as gone on, it makes less and less sense.

1) The British shot the French officers with their riflemen, making it difficult for the leading formations to make clear decisions on WHEN to break out of column into line.
2) The British chose ground that masked their troops, making it difficult for the French to determine when was the best time to break out of column, often stumbling onto British lines at extremely close range.
3) The British chose ground where the approach routes to their positions were over rough and inhospitable ground, forcing the French to approach in column, and making it difficult to shake out into line.
4) The British deployed large numbers of skirmishers to mask their positions, so many in fact that the French often reported breaking the British lines only to be repulsed on the ‘second’ line, when it was them merely pushing aside the skirmish screen that was so numerous as to be a line formation from the French point of view, only to be repulsed by the actual British line’s volley and bayonet charge.

However, in FoGN, this whole mechanic isn’t modelled.

So have you played? Having fought a large number of peninsula battles in FOGN including equal points and historical refights, I think the actually FOG N gets what you describe pretty well.

1) Irrelevant at this scale, but given the rules of who shoot first. The French advance and then received English fire. So this certainly is there to occur.
2) Have you tried reverse slope tactics in FOGN ? I have they work especially if you the French brought artillery.
3) Have you read the deployment rules? If the English defend they get a steep hill free to start. So that can be partially steep. Which means the English player can freely deploy a piece of terrain in the middle of the board that is not easy to attack across and can hide behind it. Then count up the other terrain. Peninsula fights can have lots of channeling terrain.
4) You mean like the English deploy lights in skirmish formation that need 6s to hit and often will rally off a disruption, so the French have to charge over the hill to drive them back. Then the English are in range and can shoot up the French.

[viperofmilan]

The only real problem with extended line is the die units lose on some dice rolls when in this formation. This probably is justified for reformed armies accustomed to maneuvering in column, and arguably for all armes post-1807 or so, but should not apply to unreformed armies < 1807 or to British foot IMHO. I think taking away this penalty would result in a lot more extended line formations on the table.

Kevin

[adonald]

Yep, played a fair bit. However, you've missed my point. I'm talking about close range shooting between unreformed units in tactical and reformed units in tactical.

The unreformed units only move 4 MU because they are deemed to be "in line". Reformed units in tactical move 6 MU because they are deemed to be in column. However, when they get into close range, the unreformed tactical units have THE SAME firepower as tactical reformed units. But they are in column and therefore must generate LESS firepower, significantly less, than the unreformed infantry in tactical, who are in line. But the reformed infantry don't, they have the same firepower. This must be because the authors have assumed that the reformed infantry shake out into line automatically at close range, getting the best of both worlds - better manoeuvrability and the same firepower as unreformed troops. And yet we know that the French struggled with shaking out into line against the British, and usually wound up fighting in column at close range. And yet, in the rules, this is no problem. In contrast, the British PAY for reformed troops but move as if unreformed, and don't fight any better than reformed troops.

It's got nothing to do with reverse slopes or extended line. What's extended line anyway, did any army use it? Even the British at Salamanca advanced against the French across the plain in multiple lines. The British in tactical are in line anyway, that's why they are slow.

Alastair Donald

[richafricanus]

I still think Alistair's point on the cost of British is a fair one. For exactly the same points, British get the pleasure of moving 33% slower than reformed troops. It's a huge disadvantage.

I generally unreformed troops are over-priced. Think about it: a small unit of reformed, average, drilled costs 40 points and shoots with 3 dice and moves 6 inches. A unit of unreformed average, drilled with skirmish attachment also costs 40 points and shoots with 3 dice but only moves 4 inches.

I believe unreformed should all be 1 point cheaper.