FOGN 2nd Edition

[Russ1664]

A second edition would be fantastic, but please change the typeface.

Results of initiative:

At the moment the initiative result determines who's attacker/defender and whether they get an extra unit, but it does not affect the choice of battlefield, the terrain remains fixed.

Perhaps the player with highest initiative may be allowed to alter the terrain once its laid out? This would represent the attackers pressing the defenders before they have picked their choice terrain, or if the highest initiative wishes to defend perhaps they can move a piece(s) of terrain to a more advantageous position?

I'd also very much support more use of command pips, more choice on what to use them for would be great.

[Daemionhunter]

Like Brett I too have an issue with Guard Cavalry. I find playing Guard Cavalry frustrating as they are so hard to destroy. Given that I endeavour not to include them in my lists so my opponent isn't confronted with that annoyance.

Any reengineering of the rules should focus on allowing the challenge of constructing a concentration of force in the right place at the right time to play out through deployment and manoeuvre and the commitment of reserves at the decisive moment in a manner consistent with the flavour and limitations of the period. The use of Guard, particularly Guard Cavalry makes this too easy. Another reason I eschewed their use.

On that note I would agree that too many games devolve into the battle of Leuctra. I have however, had some success as both attacker in going through the centre or as defender by committing a cavalry reserve successfully as defender. I wonder if any changes should allow more for deployment in depth. Perhaps reduce the distance at which you must test for seeing routers and only testing when infantry first break? How about starting the defender further forward making more room for defence in depth?

I find this game to be the best Wargames rules I've played for the results being determined by good deployment and execution of plans. Confident execution of an instinctive plan that works to your strengths generally prevails. I don't think we need third moves to speed things up. It's not the time to engage that causes delays but fiddling to see if units can fit in confined spaces by checking the evolutions of overlapping moves and CMTs then finding the right rules for unusual situations.

A subtle change to the value of a skilled commander is all that's required. That was all that was needed to make Exceptional commanders more widely used. I also cringed at the use of Blucher mechanic. We get the fog of war from the randomness of the dice and the actions of our opponents. A good plan is usually resilient to theses events unless your dice fall out the window and Brett takes out 34% of your army in one turn of charges! What would be superior but not essential is a set of orders as it is these and the potential delays in changing them that reflect command and control issues.

More to come later as I've been conscripted to go to the shopping mall.

[Blathergut]

French 1813 lists.

Why can the Spring 1813 Infantry list import a cavalry division (which can be heavies) but the Autumn 1813 Infantry list can not? Was the cavalry reduced in quantity since the spring? The autumn list may be unique in that it is the only French list with no possibility of heavy cavalry from any source???

[marty]

A few of the points tweaks I would suggest and some possible rules change alternatives if you don't want to change points

1) I feel all Light infantry is undercosted. they essentially pay 8 points more than the equivalent reformed infantry shoot two more dice and get access to skirmish formation (which is a big deal). If it is decided points cant change perhaps adopt the change I believe some comps have already used where infantry skirmishers charged in the open take a CT before evading. The consequences of been caught while evading also seem a little light at the moment. Their medium shooting could also be reduced to 4 (ie the same as reformed with a skirmisher attachment)

2) I also feel that mounted are in general undercosted. I find that cavalry are only in danger from other cavalry (unless they try something radical) and are able to pin large infantry formations in place simply by being there. The base cost of all mounted could easily go up by 2. An alternative would be to remove the penalty for infantry been charged by mounted from within 2 MU. This would mean infantry would be able to force mounted to either "shit or get off the seat". Infantry who are confident of their superiority could advance to within 2 of mounted who wont either charge or withdraw. The mounted would then have to either charge or weather some fire, which would still only hit them on 5 but at least they couldn't just sit there forever.

3) High quality artillery units are relatively overcosted. Superior, veteran, Guard heavy artillery are not as exciting as their points would suggest. I'm not sure how this could be changed other than through points.

Martin

[MDH]

A few of the points tweaks I would suggest and some possible rules change alternatives if you don't want to change points

1) I feel all Light infantry is undercosted. they essentially pay 8 points more than the equivalent reformed infantry shoot two more dice and get access to skirmish formation (which is a big deal). If it is decided points cant change perhaps adopt the change I believe some comps have already used where infantry skirmishers charged in the open take a CT before evading. The consequences of been caught while evading also seem a little light at the moment. Their medium shooting could also be reduced to 4 (ie the same as reformed with a skirmisher attachment)

2) I also feel that mounted are in general undercosted. I find that cavalry are only in danger from other cavalry (unless they try something radical) and are able to pin large infantry formations in place simply by being there. The base cost of all mounted could easily go up by 2. An alternative would be to remove the penalty for infantry been charged by mounted from within 2 MU. This would mean infantry would be able to force mounted to either "shit or get off the seat". Infantry who are confident of their superiority could advance to within 2 of mounted who wont either charge or withdraw. The mounted would then have to either charge or weather some fire, which would still only hit them on 5 but at least they couldn't just sit there forever.

3) High quality artillery units are relatively overcosted. Superior, veteran, Guard heavy artillery are not as exciting as their points would suggest. I'm not sure how this could be changed other than through points.

Martin

Rather more than tweaks I suggest! If we adopted all three virtually every list would need to be re-written and re-published.

[terrys]

I'd rather reduce the advantages of the troops than increase the costs.

1) Light infantry are just too flexible at the moment. I'll be looking at removing part of their advantage.
We'll also be restricting their use. Light Infantry regiments were usually no more than one to a division - I've seen divisions entirely of light infantry in some games. This was unusual except in 'light divisions' and 'advance guard'.
Skirmishers in general are going to become much riskier to use in the open.

A line unit with skirmisher attachment still has significantly less skirmishers within it's formation than a single light infantry unit - so should have less dice.

2) I will be making some changes to the effects of cavalry on medium range shooting.
The penalty for infantry within 2MU of cavalry was introduced specifically to stop them walking up to cavalry and 'blowing them away'.
Without it cavalry were just too vulnerable against infantry (especially veterans and units with artillery attachments) walking up to close range and blasting them (not something that happened historically). I have some ideas of how we could solve the problem, but they would need some significant Beta testing.

3) Not sure what I can do to mitigate the high cost of quality artillery units, but I'll take a look at them.
Veterans are good - but superior and guard probably aren't worth the points.

[MDH]

While folk are mulling over the things they might like us to do in a 2nd ed ( or absolutely NOT do which is just as important ) I feel the need to put down some markers mainly re lists . To the best of my knowledge nobody had attempted such a full set of lists for the period before – my own hubris in even trying it, amazes me sometimes So do bear with me if you can

a) All historical miniatures games are a balance between a historical simulation and a game. Wherever the line is drawn there are compromises, sometimes between two ways of doing a thing neither of which are entirely satisfactory depending on which point of view you look at them from. It may be some folk here favour more one way than the other in general terms and come down more on the other side to the way we have taken in a given instance. That is understandable.
b) Fixing this particular set of Napoleonic rules at the Corps level – 20-25,000 men presented a number of these issues to resolve.
c) Many Corps level orders of battle over the 23 years did not have the full range of arms of service in their establishments- heavy, especially shock, cavalry, heavy guns ,guards for example . The Russians and later Prussian being notable exceptions of course. But we eschewed the retro approach of laying down percentage maxima ( old WRG style) reflecting the overall mix of the whole of a national army and went for the Corps orbat based approach to get to a “ standard game”. It is a mainly a game paradigm however and not any kind of absolute or definitive model simulation.
d) We looked at as many actual Corps orders of battle as we could . I acknowledge we will not always have got it right and we may have missed some alternative orders of battle for the same corps that were available and which we did no find or spot. But as I have said before we could not attempt to do every variant of every known Corps in every campaign and we had to stop somewhere.
e) But to make the game more attractive and interesting we allowed for a wider range in optional units and in “imports” than a narrow historical simulation based Corps ORBAT model would have allowed. Terry and I debated that a lot!
f) This can be justified via the ex post hoc argument that many battles at Corps level were part of bigger ones involving several Corps and which can be regarded as taking place on either flank of the standard table and there was no imaginary dividing line between Corps separating elements of more than one Corps as modern warfare in the 20th century set out to do . And sometimes ad hoc attachments did happen such as Napoleon assigning cuirassiers to Davout at Wagram.
g) To look for total consistency in this is not coherent as it is itself erring away from purist historical simulation. Imports and optional non-standard troops are more often therefore a game device. They are not inferring that some kind of anachronistic 20th century “ battle group” concept was in use. Some may think we have gone too far that way. I am not unsympathetic to that view .
h) When fighting multi corps historical recreations this all comes out in the wash as the actual ORBATS can be used. Often that will not produce the all arms Corps or mixes we have made possible in optional troops and imported divisions for single Corps games.
i) Some Corps lists like the Cavalry Reserve Corps and Guards Corps were not put in primarily for standard games but for campaign purposes and bigger games. We have made them hard to use for standard games deliberately. Maybe not hard enough?
j) Points in FOG(N) are primarily a gaming device for a level playing field not a strategic rationing method and once you get well beyond an 850 point army on wider tables the maxima and minima tend to iron out as the “super” units cannot be everywhere and numbers can tell more.
k) Sizes of tables including depths are a practical issue. I prefer an 8x6 for 15mm myself which gives greater width and depth especially for 1200 points plus games and 12x6 for 28mm. You can just about do two Corps a side there and for 15mm most of the major battles. But that is not something you can lay down. Folk have to make do with what they have the space for at home and in clubs.

As has been well said here , within the overall game design outside of the constraints of tournaments ( but even within those if agreed) there is plenty of scope for varying things like set up , ignoring equal points approaches and victory points solely based on units , in favour of terrain and other objectives - even " missions" . Some of these things like set-up I see as much as recommendations and a guide for those who may not have the time or inclination to devise alternatives.

Personally I think those kinds of local variations can make much more enjoyable games in almost any set of rules and eras. In many ways I see that as success not failure if we have provided a generally sound structure and data base in the lists to support that.

[marty]

2) I will be making some changes to the effects of cavalry on medium range shooting.

Diminishing the effect of mounted on medium range shooting will only help the reformed armies (making unreformed relatively less appealing). It will also diminish one of the main ways unreformed protect themselves from their reformed opponents. I don't believe unreformed are too badly off as things stand (I know many disagree with me) but I don't know if they need this sort of hit.

Martin

[terrys]

Diminishing the effect of mounted on medium range shooting will only help the reformed armies (making unreformed relatively less appealing). It will also diminish one of the main ways unreformed protect themselves from their reformed opponents. I don't believe unreformed are too badly off as things stand (I know many disagree with me) but I don't know if they need this sort of hit.

Not so much diminishing - more rationalising. There are odd situations where cavalry affect units when they really shouldn't.
The amendments helped, but the blanket reduction to all units within 6MU affects unreformed armies with attachments possibly even more than reformed units (who would at least have 2 dice if they had an attachment).
I agree with you that any change should not damage the balance between reformed and unreformed. I enjoy using unreformed armies and wouldn't want to change that balance.

[marty]

Another one that could be looked at is the value of the different attachments. Artillery attachments seem very popular (with good reason) whereas skirmisher attachments are perhaps less exciting for the price.

Martin

[terrys]

Another one that could be looked at is the value of the different attachments. Artillery attachments seem very popular (with good reason) whereas skirmisher attachments are perhaps less exciting for the price.

Their value depends upon their use and availability. Unreformed armies usually need to maximise both skirmisher and artillery attachments to give them the best medium range fire.
We'll be looking at the total availability of artillery bases per list - much as the amendment for the early lists whereby each attachment will reduce the size and number of units of Artillery available. If, for example, you're only allowed 5 bases per corps (about 40 guns), then allocating 2 as attachments would mean that you'd only get 1 unit.
The number of guns per corps was often quite limited unless it was allocated extra guns from the artillery reserve - That would mean any additional guns must normally be in heavy units.

[marty]

Unreformed armies usually need to maximise both skirmisher and artillery attachments to give them the best medium range fire.

I take the opposite approach with my 1805 Austrians. Points spent on attachments in these armies simply turns them in to a less effective "faux-reformed" army. Even if I could give every small regiment a skirmisher attachment they would then cost the same as a reformed unit, fire the same and move more slowly. It works slightly better with large regiments but I still prefer to simply use the points gained by using unreformed to buy numbers (especially of cav to prevent enemy skirmishers from shooting me up at medium range). I usually run 18 units but no attachments.

Martin

[BrettPT]

Skirmishers in general are going to become much riskier to use in the open.

Why don't you just ditch skirmish formation/evades altogether? (except for compulsory skirmishers and irreg LC).

I think that skirmish formation is one aspect where the rules have got it quite wrong, and perhaps stepping back and reconsidering exactly what is being modelled would be worthwhile. I have copied a bunch of words that I wrote previously on skirmishing into the rules section of the forum (under 'skirmishing') that summarises the relevant research on my bookshelf.

[marty]

No (or indeed significantly less) skirmishing infantry would remove one of the few units that can approach artillery frontally with good chances of success. Might be more historical but would probably require changes be made to the effectiveness of artillery. Perhaps they should pass the test to not abandon guns in response to a charge on a 5 rather than a 4. Would have the benefit of simplifying the CT chart (it is currently the only test that passes on a 4 and would also make the more expensive artillery (superiors and the like) a slightly more appealing buy (they would be more likely to need CT re-rolls).

Martin

[BrettPT]

Hi Marty
Agreed that skirmishers being the paper to artillery's rock is something to keep. That's why we've been playing around with the evade rules rather than just ditching skirmish formation.

[MDH]

Skirmishers in general are going to become much riskier to use in the open.

Why don't you just ditch skirmish formation/evades altogether? (except for compulsory skirmishers and irreg LC).

I think that skirmish formation is one aspect where the rules have got it quite wrong, and perhaps stepping back and reconsidering exactly what is being modelled would be worthwhile. I have copied a bunch of words that I wrote previously on skirmishing into the rules section of the forum (under 'skirmishing') that summarises the relevant research on my bookshelf.

I am not sure I would go so as " quite wrong" .Maybe more like " not quite right"

That might be valid for regular light infantry, but as you say for the likes of Grenzers less so and in the 1792-95 period for French Line infantry . Maybe however it is the evade for the former that is the issue? Perhaps - to reflect doctrine - regular light infantry in skirmish order , when they complete an evade, should go back into tactical? This reflects the mix of skirmishers and " small clumps " of infantry backed up by larger formations in close order. And maybe a shorter evade distance for regular light infantry? Or just uses normal closer order bases for light infantry relying on the uniforms and use the two open order up front bases but still in tactical) to represent a skirmish role.

Skirmishing cavalry (unless irregular) are a different thing altogether as I have said before - its not saying they are standing off in open order popping off with carbines, although that did happen, to very little effect ,usually not on a battlefield as opposed to off-battle field actions , but in a looser formation - a mix of forward veddettes backed up by the main body and more acting as a screen than a skirmish line - perhaps we should just change the name?

And only allow it in the context of the cavalry actually screening something to their rear. This has the effect of making if harder for the enemy to advance - whether infantry or cavalry - without committing light cavalry to an insane charge . The evade is not really an evade as we are used to in many rules but an orderly withdrawal away from danger. We allow a full move back for a skirmishers without a CMT - maybe limit that to a 1/2 move if regulars and retire a CMT to allow them to evade a charge by heavier cavalry within a certain distance ?

The problem is the visual representation as an extended line of cavalry looks exactly the same as a screen . There is nothing incorrect about cavalry being in the extended line in order to charge or respond to a charge . But how to show the difference? One way - at lest for a small unit might be to show a screen as 3 bases forward and one behind in the middle or as with light infantry to substitute one or two bases with base with two figures but I am reluctant to force people to buy or rebase extra figures . Some other marker perhaps?

And maybe allow screens only for small units?

[Blathergut]

I like the idea of skirmishing, evading lights ending in tactical/square facing enemy, perhaps with a slightly shorter evade than now.

[shadowdragon]

I think we need to change the names of the extended line and skirmish order FoG unit formations. In the first case, it implies the unit with its battalions line abreast whether in line or battalion column since at least the experienced, well trained reformed units with their battalions in columns were supposed to maintain intervals between the columns that would allow the battalions to deploy into line. In the latter case it confuses many people with the abstracted concept of skirmishers and skirmisher attachments. Then lets reconsider the capabilities and roles of these formations top down. For example, infantry, at least non-conscript infantry, in unreformed armies shouldn't get a penalty for being in extended formation. Perhaps a penalty, except for conscripts, should be dropped altogether. Is it really valid and is it giving us the effect we want?

We've had the discussion about a la debande or dispersed order. There is a valid case for constraining their evades / movement. They were highly flexible at the company and even battalion level, but at the regiment / brigade level? What would happen if such a formation were charged in flank or rear where their supporting line would be in the new front line? I don't think that's a normal 'fall back' move. I think we need to keep the formation, practically, to counter artillery and because I believe it was used on occasion when the intention was to harass and pin the enemy while minimizing casualties. For example, this is what I've always thought was the formation adopted by d'Erlon's corps at Waterloo in the latter part of the battle after they were reformed - even though they had only one regiment out of sixteen was legere. Perhaps tactical might be adequate but I'm thinking that might be too aggressive / offensive a formation...something to consider.

Btw, MDH, these comments aren't along the lines of it all has to change because we got it quite wrong, but more along the lines of do we have it quite right.

[MDH]

We've had the discussion about a la debande or dispersed order. There is a valid case for constraining their evades / movement. They were highly flexible at the company and even battalion level, but at the regiment / brigade level?

I would differ re the 1792-95 French where it was often at regimental level and above ( and that includes line infantry deployed in that formation and we balance that by not letting them fire as light infantry and I think probably for Grenzers.
We do need to make sure that when not in the open they (including regular light infantry) are effective including on steep terrain .

I don't want to lose what we have gained for the pre First empire period, although I have gamed much more that earlier period in FoG(N) than the latter so maybe have a feel for how that works in the rules to a greater extent.

Whether the evade movement is right in relative MUs is a different issue and I am not averse to change there . But for the earlier French they are confronting unreformed armies whose forward movement is constrained so it is a bit easier. Change that and I am not so content .

Being charged say by cavalry in the flank would of course have been hazardous for them in the open and its should be !

I should say I have long expressed a feeling here that we have over egged light infantry . It's a matter of making sure that the combined effect of changes is not too much the other way - so we need to make that a specific question for beta testers to look at

[hazelbark]

1. Expand the 2nd move concept to allow as many subsequent moves outside of 6MU as you like, needing to pass a CMT for each one. Would speed play, allow for more sweeping moves, and permit reserves to get into the game before it is too late.

I would restrict this to a 3rd move ONLY if:
* Non Cavalry
* Corps Commander Skilled or better
* Divisional Commander Skilled of better
* No units out of Divisional Commander's radius.

In short I do not want mounted units moving from right rear to left front in one turn.