FOGN 2nd Edition

[bahdahbum]

Just to say : In belgium we play less and less "boring" 800 points game . We prefer 2.000-5.000 points games .

But I know 800 points games are quicker and easier

Anyway I would just stick with this proposal : a 24 MU range for heavy aretillery . it is still simple and would be interesting in "big battles"

And keep it simple

[terrys]

Anyway I would just stick with this proposal : a 24 MU range for heavy artillery . it is still simple and would be interesting in "big battles"

While the jury is out on this issue - My own opinion is that this should only happen if the guns are firing to or from a higher elevation.
1 mile (or 1 1/2 kilometers) is a long way to see on the flat.
Of course, firing to or from a hill would reduce ricochet effect of the shot - so they'd need to have less dice..... (or is that compensated by the better visibility)
Decisions, Decisions ....

[Blathergut]

Dead. and I have played 2 games with the new initiative rules. Some thoughts:

1. The attacker seems to end up with less points to spend than the defender with the new mandatory line. In fact, in the game today, Dead. actually won the initiative with Russians, almost unheard of that the French lose the initiative, and ended up with 5 points to spend, only able to take an extra small unit and lose 2 points unspendable. Somehow doesn't feel right.

2. Field Fortifications: for 3 points this means they will always be a defender choice. Dead.finally found out what it's like to try and take one out when held by artillery. He threw four units of Russian guard infantry plus artillery at it and was blown away over several turns. FF are too deadly with the dice firing out of them. To make it so cheap to get for the defender now seems to make it a sure thing in every game (esp. needing 4+).

3. Initiative seems to favour the French with exceptional commanders. My army is 3 + 4 = 7 + die roll = 8 minimum. Austrians at best, with a skilled CinC, can roll 10. Then, having won the initiative, would have to pay 3 for the honour of that. If, like today, he rolls a 4, it's even worse.

4. Yes, it does make flank marches more tempting and possible, as well as reserves. This has been an interesting change.

[urbanbunny1]

Hi terry,

I have a bunch of us from the Central London club who are up for being beta testers.

Regards

Simon

[deadtorius]

Field Fortifications: for 3 points this means they will always be a defender choice. Dead.finally found out what it's like to try and take one out when held by artillery. He threw four units of Russian guard infantry plus artillery at it and was blown away over several turns. FF are too deadly with the dice firing out of them. To make it so cheap to get for the defender now seems to make it a sure thing in every game (esp. needing 4+).

I think you should either replace an FF with a free building, has to be placed on a road. Or change the FF cost to at least 5 or 6. Personally I would rather face 40 points of dragoons then try to force my way through those things in every game. I think the die roll need for success should be bumped back up to 5+.

In our first game trying the new initiative rules both sides got 2 choices and were able to get 1 each. In our last game the defending French got 2 choices, and got both so a FF and deploy 2 units per turn (Entire Russian army was on table before the last French division even began to deploy) I managed to get 40 points, no rivers so no bridges or fords option and I could only bump 1 unit to large as I could only get 2 bases with the 40 points, could afford 3 bases, I think you get the idea.

Perhaps making a Skilled corps commander worth 3 points, for an army with initiative 2 or less in tactical options or just dropping the exceptional back down to 3 points instead of 4.

The current tactical options especially with an exceptional Corps commander being worth 4 points makes it way too pro French. Even if my Austrian or Russian army wins I still will never have the points to purchase as an attacker that the French would have, and as happened last game, less points than a defending French army
Problem is that the French almost always have an initiative of 3, Russia can be as low as 1 sometimes 2, Austria is usually 2. Both Austria and Russia rarely have an opportunity to purchase an exceptional corps commander. French can get an exceptional commander in most of their lists until 1813+. Austria I don't think can ever get one, Russian Cavalry corps and in 1815 they can get one. Really makes this new tactical options useless for both Russia and Austria.

Think it over. This is my opinion of the new tactical points option.

Our next game is going to be 1809 Austrian vs French so I will get a chance to try the new skirmish rules as my Grenzers will likely be permanent skirmishers. See how the tactical options play out in 2 weeks.

[MDH]

Re FFs I'm not sure I want to see them available to armies that did not use them in practice in the field (as opposed to siege works and counter works ( eg Toulon ) and for immobile artillery in some lists . It will tend to bog down the games. The Russians did and not just at Borodino - they created a large fortified camp at Drissa as well as fortifying other places in Western Russia in 1812 but this was hardly typical of operations in the rest of Europe most of the time .That would be to go back up to 100 years.

What might replace it as a Defender option, assuming we wanted to?

[bahdahbum]

In 1813, the allied used many fortifications , even at Bautzen part of the front was fortified . The russo-prussian army wanted to compensate for french INf superiority .

In Spain, the spanish army sometimes did entrench .

So fortifications were not that uncommon even if not that common also .

[Blathergut]

Re FFs I'm not sure I want to see them available to armies that did not use them in practice in the field (as opposed to siege works and counter works ( eg Toulon ) and for immobile artillery in some lists . It will tend to bog down the games. The Russians did and not just at Borodino - they created a large fortified camp at Drissa as well as fortifying other places in Western Russia in 1812 but this was hardly typical of operations in the rest of Europe most of the time .That would be to go back up to 100 years.

What might replace it as a Defender option, assuming we wanted to?

Allow the Defender:

3 points: Move an existing or place a new Building anywhere on the field.

[deadtorius]

Personally I would like to see a defenders option of not having to stand around for 2 turns. We had been using Bretts idea of the defender only has to stand for 2 turns if the die roll difference was greater than 4. With the new initiative that option does not exist.

Still there is a large disparity in winning with a non French, can't have an exceptional commander in the army vs a French army with an almost always available exceptional commander with the new initiative rules.

[marty]

1. The attacker seems to end up with less points to spend than the defender with the new mandatory line. In fact, in the game today, Dead. actually won the initiative with Russians, almost unheard of that the French lose the initiative, and ended up with 5 points to spend, only able to take an extra small unit and lose 2 points unspendable. Somehow doesn't feel right.

I feel the attacker ending up with about the same or fewer points is a positive. In general the advantages the attacker already enjoys outweigh what the defender gets by a considerable margin. If they were consistently advantaged by the options chart as well it would tilt things way too far. I would suggest the reason it "doesn't feel right" is that we have become accustomed to the idea that everything should favour the attacker.

2. Field Fortifications: for 3 points this means they will always be a defender choice. Dead.finally found out what it's like to try and take one out when held by artillery. He threw four units of Russian guard infantry plus artillery at it and was blown away over several turns. FF are too deadly with the dice firing out of them. To make it so cheap to get for the defender now seems to make it a sure thing in every game (esp. needing 4+).

Cant claim to have much experience with these. Have rolled for them a couple of times in playtests but haven't got one yet. Aren't they only worth 20 in the points system? If they are that awesome why haven't people being taking them in the lists that have them already?

3. Initiative seems to favour the French with exceptional commanders. My army is 3 + 4 = 7 + die roll = 8 minimum. Austrians at best, with a skilled CinC, can roll 10. Then, having won the initiative, would have to pay 3 for the honour of that. If, like today, he rolls a 4, it's even worse.

I'm not troubled by players getting advantages for good commanders (they have to pay for them and many would suggest that they aren't great value, something this new system seems to address well). I'm more worried by the free built-in initiative modifiers.

I've only done 2 playtests so far by I am liking the extra variety the options chart is introducing even if it does make the pre-game take slightly longer.

Martin

[bahdahbum]

I'm not troubled by players getting advantages for good commanders (they have to pay for them and many would suggest that they aren't great value, something this new system seems to address well). I'm more worried by the free built-in initiative modifiers.

I think part of the problem is that for many years we have all heard how good most french generals and british one's were and how bad the other generals were . IMy oppinon is that it is not as thrue as some may whish .It was mainly based onf french sources . Now we have access to other german, austrian, spanish and russian sources and they tell us a different story . For exemple if you read Alexandre Droban's book on russia 1812 (published 2012 i think) and compare it with french sources, you may Wonder if they wrote about the same campaign .

Yes there were some "competent" generals but on both sides, and some skilled or exceptionnal generals ont both sides . Allied were slowed down by lack of organisation but managed to organise themselves better around 1810-1812 . If you read austrian feed backs from Leipzig 1813, many generals, up to corps level did lead their units "from the front" and were much more active than we usualy think . On the french side, were the grenerals that good or did they perform well because their master was there to give orders and coordinate it all .

And if we want to discuss generals, first we should be sure about :

- In FOGN, what is considered a skilled general ?
- What is an exceptionnal general ?

Is Welington skilled or exceptionnal ?, what about Kutusov who, following russian sources , did manage to trap Napoleon ...it is not that easy

[MDH]

I'm not troubled by players getting advantages for good commanders (they have to pay for them and many would suggest that they aren't great value, something this new system seems to address well). I'm more worried by the free built-in initiative modifiers.

I think part of the problem is that for many years we have all heard how good most french generals and british one's were and how bad the other generals were . IMy oppinon is that it is not as thrue as some may whish .It was mainly based onf french sources . Now we have access to other german, austrian, spanish and russian sources and they tell us a different story . For exemple if you read Alexandre Droban's book on russia 1812 (published 2012 i think) and compare it with french sources, you may Wonder if they wrote about the same campaign .

Yes there were some "competent" generals but on both sides, and some skilled or exceptionnal generals ont both sides . Allied were slowed down by lack of organisation but managed to organise themselves better around 1810-1812 . If you read austrian feed backs from Leipzig 1813, many generals, up to corps level did lead their units "from the front" and were much more active than we usualy think . On the french side, were the grenerals that good or did they perform well because their master was there to give orders and coordinate it all .

And if we want to discuss generals, first we should be sure about :

- In FOGN, what is considered a skilled general ?
- What is an exceptionnal general ?

Is Welington skilled or exceptionnal ?, what about Kutusov who, following russian sources , did manage to trap Napoleon ...it is not that easy

When you fight a historical l battle of campaign call them and classify them what you like. The lists name nobody. Call him Fred if you like at Corps level- it makes no difference to the game . It's the players' skills that count most and our wee metal figures don't give a stuff about our leaderships qualities

But it is not just about individuals but also overall command and staff capacity and army performance . When asked for an attempt at classifying individual generals I declined - see different thread. It would have been a bogus effort of no value as 80% would have had to be the lowest level simply for want of enough biographical data in English (and probably in any languages) .


Anyway Exceptional Skilled and Competent are just words to replace "level 1 ,2,3. " We might just as readily have said above average ,average and below average and to introduce more than 3 levels ( eg " Poor" ) would have meant finding things in the rules to reflect that- wrong way to design rules. But I was fed up with rules systems that allowed ( and still do) any old army to have the top of the range regardless( eg FoG(AM)) . Disagree about some if you like but one had to take a view or not bother.


There will be few lists ( any? Haven't counted) that make Exceptional compulsory. They are expensive = 2 units of ave drilled reformed infantry .

For some armies it is bit more obvious - but even then not all British armies were led by Wellington ( even in the Peninsula)so I don't know where that notion comes form . Some- indeed most were total rubbish like the Duke of York .

Leading from the front is the charismatic point PLUS any commander when with a unit gives it some advantages in the rules however classified .
It may be that he combination of the low initiative level and the level of generals in some lists is a bit hard on some armies. But I have played with them many a time

As to the history there were several reasons French armies did so well from 1795- 1812 and one was average age and quality of higher command and leadership and not just when Napoleon was present - plenty of examples on that Soult, Davout, Massena, Moreau, Suchet- even Macdonald a in Italy. After 1812 it went down hill Napoleon did less well when he began to run out of good generals especially in 1815. Dead or no longer with him. And see how we treat the Austrians up to 1800. That is not calling them rubbish.

I reject utterly any charge that we have been looking at them through (red) Brit and blue ( French) tinted glasses. Harrumph

[bahdahbum]

Hy,

I think your answer is clear enough .

By the way, did you notice you named only french generals

The trick is : were austrian generals that bad ? Not every french general had a good HQ ..but let's stay simple .

[MDH]

Hy,

I think your answer is clear enough .

By the way, did you notice you named only french generals

Zut alors Le Wellington - il etait Francais ?! ( Irish actually)

But the point was they all did well without Nap being there!!! Hardly relevant for non French commanders

On t'other sides I would name Bagration , Suvarov , ArchDuke Charles all outstanding Generals. Poniatwoski?(Polish of course not French) Yorck, von Bulow?

[bahdahbum]

Yes !

[hazelbark]

I think there are different levels of generalship. Some showed a knack for operational maneuvers, others the logistics for moving an army, others picking terrain, others picking inspired moments to act with speed.

Bennigsen developed a very clear tactical doctrine combined with battlefield selection for the 1807 campaign. He knew what he wants to achieve with the tools at his disposal and managed well. Was the 1807 campaign marked by him making on the fly wise battlefield decisions...no. But he deserves a measure of respect for certain general skills nonetheless.

[MDH]

I think there are different levels of generalship. Some showed a knack for operational maneuvers, others the logistics for moving an army, others picking terrain, others picking inspired moments to act with speed.

Bennigsen developed a very clear tactical doctrine combined with battlefield selection for the 1807 campaign. He knew what he wants to achieve with the tools at his disposal and managed well. Was the 1807 campaign marked by him making on the fly wise battlefield decisions...no. But he deserves a measure of respect for certain general skills nonetheless.

I cannot immediately recall which modern historian described Friedland as his stupidest battle of a stupid campaign so there is clearly more than one view on him But I doubt the allocation of one two or three command points can possibly reflect that adequately . Such " stupidity" should be very much to do with what players get up to Just as making our lovingly painted model of Napoleon( or Wellington etc etc dear Bahdahbum ) Exceptional Charismatic does not suddenly give us his skills at the height of his powers.- er - they are just some numbers to play around with !

Having avoided the " name that general trap" one was still ,largely ,trying to reflect the overall average capacity of the general team in a Corps in a given army and campaign to manage 20-25,000 men on a battle field.

There is a fair point about the " horns effect" - the opposite of the " halo effect" that some individual battleresults may have had on what was largely a fairly subjective and I confess over -hasty process. Another couple of years and then maybe.... .

But there was no mathematical formula to hand - too many variables. Had there been I doubt it would have stood close scrutiny plus insufficient data even then .

[deadtorius]

I feel the attacker ending up with about the same or fewer points is a positive. In general the advantages the attacker already enjoys outweigh what the defender gets by a considerable margin. If they were consistently advantaged by the options chart as well it would tilt things way too far. I would suggest the reason it "doesn't feel right" is that we have become accustomed to the idea that everything should favour the attacker.

I think you are missing the point I am trying to make regarding the new tactical options.

In our next game we will be playing 1809, my Austrians vs Blatherguts French, Historic lists. The French have access to an exceptional corps commander and an initiative of 3. I can do skilled at best and have an initiative of 1.
If we both go with competent division commanders ( Austria can only have 1 skilled division commander) then starting initiative is Austria 3 French 7. So already the French start with double the points of the Austrian army. Assuming I roll a 6 and Nappy rolls a 1 (not likely) then the final scores are Austria 9 French 8. Take out those mandatory 3 points and the Austrians have 6 points to spend the French have 8 points, more points than the attackers.
Assuming we both roll 6's then Austria has 9 points and France has 13. That 4 more points than Austria can ever hope to get and the French attackers are up on points over the defender. It just gets worse if Austria rolls a 1 or 2, then they end up with 4 or 5 points to spend. France rolls the same they get 8 or 9 points, double what Austria has to spend. Take away their 3 mandatory points and they have 6 points still more than the defending troops get.
Same thing applies to Russia as they rarely get a chance to have an exceptional commander, and are mostly 1 for initiative.

Under the old system there was a chance that the French would not roll high enough to get 40 extra points, now they have a good chance at getting 60 extra points, and some other choices the Skilled corps commanders can never choose even if winning.
My whole point is that with the new tactical options it favors the French more than any other nation, either as defender or attacker.

[Daemionhunter]

I tended to pay for better generals e.g. 1813 Prussians so I could have an Exceptional Corps Commander. The opportunity cost was a small unit compared to my opponents list with a Continent Corps Commander. I prefer to attack as I am naturally impatient and it suits my style. Under the old rules I had a similar win/loss ratio as attacker or defender. What was your experience?

I reckon the new deployment proposals mainly change the shape of the battle. The requirement to pay for the previously free deploy second and to get an extra unit are now deducted from the attackers die roll. The attacker may have to spend a lot of points on commanders and then roll well to have points left for one of the other options. Even if the attacker was to secure that benefit the opposing player has to deploy badly to allow you to take advantage of it. Say I take 1813/14 Prussians with an Exceptional Corps Commander and Skilled Divisional Commander. I will then have +3+4+1=+8. If I roll a six I have 14 points. Take away 3 for an extra unit and 3 to deploy second and I have 8 left. This really only allows me to secure one of the more attractive deployment options. In exchange for that I've potentially foregone 50+30=80 points or 2 small units and I still have to outplay my opponent as the defender to get a win.

To test whether the deployment options are too powerful I'd suggest that in the playtests you assume you've rolled a six and then that the options you select are successful. This way we can all see what happens and if it really does make a difference. I'll be doing this in my next game which is unfortunately at least ten days away as everyone else if of to a tournament this weekend.

[deadtorius]

Upon further thought about the disparity in initiative points, if my Austrians roll a 6 I end up with a final score of 9. If the French roll a 1 they get a score of 8. If they take a skilled division commander they equal my roll at 9.
Basically its impossible for the 1 initiative no exceptional army to win initiative period. Hopefully I finally make my point about the point spread favoring not only the French but armies who can have exceptional commanders in general versus low initiative no exceptional commander armies. Under the old system my armies almost always (90%) of the time defended so had to stand about for 2 turns. Now its pushing 100% of the time my armies will be defending.
I hope you see the problem this would result in for the rules if this went to print with this lopsided initiative system in place. Were testing it and I am finding it broken and not helping game play so far.