FOGN 2nd Edition

[Jilu]

Rear and flank Support rules:

should be in one paragraph

Support fire :

not clear ...especialy strange things can happen when a unit charges along several ennemy units , and gets no fire from that ennemy because out of support fire range

Buildings

should be simpler rules and more difficult to take ...example Hougoumont , where there were all sorts of untis defending it (a minority of Guards) is very fragile in FOGN, it is much easier to take than what happened.

Cavalry charges :

the burst through ....simple and easy to stop that ,...add a unit behind two other units and Cav can never burst through, but well ...seems strange...to me ...and not hystorical to have a unit in tactical just behind squares to stop burst throughs

It is easy to force due to coutercharge rules the oponent to lose his rear or flank support. is bisare to me as the units would move along and not just wait because they are not charged but their friends on their side or front are....

Guards:

There is no penality for morale testing when units see guards rout

Evade moves

Not clear and not well explained


OK i shut up now

[marty]

1) A unit that makes an outcome move loses its artillery attachment.


Far too extreme. A gamey effort to outcome enemy units with attachments ensues

I considered this the least "extreme" option. The game isn't exactly full of "Gamey" ways to force an outcome move. Generally you have either shot the snot out of them and they are falling back wavering or you have closed for an assault (pretty bloody hard against infantry with an art attachment) and done well in the assault. Either way the unit is falling back in a state of disarray. I would of thought the chance of guns getting left behind was pretty high. It is also worth bearing in mind it only effects units that are quite probably on the way out anyway.

I have been discerning a definite inclination towards armies that can have 2 art attachments per division and towards taking every one that is available, in virtually any list. To me this is a definite sign they are at least a bit too good.

Martin

[hazelbark]

On the contrary, it's fairly common that late Prussian infantry brigades have 1 or 2 cavalry squadrons attached to them. The same is true for some of the allied columns at Austerlitz. At least that's what the orbats show. Doesn't mean it didn't happen in other circumstances either. It's just not shown in the orbat, which just may mean the commander had the option. Some of the descriptions of French cavalry action at Quatre Bras seems like that of individual squadrons and not entire regiments, but I'm just guessing here.

Actually those specifically make my point. The were recon, and did skirmish< but the Prussian cavalry (often landwehr) didn't go in. At Austerlitz we have a lot of precise info of how they were used. I will re-read that to be sure but they weren't rushing around soloknitz castle. At Quatra Bras again if they were near the fray they were charging.

[bahdahbum]

They come back in Napoleonic times because shock becomes important again, and because it is easier to use, and gives more confidence to conscript units that do not have the experience of sabre use.

Jilu,

In this you are wrong . The use of the lance was difficult to master . It took some time to train a cavalryman to use that big weapon with some effect . But it had the advantage of reach versus infantry . Now what about cavalry with lance versus cavalry . At the impact the lancer mght have had an advantage, but a few seconds latter, the other cavalry had the advantage of using a saber versus a guy who tryed to use a long stick ! so usually , they dropped the lance to use a saber .

[bahdahbum]

I have been discerning a definite inclination towards armies that can have 2 art attachments per division and towards taking every one that is available, in virtually any list. To me this is a definite sign they are at least a bit too good.

Are they that good ? perhaps but consider this : they are mostly usefull to unreformed infantry . They represent a lone battery ( many were even horse art ) that went in with the infantry unit in order to give support .

Now if you limit this, unreformed armies will quickly become useless as they will be shot to pièces by reformed infantry without even be able to shoot one in a while .

[marty]

I would agree that skirmisher attachments are a more significant buy for unreformed (although still not necessary) but I don't really think artillery are. The key impact of the artillery attachment is the 2 dice at close range that make the unit well nigh impossible to assault while fresh and gives them much more of a punch when delivering a killer blow up close. This is just as important for reformed. I would also suggest that in terms of actual game effect having a unit go from 3 medium range dice to 4 is probably as significant as going from 0 to 2. Most of the time 2 dice at medium is going to have little to no effect (especially if it is spread over the frontage of one of the large units so many players advocate using with unreformed)

I run unreformed without attachments (and mainly in small units) all the time. Give it a go, you may be surprised. As long as you have plenty of cavalry it works fine.

Martin

[bahdahbum]

Back with reformed infantry and SK .

This is more for information . Reformed infantry shoots at 6 MU and that is because they sent a "cloud" of SK in front of the main unit .If you consider that the SK went 200 paces or so forward ( 2 MU ), some went 300 paces forward ( 3 MU ) the real range should be 4 or 5 MU . But is it that important to the game . 6 MU is still good for me . The problem is that light infantry units shoot that much better ( 5 dice ). It seems that the real difference between line and light infantry régiments was one of uniform and tradition, not tactics . Granted , light infantry was usually considered as a kind of "elite" and got "better" men . But in SK tactics, they were not different from line régiments .

If we want to change something, I would say Line and light reformed units, shoot with 3 dice, not 3 and 5 .

Also having whole light units in SK order seems unrealistic unless irregular . But I can live with it .

For interest you might whish to see the following link

http://napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyk ... tics_4.htm

[bahdahbum]

I run unreformed without attachments (and mainly in small units) all the time. Give it a go, you may be surprised. As long as you have plenty of cavalry it works fine.

Me too

But when I play russian, I play russian ! I want guns not useless SK ( ok suvarov and Kutusov wanted light infantry also )

[MDH]

Answering several points here- two of which I have said several times before

a) prolongs and anecdotes - no its piece of kit that many nations used rather than limber up fully and then unlimber and works fine for short distances( 2MUs is short) and rather than manhandle them ( which can be done as the carriages are designed to be moved easier than by just pushing them but not as far )and there are contemporary prints shown in recent works of the subject - read the notes at the back of the rules .

b) artillery firing overhead from high points - not done, not practice not liked by the friendly troops . ball useless in this context, relatively flat trajectory, low angle of depression or elevation of the barrel so the ball starts to drop and will either just bury itself in the earth or then bounce maybe as likely among your own troops. Shell and shrapnel will have premature fuze issues. (Canister obvious). Howitzers and mortars could if the friends were in a clear lower position and not close to the target or the firer as they haev higher trajectory but they have to see the target ( no indirect fire before the end of the 19th century). I don't invent this ( or (a) ) its what writers who have studied this subject far more than I say.


If I argued for a change it would be that overhead fire to or from a high point by howitzers and mortars (only) does not count as such unless it passes over any part of any rear base side of a unit in tactical or extended line , over any square, or any artillery base, or over more than one base of a friendly unit( if from a side angle). This would allow for some of the " dark space" that a unit footprint contains. But that is very fiddly and would lead to endless disputes!

Another approach would be to say CMT for artillery to do it plus any friendly unit fired over thus drops a cohesion level !

c) Cavalry attachments. Many orbats, not just Prussians have infantry divisions with only a few squadrons in them, many pre 1800, also 1814.Not able clearly to face off or launch a major cavalry assault but they can keep enemy infantry skirmishers at bay - hence our treatment .

I get a general feeling sometimes that some folk find the attachments concepts in FoG(N) a bit too radical for their taste or difficult to grasp other than as gamey thing to be exploited .

Play at Btn and Sqn level then.

[bahdahbum]

For artillery tactics I would councel this link

http://www.reenactor.ru/ARH/PDF/McConachy.pdf

It seems that the artilery firewall tactic was a real one . The only item missing for now is the size of the guns but I would suspect to be mobile and "rush" to the ennemy and manhadled it would be 6 pounders !

[Blathergut]

Attachments are working fine! No complaints here (except maybe Austrians should be limited to one per corps. ).

[shadowdragon]

c) Cavalry attachments. Many orbats, not just Prussians have infantry divisions with only a few squadrons in them, many pre 1800, also 1814.Not able clearly to face off or launch a major cavalry assault but they can keep enemy infantry skirmishers at bay - hence our treatment .

I get a general feeling sometimes that some folk find the attachments concepts in FoG(N) a bit too radical for their taste or difficult to grasp other than as gamey thing to be exploited .

Play at Btn and Sqn level then.

The attachment concept is one of the major reasons I like FoGN. The Prussian I Corps at Leipzig had 1,000 cavalry, of which only 250 were Landwehr, assigned to its four infantry brigades. It's always been an irritation about what to do with that number of cavalry distributed in penny packets. One or two hundred can probably be ignored, but 1,000? Not really. So usually what I would have ended up doing before FoGN is combining the attached cavalry into one or two units. It's not quite right, but better than ignoring them. With FoGN that's not an issue.

I'm not sure what's the issue. Cost-effectiveness for tournament type play? A simple and very radical solution is that players buy their artillery and cavalry at the regular cost and then either assign them to units or as attachments. Probably works better for cavalry as points for an attachment aren't too different from some of the cheaper cavalry options.

[shadowdragon]

On the contrary, it's fairly common that late Prussian infantry brigades have 1 or 2 cavalry squadrons attached to them. The same is true for some of the allied columns at Austerlitz. At least that's what the orbats show. Doesn't mean it didn't happen in other circumstances either. It's just not shown in the orbat, which just may mean the commander had the option. Some of the descriptions of French cavalry action at Quatre Bras seems like that of individual squadrons and not entire regiments, but I'm just guessing here.

Actually those specifically make my point. The were recon, and did skirmish< but the Prussian cavalry (often landwehr) didn't go in. At Austerlitz we have a lot of precise info of how they were used. I will re-read that to be sure but they weren't rushing around soloknitz castle. At Quatra Bras again if they were near the fray they were charging.

Cavalry attachments don't "go in". They have one thing they do which is to reduce the effectiveness of enemy skirmishers. Light cavalry in brigades also were recon and skirmish and often while a major engagement was underway, for example, Pire's hussar regiment at Quatre Bras. Incidentally, John Franklin on TMP has provided several quotes from eye-witness Brunswick sources that their Duke was killed by a skirmishing dragoon. There was no mention of being charged by the dragoons. Of course there's a debate about whether or not the dragoons were there, but that will be settled once other people have a chance to look over Franklin's sources.

I'm not sure what you're proposing. Ignoring attached cavalry completely? Reducing their effectiveness? I wouldn't favour the first option but the second is an option but only one that should be considered in conjunction with reduced effectiveness for light infantry units.

[deadtorius]

I run unreformed without attachments (and mainly in small units) all the time. Give it a go, you may be surprised. As long as you have plenty of cavalry it works fine.

Been there, tried it and won't do it again. Maybe you are luckier with dice or your French player is less lucky with his dice than mine is, or he is a lot nicer. When I tried it my units got shot up and could not respond. Not wanting to move up to close range when I have been shot to disordered and the Frogs get first shot next turn. Blathergut is good at moving up artillery and infantry, especially lights, and hammering my poor Austrians with 2 or 3 units worth of dice. If i can take large units in unreformed I am going to do it, makes up for the lack of shooting range, and I buy all the artillery and skirmish attachments I can. Personally I feel they are a necessity.

To each their own I guess. We all have different experiences even with the same armies.

I've also found that in our later games The Frenchies will target my reformed allies as they know it will take forever for the slow moving Austrians for ever to try and swing in on the flank. Or so has been my observations with an Austro-Russian or triple alliance force. I don't mind dropping attachments with the reformed boys, but Prussians have to have mandatory skirmish and cavalry attachments, and it does not seem right if they don't get those. Russians I usually take a Jager unit so no skirmish attachments anyway, artillery I can take them or leave them.

Personally I always liked the whole attachment part of the rules.

[MDH]

For artillery tactics I would councel this link

http://www.reenactor.ru/ARH/PDF/McConachy.pdf

It seems that the artilery firewall tactic was a real one . The only item missing for now is the size of the guns but I would suspect to be mobile and "rush" to the ennemy and manhadled it would be 6 pounders !

There is a photo in one of my books of the Garde de Paris re-enactors manhandling a 12pdr across a muddy field using the metal crowbars and the eyelets on the trail so it moves like a wheelbarrow. We probably make more ( in our minds) of field artillery in this era in terms of mass than we should when you consider how much bigger and heavier (in mass) guns on a man o' war were handled. A 12 pdr on a warship was considered easy to manage. Any re-enactors on this thread/forum who would to comment on their experiences?

I have always assumed one of the reasons Wellington never had enough artillery was because the admiralty demanded so much in the way or foundry and other resources for their needs .Two light frigates could have as many guns as a Corps. But it is not something I have examined.

[shadowdragon]

Moving by prolong in the ACW

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=178903

And a rather nice and concise article on Napoleonic artillery:

http://www.wtj.com/articles/napart/

Cheers

[shadowdragon]

From the Osprey book, Frederick the Great's Army: (1) Cavalry, by Philip Haythornthwaite:

"Against the Austrian light troops, Frederick ordered that his skirmishers of dragoons and hussars should always advance hastily and 'attack them closely formed and sword in hand, as this is a sort of recontre which they cannot endure, it has always happened that we have beaten them, without paying regard to the superiority of their numbers'. If attacked by enemy skirmishers, husssars were to 'attack their adversary vigorously, though they should be fired upon, and never suffer themselves to give way, but fall resolutely on them without making any use of their firearms'.

Bold emphasis is mine.

If it was the case in Frederick's day it probably was so in Napoleon's day.

[marty]

Personally I always liked the whole attachment part of the rules.

I like it as well and think it is vital to the historical accuracy of the game. I am simply suggesting one type of attachment (artillery) is a bit too good for the points.

The discussion of using unreformed without attachments is probably for another place but I will say I have found the key is to have your cavalry well forward (at least as far forward as the infantry) where your reformed opponent is trying to launch his attack on a limited front. This is not a winning tactic in a local sense but will generally slow the pace of the attack to a point where the rest of the unreformed army can come in to play.

Martin

[hazelbark]

I get a general feeling sometimes that some folk find the attachments concepts in FoG(N) a bit too radical for their taste or difficult to grasp other than as gamey thing to be exploited .

No this is one of the inspired pieces I feel and should be retro-fitted to AM. But alas.

My only wrinkle is the cavalry attachment can seem overly powerful at times. Two reformed small shooting at one large unreformed with a cavalry attachment effectively means no shooting. That's a bit much.
What i'd prefer if simple is a cavlry attachment can reduce a maximum of 2 medium range infantry dice per fire phase. Not per unit shooting at it. I'd probably also give a unit with a cavalry attachment an extra die in melee.

[hazelbark]

I'm not sure what you're proposing. Ignoring attached cavalry completely? Reducing their effectiveness? I wouldn't favour the first option but the second is an option but only one that should be considered in conjunction with reduced effectiveness for light infantry units.

See other post for minor reduction.
I am not certain about Light needing reduction. I think some of the options being discussed help reduce them. I think most people are talking about reducing the flexibility of skimisher formation which I agree with reducing.

Going from 5 dice to 4. Uncertain.