FOGN 2nd Edition

[hazelbark]

like 3 move cav idea - works well in FOG R.

Actually that is a disaster for FOG R and makes powerful mounted rule the day. I love being able to do it, but does exactly what I fear would further happen in FOG N. Mounted become the force of decision.

2. Abandoned artillery rule is too onerous - you hardly ever see the artillery again and if you do they're probably wavering. Think about not making them drop morale when they abandon, and be able to test as often as they like to return. No-one voluntarily abandons because you're pretty much lost anyway.

There is a clunky factor agreed. Could be simplified.

3. Moving away in response to fire is messy as you move away from the firers not to your rear - causes unnnecessary complexity with units crashing into each other, debates around split angles, etc - just make them fall back to their rear.

Agree a good place for simplifying. Just need to have a clear rule from fire from flank etc.

4. Similarly clarify/clean up mechanisms when falling back to 3MU from 3 firing hits. And just make it straight back and 3MU from the shooters not all enemy, otherwise you can get some odd situations where units leapfrog miles back.

Again agreed. I would consider having this push back friends behind rather than leap frogging I also like Rich's suggestion that it is clearer and straight back. Creates the odd chance that unreformed may still be able to fire.

5. Clunky rules re outcome moves reaching table edges, uncrossable terrain, etc. Mimic tried and tested other FOG systems - leave the table and lost if an outcome move goes over the edge, halt when hitting other uncrossables and fight/destroyed if contacted by pursuers.

With current deployment rules I disagree with this. It is too often the case that defenders are right up against their board edge this would further crate the attacker = the victor.

[hazelbark]

lack of decent terrain rules or the mechanism of them.

What do you consider the best defensive terrain feature? Mine is a gentle hill, for the following - you can charge down it, you can stand in extended line upon it without the stupid CT penalty and you can hide behind it, if need be. Anything more substantial than this is detrimental to the defender.

Try and defend a wood or an enclosed field - you'll shoot and fight poorly, having less dice than anyone else shooting at you or stabbing at you. If you choose to defend the edge of the terrain feature, then you have just made your worst error.
Why not adopt a simple rule that says if you assault a unit in a terrain feature then you are no longer in the open but count as being in other circumstances or are at least affected by the same problems as unit you are assaulting?

I agree the terrain section needs a clean up. It would add better color to the game to have more details in the terrain description types. Then more worthwhile features. as KItG suggests. The best defense of an enclosed field is you defend behind it so attacker comes through it and you have obstacle for defense and they are in goop. That is hard to engineer, although it is a good way to hold off enemy lights who will be drawn to the terrain to attack through.

The obstacle rules are somewhat easy but a bit odd. An obstacle 10 MU from the nearest enemy could hold up a brigade for many hours doesn't seem right. I get there is some issue with river/stream crossing uncontested, but the obstacle rules for that were overly extrapolated.

Clarifying the building rules ala the FAQ is needed of course. A further revision of building rules may be in order but I don't have my head around quite what. Maybe two different grades. A simpler building grouping perhaps weaker than current rules and a more serious thing like Solkonitz castle, Essling Granery, Hougmont, etc that is potentially stronger than current.

[MDH]

lack of decent terrain rules or the mechanism of them.

What do you consider the best defensive terrain feature? Mine is a gentle hill, for the following - you can charge down it, you can stand in extended line upon it without the stupid CT penalty and you can hide behind it, if need be. Anything more substantial than this is detrimental to the defender.

Try and defend a wood or an enclosed field - you'll shoot and fight poorly, having less dice than anyone else shooting at you or stabbing at you. If you choose to defend the edge of the terrain feature, then you have just made your worst error.
Why not adopt a simple rule that says if you assault a unit in a terrain feature then you are no longer in the open but count as being in other circumstances or are at least affected by the same problems as unit you are assaulting?

I agree the terrain section needs a clean up. It would add better color to the game to have more details in the terrain description types. Then more worthwhile features. as KItG suggests. The best defense of an enclosed field is you defend behind it so attacker comes through it and you have obstacle for defense and they are in goop. That is hard to engineer, although it is a good way to hold off enemy lights who will be drawn to the terrain to attack through.

The obstacle rules are somewhat easy but a bit odd. An obstacle 10 MU from the nearest enemy could hold up a brigade for many hours doesn't seem right. I get there is some issue with river/stream crossing uncontested, but the obstacle rules for that were overly extrapolated.

Clarifying the building rules ala the FAQ is needed of course. A further revision of building rules may be in order but I don't have my head around quite what. Maybe two different grades. A simpler building grouping perhaps weaker than current rules and a more serious thing like Solkonitz castle, Essling Granery, Hougmont, etc that is potentially stronger than current.

Ages ago as you may remember there was a thread on woods and I did a post which basically said there are many more variations and distinctions in real geography than we usually allow for in most wargames rules not just miniatures. I'll not repeat it all here and we talked about open and closed woods for example and the variability of ground and cover in woods of all types. When I go to SALUTE I see wonderful terrain but don't know how it is actually being used in the game . Some of the stuff sold for FOG( AM) and (R) and (N) is just naff by comparison. You might as well use a piece of paper with what it is written on it. But the moment you use non standard, irregular shaped and sculpted terrain that looks real you run into game difficulties. We have to generalise to avoid unsolvable disputes about what is steep and what is not etc , which is Aesthetics driving out game convenience. Not easy stuff to carry about either . We can do better but whether it really gets to the heart of it I am not sure. D rolls to see just how difficult something is? Like we do with watercourses?

[shadowdragon]

Just some ideas....

Reformed are supposed to be wiling to move closer to the enemy whilst still in column. Occasionally this means they are caught in column trying to form line against an enemy deployed in battalion lines that has stood firm. Unreformed units are supposed to be more willing to have their battalions deployed in line further from the enemy, so they get a slower speed but they don't get the benefit of already being in line. So...what if unreformed (maybe not conscripts) get 5 instead of 4 dice at close range. If we drop the -1 dice for CT for unreformed in extended line that might be enough to make extended line formation for unreformed worthwhile. Alastair, would that go some way towards your issues??

I'm undecided if we need to change the outcomes for hits for extended line since a single unit in extended line shouldn't be that resilient when facing two enemy units. Two (or more) lines of battalions were more the norm and not a single line. The problem is the game mechanics are different for units in tactical compared to units in extended line but with a supporting 2nd line. Ideally, the outcome - in terms of a firefight - of 2 units in tactical side by side should be nearly the same as two units in extended line one behind the other. There are some complicated solutions to this. The simple solution is one mentioned above, unreformed in extended line ignore 1 hit....maybe only if there is a supporting 2nd unit.

Do we need to allow unreformed a (minimal) ability to fire back at reformed infantry firing at them from medium range. I assume that means the reformed unit has pushed skirmishers to within 2 MU of the unreformed unit, which is the same logic as why units, including unreformed, in buildings fire back at infantry firing at them from medium range.

[deadtorius]

For what its worth and just some food for thought, the old WRG rules, granted battalion level game, you would remove skirmisher casualties from the main line troops out back. The idea being that the support unit feeds more skirmisher forward as the skirmish line takes casualties. So perhaps allowing say 2 dice for reformed at Med range is not a bad thing. Then comes the question of would you allow both halves of the unit to fire like they do at close range? I tried using extended line with line troops a few times and quickly dropped it as my line troops would get shot up by 2 or 3 French units and I would drop 1 or 2 cohesion levels with little or no chance to drop the french as my attachment had to split its dice on return fire. I think the big problem is the difference in hits taken by a unit in extended line compared to the hits it can inflict, only if it has attachments. It sounds like troops in line were more resilient and I agree that was due to extensive training that existed in the previous century, so perhaps allowing pre 1800 unreformed in extended line to reduce med range shooting hits by 1, 2 for a large unit would make them more resilient and better able to actually move up to 2 MU. The danger is that you have to move up to 2 Mu then your opponent gets first shot back at you. Not something you want to risk if the Frenchies have dropped you 1 cohesion level in return fire during the unreformed armies turn.
I agree that later on the greater number of conscripts in the various battalions meant that the unreformed armies are more brittle than their previous counterparts, so probably by 1805 you could take the hit reduction out of the equation.
As I said just a thought, decided to put it out there.

For the record I am opposed to 3rd moves or unlimited second moves as has been suggested before. Unless you want to add in a specific special rules for tournaments section, which you could put that kind of stuff in to help speed up play.

[shadowdragon]

It sounds like troops in line were more resilient and I agree that was due to extensive training that existed in the previous century, so perhaps allowing pre 1800 unreformed in extended line to reduce med range shooting hits by 1, 2 for a large unit would make them more resilient and better able to actually move up to 2 MU.

I don't quite understand this. Surely an unreformed brigade in tactical with two battalions in the front line and one or two battalions in reserve is more resilient with an unreformed brigade in extended line with all of its battalions in the firing line.

[deadtorius]

Some one had posted that the older armies had more troops with better training, years worth, so were able to perform better at both maneuver and standing up to French shooting. As time progressed those well disciplined troops either died or retired out of the army to be replaced by conscripts who had less training and were more brittle.

From a pure game stand point extended line is like suicide, you are going to get all shot up by multiple units so being in extended line makes little game sense. I've tried running Grenzers and Cossacks in extended lines, but with the current evade rules they will burst through at least 2 friendly units when charged, so its a big risk even with them. Right now there is no incentive to use extended line. even having 2 units in extended line one behind the other is likely going to end up with on being driven back/ broken the other being burst through.

I was trying to come up with something to try and make an extended line more resistant to med shooting. The suggestion of ignoring the move back to 3 or even outcome moves sounds good but it does not prevent the cohesion loss from mass shooting by more than one enemy which is the biggest down side to extended line.

[shadowdragon]

Some one had posted that the older armies had more troops with better training, years worth, so were able to perform better at both maneuver and standing up to French shooting. As time progressed those well disciplined troops either died or retired out of the army to be replaced by conscripts who had less training and were more brittle.

From a pure game stand point extended line is like suicide, you are going to get all shot up by multiple units so being in extended line makes little game sense. I've tried running Grenzers and Cossacks in extended lines, but with the current evade rules they will burst through at least 2 friendly units when charged, so its a big risk even with them. Right now there is no incentive to use extended line. even having 2 units in extended line one behind the other is likely going to end up with on being driven back/ broken the other being burst through.

I was trying to come up with something to try and make an extended line more resistant to med shooting. The suggestion of ignoring the move back to 3 or even outcome moves sounds good but it does not prevent the cohesion loss from mass shooting by more than one enemy which is the biggest down side to extended line.

Ok, you meant an extended line should be more resilient than it is now; not more resilient than a unit in tactical. The problem is one of game mechanics and whether or not it can adequately capture both ancien regime and late Napoleonic tactical manoeuvre. Perhaps it can't. The standard deployment of 18th century armies was in two lines of battalions. Right now the best way to represent that in the game is to deploy units in tactical but it doesn't have the right feel.

[MDH]

In general I favour making units in extended line more resilient and making things a bit easier for unreformed armies but not so much as to turn it into an 18th century game or become a profound game changer. So from the various ideas floated here and some of my own and Terry’s these are my current thoughts:

a) Small non skirmishing infantry units in extended line ignore the first hit at all ranges provided they have rear support from infantry( same qualifying rules for rear support as now ) .Large units already do , as do superiors in a charge. No double ignores.
b) Unreformed infantry in extended line get 2 dice at medium range if they have no skirmish or artillery attachment ( they get dice anyway then) . 0 becomes 2
c) Unreformed infantry more than 12 MUs (outside max cavalry charge reach) from any enemy can move 6MUs in tactical.
d) Poor conscripts cannot form extended line- or even conscripts overall?
e) Remove the minus I dice for cohesion test by troops in extended line in the open .

None of these are mutually exclusive and need playtesting as a group to see if the combined effects are too much . I do not think any single one of them would be significant but they might be in combination. And are they enough to make extended line a more useful and used option?

[BrettPT]

Some good ideas coming out of this. I would like to see a meaningful distinctions remain between reformed and unreformed troops so would generally limit the below to unreformed only. My thoughts:

a) Small non skirmishing infantry units in extended line ignore the first hit at all ranges provided they have rear support from infantry( same qualifying rules for rear support as now ) .Large units already do , as do superiors in a charge. No double ignores.

Definitely. The current -POA for extended line at long range could be removed if this was adopted.

b) Unreformed infantry in extended line get 2 dice at medium range if they have no skirmish or artillery attachment ( they get dice anyway then) . 0 becomes 2

Not so keen on this. 2 dice (often split between targets) is neither here nor there, and may simply slow the game. The distinction between reformed that can skirmish shoot, and unreformed that can't, is worth keeping.

c) Unreformed infantry more than 12 MUs (outside max cavalry charge reach) from any enemy can move 6MUs in tactical.

This could replace the current unreformed troops who are a attacker move as reformed in the first 2 turns - with a similar effect.

d) Poor conscripts cannot form extended line- or even conscripts overall?

Seems reasonable, for reformed troops as well as unreformed

e) Remove the minus I dice for cohesion test by troops in extended line in the open .

Definitely.

I don't think that these options would over-egg unreformed. They would also help those early armies which cannot have large units, as small units may be effective in extended line (I think there is a massive difference between unreformed armies with large units and those with small - the ignore a hit makes large unreformed much more effective).
It would also help the 'look' and 'feel' of an unreformed army to encourage them to make more use of extended lines.

[shadowdragon]

In general I favour making units in extended line more resilient and making things a bit easier for unreformed armies but not so much as to turn it into an 18th century game or become a profound game changer. So from the various ideas floated here and some of my own and Terry’s these are my current thoughts:

a) Small non skirmishing infantry units in extended line ignore the first hit at all ranges provided they have rear support from infantry( same qualifying rules for rear support as now ) .Large units already do , as do superiors in a charge. No double ignores.
b) Unreformed infantry in extended line get 2 dice at medium range if they have no skirmish or artillery attachment ( they get dice anyway then) . 0 becomes 2
c) Unreformed infantry more than 12 MUs (outside max cavalry charge reach) from any enemy can move 6MUs in tactical.
d) Poor conscripts cannot form extended line- or even conscripts overall?
e) Remove the minus I dice for cohesion test by troops in extended line in the open .

None of these are mutually exclusive and need playtesting as a group to see if the combined effects are too much . I do not think any single one of them would be significant but they might be in combination. And are they enough to make extended line a more useful and used option?

Agree with Brett that these seem reasonable; b) is the only one that would need closer examination. I wouldn't restrict to only unreformed if conscripts can't form extended line. Might see an ordre mixte arrangement for reformed armies. The skirmishing and move are already big differences but need testing.

P.s. My previous comment is what you get at 3:00 am when you can't sleep from an due to bruised ribs.

[MDH]

In general I favour making units in extended line more resilient and making things a bit easier for unreformed armies but not so much as to turn it into an 18th century game or become a profound game changer. So from the various ideas floated here and some of my own and Terry’s these are my current thoughts:

a) Small non skirmishing infantry units in extended line ignore the first hit at all ranges provided they have rear support from infantry( same qualifying rules for rear support as now ) .Large units already do , as do superiors in a charge. No double ignores.
b) Unreformed infantry in extended line get 2 dice at medium range if they have no skirmish or artillery attachment ( they get dice anyway then) . 0 becomes 2
c) Unreformed infantry more than 12 MUs (outside max cavalry charge reach) from any enemy can move 6MUs in tactical.
d) Poor conscripts cannot form extended line- or even conscripts overall?
e) Remove the minus I dice for cohesion test by troops in extended line in the open .

None of these are mutually exclusive and need playtesting as a group to see if the combined effects are too much . I do not think any single one of them would be significant but they might be in combination. And are they enough to make extended line a more useful and used option?

Agree with Brett that these seem reasonable; b) is the only one that would need closer examination. I wouldn't restrict to only unreformed if conscripts can't form extended line. Might see an ordre mixte arrangement for reformed armies. The skirmishing and move are already big differences but need testing.

P.s. My previous comment is what you get at 3:00 am when you can't sleep from an due to bruised ribs.

Wouldn't your point re (b) and reformed be worse for reformed troops? At medium range they get 3 and 4 dice etc anyway even in extended line. We don't require them to be in tactical. I was not proposing that troops in extended line at medium range count as two units but if in extended line it can be they have a two targets in different range bands for half so in that instance half could be in short and the other half in medium, so de facto then they can count as two. ( page 49 top left unless there is a clarification I have missed). Conscripts not being in extended does them no disfavour at medium range.

I did miss the order mixed option for unit formations when we opted for regiments and 4/6 bases and not battalions especially in 1792-95 with the Blancs and Bleues .You can do it of course with 6 bases but it tends to be a space hungry thing and at regimental level vey French - the Prussian 1813+ brigades had mixed options. Not sure how systematic it was for other armies but there is nothing to say you cannot do it above unit level. Its is of course valid for larger scale formations. It took a fair bit of debate and soul searching and I dug my heels in a bit at the start in 2008 as I recall.

Sympathise my lower back gave me all kinds of problems after SALUTE- long queues, hard unyielding floors long distances and steep stairs to navigate getting there when changing stops on the tube and DLR - neglected body unused to all that after 4 years no longer commuting daily.

[MDH]

Some good ideas coming out of this. I would like to see a meaningful distinctions remain between reformed and unreformed troops so would generally limit the below to unreformed only. My thoughts:

a) Small non skirmishing infantry units in extended line ignore the first hit at all ranges provided they have rear support from infantry( same qualifying rules for rear support as now ) .Large units already do , as do superiors in a charge. No double ignores.

Definitely. The current -POA for extended line at long range could be removed if this was adopted.

b) Unreformed infantry in extended line get 2 dice at medium range if they have no skirmish or artillery attachment ( they get dice anyway then) . 0 becomes 2

Not so keen on this. 2 dice (often split between targets) is neither here nor there, and may simply slow the game. The distinction between reformed that can skirmish shoot, and unreformed that can't, is worth keeping.

c) Unreformed infantry more than 12 MUs (outside max cavalry charge reach) from any enemy can move 6MUs in tactical.

This could replace the current unreformed troops who are a attacker move as reformed in the first 2 turns - with a similar effect.

d) Poor conscripts cannot form extended line- or even conscripts overall?

Seems reasonable, for reformed troops as well as unreformed

e) Remove the minus I dice for cohesion test by troops in extended line in the open .

Definitely.

I don't think that these options would over-egg unreformed. They would also help those early armies which cannot have large units, as small units may be effective in extended line (I think there is a massive difference between unreformed armies with large units and those with small - the ignore a hit makes large unreformed much more effective).
It would also help the 'look' and 'feel' of an unreformed army to encourage them to make more use of extended lines.

" screen" if we deceude to

Agree on the minus POA at long range going too. But for cavalry too?There may be an issue re that and cavalry in a screen if we decide that replaces the skirmish concept so for now yes would be my call for infantry in extended line but Terry I need to confer on that ( and on this generally of course. I am trying to composite the options into reasonably sized discrete and internally consistent " bunches" to make it easier to test them.

You may well be right on 2 dice just slowing things down for no gain although we accept that when there is an artillery attachment with an unreformed unit but with no skirmisher. But even one dice hitting when you are the active player may cause a unit to have to take a CMT to advance so it is not worthless in all cases.And even one dice is worth having if other units can also fire on that target from other angles.

In some cases even now I find I dispense with some throws as there is no point to them . Disordered unit down from 3 dice to 2, against a large or Guard unit that ignores one hit and I am the active player with no other unit that can hit the target .

But let's try it out in testing ?

[shadowdragon]

In general I favour making units in extended line more resilient and making things a bit easier for unreformed armies but not so much as to turn it into an 18th century game or become a profound game changer. So from the various ideas floated here and some of my own and Terry’s these are my current thoughts:

a) Small non skirmishing infantry units in extended line ignore the first hit at all ranges provided they have rear support from infantry( same qualifying rules for rear support as now ) .Large units already do , as do superiors in a charge. No double ignores.
b) Unreformed infantry in extended line get 2 dice at medium range if they have no skirmish or artillery attachment ( they get dice anyway then) . 0 becomes 2
c) Unreformed infantry more than 12 MUs (outside max cavalry charge reach) from any enemy can move 6MUs in tactical.
d) Poor conscripts cannot form extended line- or even conscripts overall?
e) Remove the minus I dice for cohesion test by troops in extended line in the open .

None of these are mutually exclusive and need playtesting as a group to see if the combined effects are too much . I do not think any single one of them would be significant but they might be in combination. And are they enough to make extended line a more useful and used option?

Agree with Brett that these seem reasonable; b) is the only one that would need closer examination. I wouldn't restrict to only unreformed if conscripts can't form extended line. Might see an ordre mixte arrangement for reformed armies. The skirmishing and move are already big differences but need testing.

P.s. My previous comment is what you get at 3:00 am when you can't sleep from an due to bruised ribs.

Wouldn't your point re (b) and reformed be worse for reformed troops? At medium range they get 3 and 4 dice etc anyway even in extended line. We don't require them to be in tactical. I was not proposing that troops in extended line at medium range count as two units but if in extended line it can be they have a two targets in different range bands for half so in that instance half could be in short and the other half in medium, so de facto then they can count as two. ( page 49 top left unless there is a clarification I have missed). Conscripts not being in extended does them no disfavour at medium range.

I did miss the order mixed option for unit formations when we opted for regiments and 4/6 bases and not battalions especially in 1792-95 with the Blancs and Bleues .You can do it of course with 6 bases but it tends to be a space hungry thing and at regimental level vey French - the Prussian 1813+ brigades had mixed options. Not sure how systematic it was for other armies but there is nothing to say you cannot do it above unit level. Its is of course valid for larger scale formations. It took a fair bit of debate and soul searching and I dug my heels in a bit at the start in 2008 as I recall.

Sympathise my lower back gave me all kinds of problems after SALUTE- long queues, hard unyielding floors long distances and steep stairs to navigate getting there when changing stops on the tube and DLR - neglected body unused to all that after 4 years no longer commuting daily.

I needed a paragraph break in my post. So...

(1) point b needs closer examination / consideration re: utility, restrictions, etc. - that's my only point b comment; and
(2) don't think extended line should only be for unreformed. At least reformed veterans should be able form extended line.....maybe some classes of drilled but I wouldn't want the inclusions / exclusions to be to complicated as it's probably not worth the column space in the rules.

[MDH]

I needed a paragraph break in my post. So...

(1) point b needs closer examination / consideration re: utility, restrictions, etc. - that's my only point b comment; and
(2) don't think extended line should only be for unreformed. At least reformed veterans should be able form extended line.....maybe some classes of drilled but I wouldn't want the inclusions / exclusions to be to complicated as it's probably not worth the column space in the rules.[/quote]

No intention of limiting extended line to unreformed as that would be silly Maybe I did not make that explicit. Just to retain unreformed slightly better at advancing in it ( 4 MUs not 3 MUs) and not quite so disadvantaged for being in it including at medium range (albeit there are valid points on that from Brett)or when in tactical. It will all come out in testing I am sure .And reformed in line would benefit from the ignore first hit provision just the same.

No colours nailed to the mast . We have talked about stopping large units from forming extended line but I do not think that is needed . The space issues are discouraging enough as it is and they would get no double hit ignore.

You might do it for a big cavalry v cavalry battle on a big table? But even then...and as I said we are also discussing the cavalry skirmish thing which might lead to a change in what extended line for cavalry actually means - as opposed to tactical . Tactical is in some ways too deep as a physical model to really represent cavalry in a succession of lines . There is a lot of "dark space" contained within the unit foot print.( This is true of most miniatures rules where cavalry are concerned.)

(Very) quick canter through E&E shows few unreformed armies with any infantry conscripts , mainly Grenzers when treated as regulars so to that unscientific, quick and dirty extent stopping conscripts forming line will probably more affect reformed armies, but not hugely I suggest . The question is whether we should just do it on a list basis , do it just for all poor conscripts, or for all conscripts . The last two would be for unreformed too and are of course easier to implement. List specific will be for both as each list may require.

Lists is probably more precise and targetable but will be another factor tending to push us more to a completely new set of lists for publication which I am reluctant to do, for cost and value for money reasons to you guys (not much gain for pain for us either). Plus I have been hoping we might be able to do a limited range of rewritten and new lists that we might publish in a cheap and cheerful form including on line and no more than say 20 at the most maybe even in small batches for free and easy download like errata Slitherine agreeing .

Once we open the Pandora's box of " we are reviewing them all " I fear for my sanity at the blizzard of suggestions, special pleadings and general mayhem in these pages that would ensue

But we have to get the rules reset first - lists follow rules. So eg if the points system changed so would virtually every list ( careful use there of the subjunctive ).

[shadowdragon]

Mike, I don't know if I'm happy or sad about v2 for FoGN. There are some good ideas emerging which will improve an already excellent set of rules - hopefully both historical scenario and tournament play will benefit, but....I'm sad that it probably means an 18th century set of rules has been pushed to the back burner. LOL

[MDH]

Mike, I don't know if I'm happy or sad about v2 for FoGN. There are some good ideas emerging which will improve an already excellent set of rules - hopefully both historical scenario and tournament play will benefit, but....I'm sad that it probably means an 18th century set of rules has been pushed to the back burner. LOL

Good point. Thanks . I'll see what I can do .

I go to far fewer tournaments ( as in none at all )than Terry ( but that keeps him in face to face touch with gamers ) and so I have rather more time available I suspect - although I am not as good as a rules and games designer in terms of processes and mechanisms.

And I always have other projects on the go some with Terry - WW1 Naval just now with him, plus my own interest in on FoG(AM) European medievals and tweaking them to be more culturally valid and satisfying , constructing a Tyrolean revolt army for FOG(N) , a FoG(N) campaign etc etc

But I might at least be able to do a kind of top down " treatment" piece to put out here for reactions that sets out how we envision it might work and be structured. The 1740's to 1780's in Europe we have more or less got although not all written down enough to enable testing yet. Basically some unconnected bits of text and a draft QRS. we know there are folk who would like to test it from the previous thread. ( Not quite the pressures George R R Martin gets I know... )

But it's all the stuff outside that " core" which is really hard to fit in - North America , India, Great Northern war and War of Spanish Succession . We had not thought in terms of say the continental army under George Washington facing Frederick the Great much less Peter the Great, so maybe, as we were content with the 23 years of FOG(N), we should just say "no lets just stick to that 40 year core" .

What do you ( and others) think of that notion? It would not strictly be the Seven Years War but a bit more than that, but still pretty much within what Christopher Duffy ( the guru in this era) sees as the essence of it all in the " Age of Reason."

Much more formalistic I have to say than FoG(N) . Might even be a bit dull for some

[shadowdragon]

Mike, I don't know if I'm happy or sad about v2 for FoGN. There are some good ideas emerging which will improve an already excellent set of rules - hopefully both historical scenario and tournament play will benefit, but....I'm sad that it probably means an 18th century set of rules has been pushed to the back burner. LOL

Good point. Thanks . I'll see what I can do .

I go to far fewer tournaments ( as in none at all )than Terry ( but that keeps him in face to face touch with gamers ) and so I have rather more time available I suspect - although I am not as good as a rules and games designer in terms of processes and mechanisms.

And I always have other projects on the go some with Terry - WW1 Naval just now with him, plus my own interest in on FoG(AM) European medievals and tweaking them to be more culturally valid and satisfying , constructing a Tyrolean revolt army for FOG(N) , a FoG(N) campaign etc etc

But I might at least be able to do a kind of top down " treatment" piece to put out here for reactions that sets out how we envision it might work and be structured. The 1740's to 1780's in Europe we have more or less got although not all written down enough to enable testing yet. Basically some unconnected bits of text and a draft QRS. we know there are folk who would like to test it from the previous thread. ( Not quite the pressures George R R Martin gets I know... )

But it's all the stuff outside that " core" which is really hard to fit in - North America , India, Great Northern war and War of Spanish Succession . We had not thought in terms of say the continental army under George Washington facing Frederick the Great much less Peter the Great, so maybe, as we were content with the 23 years of FOG(N), we should just say "no lets just stick to that 40 year core" .

What do you ( and others) think of that notion? It would not strictly be the Seven Years War but a bit more than that, but still pretty much within what Christopher Duffy ( the guru in this era) sees as the essence of it all in the " Age of Reason."

Much more formalistic I have to say than FoG(N) . Might even be a bit dull for some

That seems very reasonable. Although my troops are War of Spanish Succession, I'm sure I could use them, despite being based for FoGR (FoGN wasn't around then and I had been using PoW), for 1740-1780. I'm also sure I could extrapolate to the WSS satisfactorily.

As for dull.....doh! Look at the colour and the big flags!



And that's just the French army.

Anyway this is way off topic for this thread, so this needs to move elsewhere.

[Blathergut]

What about leaving line as it is, but letting artillery shoot through it from behind, as if placed in center and on ends?

[deadtorius]

No colours nailed to the mast . We have talked about stopping large units from forming extended line but I do not think that is needed . The space issues are discouraging enough as it is and they would get no double hit ignore.

It might seem to add extra complexity but what if extended line was restricted to 4 base frontage for infantry. A large infantry unit (yes that should be read as Austrian) that wishes to form extended line would then be 4 bases up front in a single line, two bases out back behind the two middle front bases. I think it kind of reflects what many of you have said about 2 lines up and a reserve in line or column type formation out back. This would keep the Hungarians from not being allowed to form extended line since they almost always have to be large units. Also I have first hand experience with large units and extended line and how its almost impossible to do with the massive frontage they take up.

To get even more radical and make it more appealing, allow large units in extended line to keep their built in rear support. That is of course if you approve of the 4 up front 2 out back extended line deployment. You still physically have your built in rear supports out back.

Just a thought that occurred to me after reading some of the above posts so I thought why not put it out there.

Also thoughts on conscripts and extended line. I think Reformed conscripts should not be able to go into extended line regardless of whether they are poor or not. As for unreformed conscripts, well their armies are still using the extended line so they might have actually gotten some training in it as its still in the drill books. From what I have read the large Austrian units would have their third battalion made up of Landwehr. I would assume and always use that type of unit make up for my large Austrians in 1813+ to represent the conscript units, 1 base of 6 is wearing the Korsehut representing Landwehr in the regimental uniform. So perhaps unreformed conscripts could go into extended line?

Something to ponder anyway. I see some good ideas forming here, looking forward to trying some of them out.