FOGN 2nd Edition

[MDH]

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.

Some interesting points - re the 4 up 2 behind its only a benefit if it counts as and extended line with rear support I guess - which it could do - what do others think?

Re unreformed conscripts obviously not an issue if a Btn is part of a bigger non conscript unit as it takes on the main quality even if a bit diluted. I have also read somewhere that in 1813 the Landwehr generally were kept behind the Army of Bohemia , maybe used for detachments, garrisons, maintaining lines of comms etc .But maybe the fault is mine in classifying them as conscript rather than poor but drilled when 100% Landwehr in an unreformed Austrian army of the 1800's.

In any event before opting to prevent all conscripts as opposed to poor conscripts from forming extended line I do need a thorough count of how many lists and core troops in particular that impacts and whether I want to make some individual list exceptions to that general rule. So something like "Conscript line infantry may not form extended line except for the following Lists etc etc "

Of course " "conscript" as we use it is not a reference solely to the recruitment method cf Russian Infantry who were conscripted virtually for life - but" training no better than a freshly recruited conscript" .

[deadtorius]

I had always assumed the game term conscript meant newer troops with little formal training. My thoughts on reformed troops, especially 1813 + is the French were trained as it were while marching off to Germany. I don't believe advancing in line was taught much, they mainly seemed to practice advancing in columns. I could be mistaken but don't see reformed conscripts getting advanced training in a difficult formation when attack columns are preferred.

[shadowdragon]

I had always assumed the game term conscript meant newer troops with little formal training. My thoughts on reformed troops, especially 1813 + is the French were trained as it were while marching off to Germany. I don't believe advancing in line was taught much, they mainly seemed to practice advancing in columns. I could be mistaken but don't see reformed conscripts getting advanced training in a difficult formation when attack columns are preferred.

Probably obvious but worth pointing out that it's not because the conscripts were in reformed armies that their training was limited but because nations were desperate for manpower as the wars went on while simultaneously moving to a reformed system. After the wars all armies are very different from those of 1790 - even the Brits and the Austrians. My own view is that once they had time for adequate training it was the Prussian army that was the most modern. Of course that's arguable.

[deadtorius]

Some interesting points - re the 4 up 2 behind its only a benefit if it counts as and extended line with rear support I guess - which it could do

Initially I was thinking of how to make a large unit in extended line useful and came up with the 4 up to back, then it occurred to me why not let them keep their rear support benefit, same as deep tactical. 4 bases in extended line is doable but at present is too suicidal, 6 bases is just way too massive, at least in 28mm. Trying to make extended line more appealing and usable on the table top. Glad you liked the idea

[BrettPT]

4 up, 2 back for large extended lines (counting as a self-supported unit) seems a potential goer to me.
Shoot & fight as a small extended, ignoring the first hit for both, and with rear support in combat.

They could be modelled with the 2 rear base ranks at the ends (so as to look like a l'order mix) or in the centre (looking like reserve battalions in a second line).

[Daemionhunter]

I like the four up two back idea with the impact on shooting casualties as proposed.

[KitG]

I wouldn't support it as it creates a whole new formation - simplicity is a key element. They are often missing from these rules. Let large units form extended line - so what? They'll be long vulnerable targets at medium range and shot to bits by 3+ units and artillery lined up against them.

Line ignoring the first hit at any range, irregardless seems to be the way to go for me, if it replaces the hit on a 6 at long range currently being used. Just don't complicate it by saying they have to have rear support - keep it simple.

If this variation was introduced along with not turning to face the rear unless the outcome move is 6+ and not dropping a die for a CT if unreformed and in extended line, then I think this solves most of the problems whilst at the same time still having extended line vulnerable to medium range skirmishing and canister fire, which it was, if enough firepower could be concentrated against it.

[adonald]

having extended line vulnerable to medium range skirmishing and canister fire, which it was, if enough firepower could be concentrated against it.

I think this is an important point. British extended lines were screened by terrain and large clouds of skirmishers, in some cases so many that the French thought they had broken a British line only to find the actual line formed up behind the first 'line' (in fact, the skirmish screen) as it pulled back out of the way. If you're going to use this and have the British 'move as unreformed, fight as reformed' then where do they fit into this picture? Will they have the benefits of an unreformed unit, but not be vulnerable to "medium range skirmishing and canister fire", because they weren't'?

Also, as a separate thought, where do British Light Infantry fit into this one point reduction idea? Are British light infantry one point less because, in tactical. they only move 4 MU?

The more we look at this, the less tenable (if it ever was) the British / Portuguese / 1815 Hanoverians (not the 1814 ones, they're strangely reformed) classification is.

Alastair Donald

[adonald]

For example in how many games do gunners, having abandoned their guns, get an opportunity to recover them? Could abandoned guns just be removed?

The Anglo-Allied artillery abandoned and regained their gusn all afternoon at Waterloo... but that wasn't a game, it was the real thing...

Alastair Donald

[KitG]

having extended line vulnerable to medium range skirmishing and canister fire, which it was, if enough firepower could be concentrated against it.

I think this is an important point. British extended lines were screened by terrain and large clouds of skirmishers, in some cases so many that the French thought they had broken a British line only to find the actual line formed up behind the first 'line' (in fact, the skirmish screen) as it pulled back out of the way. If you're going to use this and have the British 'move as unreformed, fight as reformed' then where do they fit into this picture? Will they have the benefits of an unreformed unit, but not be vulnerable to "medium range skirmishing and canister fire", because they weren't'?

Also, as a separate thought, where do British Light Infantry fit into this one point reduction idea? Are British light infantry one point less because, in tactical. they only move 4 MU?

The more we look at this, the less tenable (if it ever was) the British / Portuguese / 1815 Hanoverians (not the 1814 ones, they're strangely reformed) classification is.

Alastair Donald

Yes, although I guess that because the poms can still shoot out to 6 inches means that they can protect their line with skirmisher fire, to a certain extent,in a way that the Austrians or the Spanish can not.

Your conclusion is why I suggest that British System Line are purchased as reformed, may move in tactical as reformed OR may move as unreformed in Line - no points reduction required and a positive incentive provided for the British player to form extended line when he can.

[MDH]

I had always assumed the game term conscript meant newer troops with little formal training. My thoughts on reformed troops, especially 1813 + is the French were trained as it were while marching off to Germany. I don't believe advancing in line was taught much, they mainly seemed to practice advancing in columns. I could be mistaken but don't see reformed conscripts getting advanced training in a difficult formation when attack columns are preferred.

Scott Bowden's book on the Grande Armee in 1813 is very informative on that with much correspondence included from French Commanders on the lack of training and time to train for the new units - particularly in regimental manoeuvres. Certainly no time to learn how to form line - just column to square and back again - er that's it. Not even sure a provisional light infantry regiment could actually behave like light infantry but I have not gone that far.

Of course those longer serving regulars pulled in like the Naval Btns and from Spain and Italy in 1813 were not like that even with fresh drafts added to them . They would have had officers and NCOs who either knew how to do it in the first place, or had the professional military ( of Naval) background by then could learn quickly unlike the provisional regiments whose officers and NCOs were as often a bit like the men. (Note however not the same as the provisional regiments of the Corps d' Observation in Spain- different kind of provisional ).

1813 was almost a rerun of "La Partie en danger" of 1792-95 but this time the new soldiers were mostly mere teenage boys whose service had been brought forward and whose physical and mental resilience was very low, made worse by inferior rations and long marches to which they were unaccustomed. None of the fire of the revolution among mature men to keep them warm and lively and provide the passion to win and learn.

I suppose one could regard long standing militia differently like the British Yeomanry - not hastily raised but part time semi professional , or depot Btns whose drill in the field would still be inferior to regulars at least initially , but they seldom made it to the battle fields in any event. I have toyed with the ide of " semi regular" as a training category and still am for the Age or Reason for things like Frei Corps, but for FOG(N) that seemed a nuance and complication too far and would need to create yet further distinctions ( possibly bogus) in movement and firing to support it.

As with some other posts around here the more complication and nuance we build in to Ed 2 the less well the game may go - as a game. The line between game and more detailed, more precise - and more accurate - "simulation" shifts us away from "game". Some things will suit a Division down to Btn level game much better and rules for that already exist .We still need to think top down not bottom up in terms of design.

Experience is that to make it simple you first start complicated then take out the stuff that makes little or no difference in that top down context and which just wastes time and energy for gamers , to focus on the central parts or themes from that top down perspective. Look at a different type of game - the age of sail. To fight Trafalgar you don't want t be bothered with tracking the loss of spars and parts of the rigging variations in sets of sails and variations n in internal hull design or whether you are firing on the up or down roll or " fire as she bears" etc. For ship to ship action - yes if you can.

In looking for more nuance complication etc we might give a thought to the several thousand gamers ( assuming sales are a reflection of that) out there who we do not hear from and their reactions which may be on the lines of WTF?

[shadowdragon]

For example in how many games do gunners, having abandoned their guns, get an opportunity to recover them? Could abandoned guns just be removed?

The Anglo-Allied artillery abandoned and regained their gusn all afternoon at Waterloo... but that wasn't a game, it was the real thing...

Alastair Donald

True, some did but apparently some didn't. I believe that Wellington complained that some gunners just ran off. So the debate is what is a reasonable probability for regaining the guns. Currently I think it's a bit low.

[hazelbark]

For example in how many games do gunners, having abandoned their guns, get an opportunity to recover them? Could abandoned guns just be removed?

The Anglo-Allied artillery abandoned and regained their gusn all afternoon at Waterloo... but that wasn't a game, it was the real thing...

It is probably fair to say in game terms the gunners that ran from there guns and took shelter in the nearby square as opposed to being occupied for some time.

Also that was generally IIRC during the cavalry attacks. I think historically it was a short term abandonment, not a 90 minute abandonment.

[MDH]

For example in how many games do gunners, having abandoned their guns, get an opportunity to recover them? Could abandoned guns just be removed?

The Anglo-Allied artillery abandoned and regained their gusn all afternoon at Waterloo... but that wasn't a game, it was the real thing...

It is probably fair to say in game terms the gunners that ran from there guns and took shelter in the nearby square as opposed to being occupied for some time.

Also that was generally IIRC during the cavalry attacks. I think historically it was a short term abandonment, not a 90 minute abandonment.

Just remember folks a FoG(N) artillery unit is 12-19 guns or more and not a battery. The latter is an attachment or even more than one attachment ( eg for Russians) and is only lost if its unit breaks. That said I would not disfavour making recovery a little easier or maybe even auto in some circs. Like I think we overdid light Infantry I do think we have under-done artillery somewhat especially for bigger than Corps level games and for grand batteries of the bigger sort- 4 models that are more than 3 plus an attachment and more .

Maybe it was a reaction to FOG(R) and its machine gun like arty although I had not used it myself when these came out . I have only used it for ECW and found it sorely wanting for that so have given up on it totally . Nothing much wrong with George Gush's old WRG rules for that era.

So specific suggestions please?

" the real thing"? adonald? What's that got to do with anything in miniatures games ? HG Wells Little Wars in their own way are just as real and in some ways more so.

As the shepherd said when asked if he enjoyed sex with a woman " It's alright but its nowt like the real thing..."

[BrettPT]

I think that artillery effectiveness is about right. It has a minor spoiling effect at long range and can hurt you at medium and close ranges, without being all-powerful. It has the game effect (especially if 2 units are deployed next to each other) of encouraging players to not approach to 6MU, other than with skirmishers.

I wouldn't like to see the pivot removed on time-saving grounds, as any time saved would be lost by a player carefully measuring in his movement phase to get opponents in arc, and opponents just as carefully 'arc-dodging' in their own movement phase (which is what happened in the very early beta versions of version 1, before the pivot was introduced).

To be specific on possible tweaks to artillery, in my view:

1. Remove the shoot at medium range and then abandon (the 3rd option) charge response option. Seldom chosen, hard to understand and not necessary.

2. Limit the evade move if limbered to horse artillery only (anyone think of historical examples of limbered foot artillery evading?)

3. Ditch the abandon guns rules altogether. Again, complicated and not required. If artillery runs away, it is dead. IN game terms, even should the die roll required to re-man the guns be made easier, recovering guns would still seldom occur as usually enemy are in/around their position, or it is too late in the game for re-manned (and now wavering) guns to have much effect anyway. It's very rare at the moment that you even get a chance to try and re-man them and if you do, they tend to just get killed the following turn (as they are wavering) anyway.

4. Change the points for a rocket attachment, to about 4.

5. Perhaps give heavy artillery units an extra dice at medium range (they have a longer canister range so more of the 2-6MU bracket would be subject to canister rather than roundshot). Heavy artillery are also, IMO, not quite as cost-effective as medium artillery, so this may balance things.

[KitG]

I think the 1 inch pivot is cumbersome - I suggest simply expanding the arc of fire for guns to extend a base width either side of the artillery unit AND that you can target a specific unit (at long range) stop all this splitting fire business because:

(a) it's just as cumbersome and contributes towards excess 1 inch pivot wiggliness.
(b) that is what artillery units did - they lined their guns up very close to each other so they could all target a single enemy formation - it wasn't like firing the hull gun on a Char B.

Don't mind splitting fire for canister as you could really target things with it.

[MDH]

Some thoughts on artillery following these posts:

1. As a suggestion allow artillery to stand and fire as now if assaulted beyond 4MUs but no CMT unless Wavering anyway but then they cannot abandon the guns and if hit they are destroyed.
2. Make recovery of abandoned guns automatic if the present criteria are met?
3. Allow a cavalry unit (exceptionally) to make an intercept charge through friendly guns if they are in front base to rear base contact- at least one whole base width and meet the other criteria for intercepts . The cavalry drop a cohesion level if the guns are not from their division. This helps cavalry protect their own horse artillery and cavalry in mixed divisions their artillery generally. The guns remain in place but are obviously at risk if the cavalry lose.
4. More radically ( too radical?)consider how we may represent attrition among guns( big battlefields were littered with dismounted guns). Other than spent we do not do this and we make no provision for artillery to be spent. But Fire and Fury manage it in their own way by substituting a damaged gun base for a normal base .

When might they be spent? – 3 hits per stand from artillery in a fire phase all from within short or medium range ( so 6 for a small and 9 for a large unit ) large units in these circumstances only ignore a single hit from small arms fire and/or hits from arty attachments for this purpose . Ignore arty attachments in the target unit for calculating the result . Effectively a small drilled artillery unit would need to hit with every dice when firing at a small artillery unit and a large unit being fired at would need more than one artillery unit firing at it .

Already we do remove a stand if they rally from broken.

[hazelbark]

2. Limit the evade move if limbered to horse artillery only (anyone think of historical examples of limbered foot artillery evading?)

Doesn't limbered artillery evading just represent it riding away? I mean its already hitched and the horses are ready. The ONLY reason not to let them evade is because IGO UGO.

[shadowdragon]

And while we're at it....make sure we get those Austrian cuffs right in the artwork or not use Austrians at all. Although I would miss the humour.

[MDH]

2. Limit the evade move if limbered to horse artillery only (anyone think of historical examples of limbered foot artillery evading?)

Doesn't limbered artillery evading just represent it riding away? I mean its already hitched and the horses are ready. The ONLY reason not to let them evade is because IGO UGO.

Got it in one - its more an avoid, -get out of the way - than an evade . Wrong word. although maybe the Spanish with oxen in the 1790's might be a tad slower!