FOGN errata

[AlanCutner]

Page 17. An infantry division may have upto 1 artillery unit. So my question is whether its allowed in the Sacile list because its a historical OOB and not following general rules.

[Astronomican]

Sacile OOB puts more than one artillery unit in a division. But rules specify max 1 artillery unit per division. Is this an exception because its a historical list

Historical OOBs ignore restrictions - page 110, second paragraph.


Jimi

[Andy1972]

Appendix army lists, Russians.. It shows Uhlans avg, drilled light cav only being 10points.. I am assuming they are supposed to have lance.. Because the Hussars of the same are 8 points... But it has no mention of the lance.

[CLAVDIVS]

Hi Alan,
If you look at the top left of page 17,

As a GENERAL RULE each division will be designated as one of three types.
So to me this is only a guideline till the army lists books come out.

[MikeHorah]

Sacile OOB puts more than one artillery unit in a division. But rules specify max 1 artillery unit per division. Is this an exception because its a historical list

All historical battles of greater than Corps Size are likely to have some variations from lists which are designed to model a Corps especially maxima and minima and limits on division sizes. I have used Sacile as a play test historical battle several times and we did it at Britcon as a demo in 2010. It gave a good game and it seemed sensible to recycle it as a real example we had used. Ditto Plancenoit which I and others played late in 2011. Incidentally I would expect a multi player and multi corps game to take longer than a standard game even with experienced FOG(N) players.

But once you design a historical battle refight then I suggest you refer to page 110 which gives some charts for sizing of units and while the lists for the year, campaign or theatre of operatiosn will be a pretty useful and consistent guide it is perfectly legitimate to form a different view of the quality and performance of units in a given battle, whether as the game deisgner, or between the players by agreement. The key however is to be clear what is attributable to elan and what to training. Its easy to fall into the "halo" or " horns" effects making units either too good or too ineffective by boosting or reducing both qualities.

[MkV]

On page 127, the Russian Foot Guards only have options for Superior Drilled or Average Veteran. Is that correct or are they switched? (the points look like Superior Veteran and Average Drilled, but I can't be sure)

MkV

[donm]

Back to the Prussian list.

It says you must have a skirmisher attachment for evey infantry or mixed division. As landwehr are not allowed skirmisher attachments, does this mean you cannot field a Division of only landwehr infantry?

Don

[nickdives]

Looks like a bigger spoon is required. Are there not two main systems for producing forces:

Historical - As per the historical orbat whether or not it complies with the rules - It is the actual orbat that was it does not need to comply with the rules/lists.
As per the lists - for pointed games/competitions etc - use the fantasy lists to create forces that comply with the lists.

[Chasseur]

On page 127, the Russian Foot Guards only have options for Superior Drilled or Average Veteran. Is that correct or are they switched? (the points look like Superior Veteran and Average Drilled, but I can't be sure)
MkV

The points are correct.
The first is Infantry(Reformed) with Drilled training + Superior Elan bonus + Guards special capability = 18 points each base
The second is Infantry(Reformed) with Veteran training + Average Elan bonus + Guards special capability = 17 points each base

One of the difficulties in reading the Points Table on p.92 is that there are missing "+" signs in front of Elan bonuses and Special capabilities, because these add to the initial cost of the base. The "-" signs made it in correctly.

Superior Veteran Guard would cost you 21 points per base.
Note that not all troops that were called "Guard" in their title will have the "Guards" special capability within the rules. And rightly so - think of the Neapolitan Guard for example.

In general, the Superior Drilled will gain a bonus in combat, but not in firing or maneouvring.
In general, the Average Veteran will have no advantage in combat, but have an advantage in firing and maneouvring.
(Not totally true, but it is the main thrust).

You can think of Average Veteran Guard as old die hards who know how to shoot and manoeuvre really well, but are a bit jaded and so won't put themselves at ridiculous risks during hand-to-hand.
Superior Drilled Guard have some experience at firing and maneouvring, but are really keen. Perhaps they are newly promoted to Guard.

Only some very special troops are classed as Superior Veteran Guard, and that will probably only be in certain years. For example, there is no way the Young Guard should ever be Superior Veteran Guard. The Average, Drilled Guard on p.137 sounds about right for 1815.

Not sure, but the thinking may be that the Russians expanded so rapidly in 1812, that the ranks of the Guard were swelled with less experienced soldiers and it is your choice whether you purchase a unit that has a majority of die hards, or a majority of newly promoted.

Cheers,
John Shaw

[Scrumpy]

In the index on page 144 it refers to the Pints system.

Disappointingly it does not tell us how much to drink before, during or after a game...

[ulysisgrunt]

Perhaps the most important change should be in the name of the rules set. Slitherine should have picked a name to differentiate this different appoach to rules.
Calling it "Field of Glory" has led to enormous mis-interpretation based upon pre-conceptions.
Suggestions for a better name? I can only think of the awful "Corp Wars"
Danny Weitz

[MikeHorah]

Pg 131

*Each Infantry and mixed division must have at least one Landwher unit

*If used, guards must all be in the same unit which may nit contain any non guards units


Which is it? Must guard units have a landwher or are landwher not allowed with guards

This has been corrected in the lists book ( "Triumph of the Nations" ) for Autumn 1813.

"Each infantry and mixed division must have at least one Landwehr infantry unit.

"If used, guards must all be in the same division."

So Guards must be kept together but must also have at least one landwher unit in their division.

In Spring it's not relevant as the landwehr had not yet been incorporated into the field army in significant numbers and were still being raised and trained by the time of the summer armistice . In 1815 there was a whole Prussian Guard reserve Corps which did not participate in the Waterloo Campaign. We have a list for that Corps and allow for a division of that Corps to be imported into the Prussian Infantry Corps list for 1815 so the issue does not arise.




In Spring its not relevent as the landwehr had not yet been inncprated into the field army and were still being raises .

[donm]

Mike,

So Guards must be kept together but must also have at least one landwher unit in their division.

Would like to know what source you got this organisation from.

In the Autumn the Prussian Guard where is the same army as the Russian Guard and not a landwehr battalion in site.

Prussian Guard.
1st regiment 1412 musketeers, 1126 fusiliers & jagers
2nd regiment 1342 musketeers, 988 fusiliers & jagers

Don't think all those light fusiliers and jagers are acurately represented by a skirmisher attachment.

Source Nafziger.

Don

[terrys]

Sacile OOB puts more than one artillery unit in a division. But rules specify max 1 artillery unit per division. Is this an exception because its a historical list

Historical orbats always take precedence over lists and will contain whatever troops and formations are justified using the scales given in the rules.
The lists are to be used for non-historical battles and scenarios, and are designed to ensure that players use a mix of troops that their choice of army would reasonably be expected to contain.

[Blathergut]

p. 131 French 1813: Attachments

Columns read: Special Capabilities (but show points), Points per base (but show a '1').

Do these attachments have any special capabilites??

[Astronomican]

Russian Hussars had the leading squadron armed with lances - and thus get the +1 for being partially lance armed.

Also, Cossacks should have lances - virtually all the pictures/drawings I've ever seen show them armed with them.


Jimi

[nosher]

P53 Firing (when determining whats score to hit on):

2nd Bullet Point in sub table. 'Infantry must start their assault within 1 base width of the front of the firers'

This is not on the QRS - No wonder my assaulting cloumns never seemed to make contact!

[hazelbark]

Also, Cossacks should have lances - virtually all the pictures/drawings I've ever seen show them armed with them.

This actually may not have the right effect. Cossacks were never battle troops. So if properly rated lance may make them too expensive to be usable or too helpful. In other words they carried and used lances but i don't think they could give a proper charge like an Uhlan regiment.

[Astronomican]

Whilst Cossacks are not battle troops, there exists enough evidence to show that they did like to mix it up with Lancers/Uhlans.

The combat mechanism makes a Cossack unit taking on a Cuirassier unit a very silly thing to do - you need to be very desperate to do such a thing!

However, Cossacks are well-suited to chasing down wavering troops, unsupported artillery, charging the flank/rear of an already-engaged enemy unit, and generally making a nuisance of themselves.

Many Napoleonic rules disallow Cossacks from engaging the enemy as if they were battle troops, but allow them to behave as the opportunistic killers we know them to be.


Jimi

[hazelbark]

Whilst Cossacks are not battle troops, there exists enough evidence to show that they did like to mix it up with Lancers/Uhlans.

Many Napoleonic rules disallow Cossacks from engaging the enemy as if they were battle troops, but allow them to behave as the opportunistic killers we know them to be.

Stabbing 3/4 frozen soldiers in the back and pillaging women are not simulated in the game.

What examples are there of cossacks engaging Uhlans at the squadron level or higher?

I'd half to think hard of a 2 nd example of cossacks fighting in a real battle. The closest comes to mind is the northern edge comonly called Uvarov's diversion at Borodino. But i recall lots of riding around not fighting by the cossacks.