Slitherine

Scrumpy wrote:Re page 133 or so... Austrian Infantry move as unreformed, fire as reformed & are costed as unreformed.

Seems they get the best of both worlds, cheaper & just as effective.

Yes, that's what I thought too and the Austrians then looked viable but then I saw the correction in another thread.
I can appreciate the argument that the unreformed disadvantages are compensated by lower points costs. Time will tell I suppose.
Don't get me wrong, I like the look of the rules and want them to succeed. A popular and well used Napoleonic set of rules would be a boon to the hobby and these could well be that set of rules.
I was just wondering if after players have fought many battles and tried out different tactics certain armies will come to be regarded as more likely to win than others.
French average drilled infantry cost 10 points, British average drilled infantry cost 10 points but the French move better.
It may be that this advantage will be seen as insignificant when a large number of games have been played or it may become a useful "freebie" for the French. The rule writers state in the Anglo - Portugese list " (British/French)..had not much to choose between them". Historically, Marmont, Massena, Soult, Ney and Nappy himself pushed French armies against British infantry and came off second best. British infantry in this period were second to none, yet they are inferior to French, Russians and Prussians in these rules, despite costing the same in points.

Pushing infantry against strong positions, anyone was likely to come off second best More to the point, don't the British move faster in line?

Albion1 wrote: Historically, Marmont, Massena, Soult, Ney and Nappy himself pushed French armies against British infantry and came off second best. British infantry in this period were second to none, yet they are inferior to French, Russians and Prussians in these rules, despite costing the same in points.

At least half the english foot is Drilled and most of the options are veteran.
Depending on the year the French may have inferior troops.
On the whole looking at the lists english will have better (more veteran) foot than the French.

Yes in fake points two equal units are equal units.

Consider that in game terms the english stay behind a ridgeline so they can't be shot at long range by artillery. Then as the French advance up the hill the english top the crest. You now have two fresh forces facing each other and the english if it ever gets to that are uphill. The Fench have to out shoot the english or charge in and hope to get lucky. All makes sense to me.

You read about the tactical evolutions that english troops did in this period there are MANY references to the French forces being in a bad position to launch their attacks. The stories are often, uphill, poor morale, caught in flank, worn from combat. Not to mention the numbers were fairly even in a lot of these battles.

In fact there are precious few stand toe to toe in the open. And when they did the english took bloody casualties. Talavera and Bussaco were very messy from an english point of view. From a spanish point of view they were even worse.

Even in game terms in the open. The French move to within 6 of the english and then then english will fire first. Giving the english the opportunity to start out ahead.

In the games I've played, I have noted that just marching straight into someone is not a recipe for an easy time.

hazelbark wrote:

Albion1 wrote: Historically, Marmont, Massena, Soult, Ney and Nappy himself pushed French armies against British infantry and came off second best. British infantry in this period were second to none, yet they are inferior to French, Russians and Prussians in these rules, despite costing the same in points.

Consider that in game terms the english stay behind a ridgeline so they can't be shot at long range by artillery. Then as the French advance up the hill the english top the crest. You now have two fresh forces facing each other and the english if it ever gets to that are uphill. The Fench have to out shoot the english or charge in and hope to get lucky. All makes sense to me.

Well yes, but it could just as likely be the case that it is the French staying behind the ridgeline etc. Couldn't it?
I think more people will be playing (800?) points games at the club than refighting Talavera.
In the games I've played, I have noted that just marching straight into someone is not a recipe for an easy time.

I can see the sense in that.

Well I hope people break from the structure of 800 point games. It is convenient for a quick match on a week night.

But I think 800 points are limiting. 650 even worse. I mean I am starting with less right now to learn the system. But the recent games where 800 points are the board are a Napoleonic Corps action. But I think a lot of gamers will want larger actions that will give more variety. Talavera probalby isn't that huge of a battle. Probably less than 1200 points a side.

When I have some time I will see about converting some historical OBs into game terms.

What would be helpful would be to have those posted here together.

hazelbark wrote:In the games I've played, I have noted that just marching straight into someone is not a recipe for an easy time.

Depends.

In my last game, my opponent marched 6 large French units in deep Tactical formation into my Russians in extended line in my centre - my artillery were on my left flank as it was the weakest area and couldn't really help against the attack. I managed to destroy 3 of them before he destroyed 2 of my units - luckily, I had destroyed some of his other forces on my flanks to secure victory.

I managed to gain 19pts from his APV of 34pts, and he received 6pts off me. Had the game not ended in my Recovery phase, he was poised to run amok with his 3 large units in the rear of my forces and beat the snot out of me!

The heroes of the day were my Dragoons - they smashed two infantry units and an artillery unit, and didn't receive a single hit against themselves!


Jimi

W'ere planning a 3,000pts per side scenario in 15mm on Monday. French vs Austrians/Russians of 1805 (Austerlitz period)
Works out at about 50,000 French against 70,000 Allies.
Table size is 10x6 ..... Should be interesting.
1 more corps per side and we could refight the historical battle on a table of that size.

terrys wrote:W'ere planning a 3,000pts per side scenario in 15mm on Monday. French vs Austrians/Russians of 1805 (Austerlitz period)
Works out at about 50,000 French against 70,000 Allies.
Table size is 10x6 ..... Should be interesting.
1 more corps per side and we could refight the historical battle on a table of that size.

That is proper napoleonics.