Slitherine

Rekila wrote:We have obviously not play enough games to resolve all problems. But what we have founded yet is that the only important rule change for the SYW is to suppress the -1 dice for being in extended line. Without this (and without skirmishes or battalion guns) extended line is the best formation for regular infantry.

Which to my mind raises the question of the validity of the rule in Napoleonic period also.

donm wrote:Jilu

Would be very interested to know your source for this

Prussian grenadiers did fight in skirmish formation when needed.

Cavalry was not used to punch through infantry, so no shock cav.

I take it you have not read about Frederick's cavalry colums.

Don

read Duffy's book about Fredericks army and battle, the only time the Cav got through cavalry was when the trops were taken in a "oblique order situation" thus in the flank. or when in column

Somewhat late in the day in this thread I admit to comment ,but we have ( Terry and I) discussed the retrofitting of FOG(N) say to AWI and 7YW and the points to consider go beyond relatively mechanistic issues of tactics, organisational structure, command control and game design adjustments - any and all of which are perfectly feasible - to the issue of capturing the "feel" of it. SYW in particular was a more global conflict - wider than 1792-1815 on land geographically eg in North America. The military mindset was different . Armies in Europe were largely long serving non conscripted ( in any formal sense notwithstanding pressed men). You have to start top down in terms of game design and maybe a more equal balance between rules and lists in game design is a way to go. Generally lists follow rules but maybe for this the lists we want to construct and model could be identified first so defining what we want the rules to simulate?

Starting from a blank sheet of paper may still of course lead you to employ some concepts and mechanisms that, say, FOG(R) and/or FoG(N) use but the mix and the maths and the player choices offered must be different and it must have a different cultural resonance. (I plead -at best- agnostic as to whether R FOG(R) really captures the wars of Marlborough (sieges, and stopping to bake bread every few days. )

Don't let similar technology fool you. It fooled the real historical people too! It's not what you've got it's the way that you use it and sometimes in history the ways that they used it appear a bit " dumb" to us eg the French in 1871 putting their otherwise excellent machine guns into batteries and not distributed along the line.

I also plead much less knowledge ,on my part at least, about the bulk of the 18th century than I have about 1792-1815. It will need a good deal more reading than I have done hitherto to enable me to do a job I would feel happy to present to folk for their honest money ( or even just their time which is no less precious) . Years ago Terry and I had a two brain cell 7YW 15mm set, ( one brain cell = one side of A4) . But I doubt it would pass muster these days! That said my many 15mm 7YW figures are all on FOG(N) compatible bases looking for some rules!!!

Starting with the lists might be a good idea. I have read some stuff about the 7yrs war in North America (yes I am on this side of the pond) but next to nothing about Frederick and company. North Americas problems are that the battles are pretty small. It would probably require a sliding figure scale to cover it all which using large and small units might work as per FOGN. Generally campaigns over here were longer getting to the battle, you have to chop down the trees and make a road as you go then when you get there it kind of boils down to a siege or a single day of fighting, one general or other usually dies and the attacker goes back up the road again, or takes over the fort of the defender and waits for what happens next.

Your post illustrates the issues very nicely. I had for example been keen ,at one stage, to include the Wars of Liberation in S America ( Simon Bolivar et al) that extend beyond 1815, but the scale of operations (by which I mean the size of the forces involved) and the geographical scale of operations which can be very extensive and challenging , simply do not match up to the top down FoG( N) concept of a corps of 20-25,000 men with a commander practicing “ grand tactics” . From past reading, European battles were seldom on a Napoleonic scale in the 7YW but nonetheless far bigger than in N America as you say.

That does not mean nothing can be done but it does mean defining what sort of game one is trying to create and what the military problems and decisions are that you want to serve up to players. A FOG(N ) retrofit would produce a fairly narrow time and geographical window- European battles of the mid 18th century with 20,000 plus men - alright in itself perhaps . I would find trying to model N America stimulating but cannot believe gamers across the pond have not already cracked it? If not well that is curious and interesting…

Sieges and assaults on fortified positions are a perennial problem for all eras and are unlikely to suit a 2-3 hour game in an a evening or at a Tournament. FOG(AM) does not easily do Alesia that way for example! You have to design a one off game probably multi player with hidden movement .

And maybe divide a game into separate stages with different timeframes within each stage to do preparatory siege works, counter works, bombardment and counter bombardment , night assaults etc. Lots of physical modelling challenges too . It is all good fun and doable ( and I have done it ) but not what I might call a “ mainstream” 15-28mm miniatures game between two players on a 6x4 foot table.

MikeHorah wrote:Somewhat late in the day in this thread I admit to comment ,but we have ( Terry and I) discussed the retrofitting of FOG(N) say to AWI and 7YW and the points to consider go beyond relatively mechanistic issues of tactics, organisational structure, command control and game design adjustments - any and all of which are perfectly feasible - to the issue of capturing the "feel" of it. SYW in particular was a more global conflict - wider than 1792-1815 on land geographically eg in North America. The military mindset was different . Armies in Europe were largely long serving non conscripted ( in any formal sense notwithstanding pressed men). You have to start top down in terms of game design and maybe a more equal balance between rules and lists in game design is a way to go. Generally lists follow rules but maybe for this the lists we want to construct and model could be identified first so defining what we want the rules to simulate?l:

I'm not sure I entirely agree: the wars of 1792-1815 have major wars in India; wars in the West Indies; a war between Britain and the USA. It has important guerilla operations in Spain and Italy. I don't think Old Fritz would have been out of his depth on the napoleonic battlefield: as Napoleon said at his Potsdam grave, "Hats off, gentlemen. If he had been here, we wouldn't" (IIRC)

European battles of the mid 18th century with 20,000 plus men - alright in itself perhaps . I would find trying to model N America stimulating but cannot believe gamers across the pond have not already cracked it? If not well that is curious and interesting…

It has been attempted here in the past. RAFM had a set of rules called Gentlemen of France Fire First, that was pretty simple and IIRC not that great to go with their old "Flint and Feather" figure range. We used the old WRG rules (cannon ball going through a flag on the cover which was red and white) for our 7yrs war in North America games, also India and War of 1812. It did better for War of 1812 as the troop scale was small enough the rules worked out well for historical re-fights. Larger scale battles didn't seem to quite get the feel of it, but then most of our table top games probably were larger than most historical battles over here. I did do the Plains of Abraham twice, once with our gaming group and once at a local convention with the old WRG rules. In both cases the battle lasted far longer on the table top than history would lead you to believe it did in real life. I also think both commanders survived.
I have played 7yrs war in Europe with a friend many years ago, not sure which rule set he used but it was not WRG, but was some other universal set he had. I recall we all stood in line and kept shooting but with little effect over all. I was running a unit of Dragoons who took on opposing Dragoons in a lengthy shooting stale mate. Neither of us could break the other and neither of us had faith in our troops to go into it with bayonets and musket butts, although we had a more heated battle than the line did. Part of the line was standing back while the opposite flank tried to blast a hole in the enemies ranks, which amounted to a stalemate I think. Too many years ago and I was more interested in trying to get through my opponent so I could bring fire to bear on the enemy flank, which never happened.

I will say though that so far FOG N is my favorite FOG game, followed by FOG R then the original FOG A/M which started me into the FOG system and got me back into ancients, which I have not played since FOGR came out. Also after trying my hand in a few other Napoleonic convention games since release of FOG N, I still think its a better set than some of the other commercially available sets out there.

[I'm not sure I entirely agree: the wars of 1792-1815 have major wars in India; wars in the West Indies; a war between Britain and the USA. It has important guerilla operations in Spain and Italy. I don't think Old Fritz would have been out of his depth on the napoleonic battlefield: as Napoleon said at his Potsdam grave, "Hats off, gentlemen. If he had been here, we wouldn't" (IIRC)[/quote]


All that is true but then neither do I think the FOG(N) model necessarily suits those wars overseas as presently constructed and not the small wars either in terms of scale of operations . It certainly does not model guerrilla ops as such and we had to shoehorn some things in like the chouans .

It was one of the reasons we did not cover them. It has been my recollection that 7YW afficionados have always made a great point of stressing the differences of that period from the Napoleonic and I am averse to over-claiming for my oeuvre as I will come under some heavy not so friendly fire I suspect.

Some feedback from users of the 1792-1800 lists might give us a clues as to how people feel they work in FOG(N) - those lists were not available for beta testing of the rules.

But that does not rule it out - it just means being pretty clear what we are trying to achieve and design and then as usual getting it tested by folks who are keen on the period and getting their feedback . But in any event we have not been commissioned to do anything.

[

It has been attempted here in the past. RAFM had a set of rules called Gentlemen of France Fire First, that was pretty simple and IIRC not that great to go with their old "Flint and Feather" figure range. We used the old WRG rules (cannon ball going through a flag on the cover which was red and white) for our 7yrs war in North America games, also India and War of 1812.

I will say though that so far FOG N is my favorite FOG game, followed by FOG R then the original FOG A/M which started me into the FOG system and got me back into ancients, which I have not played since FOGR came out. Also after trying my hand in a few other Napoleonic convention games since release of FOG N, I still think its a better set than some of the other commercially available sets out there.[/quote]

Of course as I recall many of the pioneers of miniatures games used warfare in the " Age of Reason " and there was a trend to see horse and musket" as a single era right up to the ACW- but their games were often single (large) figure based. I started off with a WRG horse and musket set in 1971 which I found almost unworkable ( apologies to Phil Barker) which had a concept of the "flinch" but where the tables could led you into a zero sum loop where both sides flinched so neither did. As I recall they had a 1/15 figure ratio.

It may be the best way to approach the mid 18th century is to start with the smaller scale engagements including those outside Europe as the benchmark or baseline and then scale up?

I am a big FoG(AM ) user having used WRG up the 5th/6th edition for many years. Less so for FOG(R) and thus far have only used it for English Civil War engagements (in 28mm ) and we increase the size of Pike and Shot units from those set out in the lists ( it is pretty much same on both sides) partly to make it more of a spectacle.

MikeHorah wrote: Some feedback from users of the 1792-1800 lists might give us a clues as to how people feel they work in FOG(N) - those lists were not available for beta testing of the rules.

Well the 1792 Prussian list appears more viable than the 1806 list. I will know more over the winter.

hazelbark wrote:

MikeHorah wrote: Some feedback from users of the 1792-1800 lists might give us a clues as to how people feel they work in FOG(N) - those lists were not available for beta testing of the rules.

Well the 1792 Prussian list appears more viable than the 1806 list. I will know more over the winter.

Viable as in a better army /list?

The 1792=1800 lists (other than French) are of course likely to be more representative of earlier 18th century European armies. I suppose what one would want to know is what do games with two unreformed armies pitted against each other look and feel like? One of my initial thoughts is that infantry bases with a double rank of figures are probably not right as one is likely to revert to Btns rather than Regts so the unit " footprint" is different and another is that attachments aren't appropriate either. What is your view on those?

MikeHorah wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

MikeHorah wrote: Some feedback from users of the 1792-1800 lists might give us a clues as to how people feel they work in FOG(N) - those lists were not available for beta testing of the rules.

Well the 1792 Prussian list appears more viable than the 1806 list. I will know more over the winter.

Viable as in a better army /list?

The 1792=1800 lists (other than French) are of course likely to be more representative of earlier 18th century European armies. I suppose what one would want to know is what do games with two unreformed armies pitted against each other look and feel like? One of my initial thoughts is that infantry bases with a double rank of figures are probably not right as one is likely to revert to Btns rather than Regts so the unit " footprint" is different and another is that attachments aren't appropriate either. What is your view on those?

Some things "off the top of my head"....

1) Basic unit should be the battalion and perhaps cavalry squadron.
2) Greater use of battalion guns which suit more methodical, linear style of warfare
3) "Corps" is not relevant. It could be the entire army but if we go to a "battalion" as the basic unit that armies might be too big, so perhaps "wing". Although these were not designed to be balanced, all arms forces. So it should be a player's "C-in-C" commanding with the FoG(N) division commanders replaced by brigade commanders.
4) I have no problem with a double rank of figures but the options should be between "line" (i.e., four bases wide and one base deep) and "march column" (one base wide and four deep). The former for combat and the latter for moving to the combat zone.
5) Infantry should be relatively impervious to cavalry from the front - same as the square for FoG(N). The bayonet replaced the pike without the need for "squares".
6) Light troops mostly restricted to "irregular".
7) Common use of field defences by some armies.
8 ) Infantry that was disciplined and held its fire until the enemy infantry was close seemed have the upper hand.
9) Less maneuvrable 'battery" artillery.
10) We may need to think about the tactics used by cavalry of the different nations.

This is from Don McHugh's WRG lists for the 7YW (Europe), from 1992 in the section where he explains the rules adaptations for the WRG 1685-1845 rules. (By the way, Don, complains that as of that year, that there was no easy to play set of rules which reflected the linear tactics of the period.) From the Rule Adaptations section:

"The main alteration to the rules are centred around the linear tactics used by the infantry of the period and their extensive use of battalion guns, which when combined gave them the ability to repulse cavalry by fire, without the need for forming squares. This, however, required a prolonged and very high standard of training which was not possible with the hurriedly conscripted massed armies of the Napoleonic period.

"It is true that towards the end of our period the increases in artillery pieces had led to the use of grand batteries, but the use of columns, although experimented with by Frederick were far from common. Artillery had greatly increased in an attempt to compensate for the falling quality of replacement troops, but these larger numbers made armies less manoeuvrable and so created other problems. The Prussians tried to overcome this with the first attempts at horse artillery, however, this was unsuccessful as it could not move fast enough to keep up with the cavalry, but was faster than the infantry and so ended up between both, unsupported by either, and easily destroyed. The numbers of light troops increased also, but they were still employed mainly on the flanks in a scouting and harassing role or to occupy difficult terrain, such as marshes and woods. The Austrian grenze were masters of this art and caused Frederick great problems, so much so that he tried to raise his own light troops but with little success. He was, however, successful in combating their hussars, and achieved this by training his hussars to fight like dragoons and not rely on skirmishing tactics."

That may not be the final word but I thought it useful to quote the thinking of someone else who attempted to adapt a primarily Napoleonic set of rules (even if it claimed 1685-1845).

For North America, one might consider the company as the basic unit with "battalion" commanders instead of FoG(N)'s divisional commanders. There should be much less open space and more rough / difficult terrain which would favour armies with better light & skirmishing troops that can work the flanks "through the woods" as the "line troops" would be confined to the limited, available open space.

We have tried two games with pre 1800 lists, Austrians versus French. Austrians ruled both games, and two games back I ran 1798 Austrians vs 1805 French, Austria held her own quite well.

As for playing pre 1800 games with other rules, the WRG rules were 1:50 ratio, so in our North America games a British unit ran about 18 figs, 900 man battalion. French were around 12 or 14 I think, smaller battalion sizes. Keeping in mind that the officers involved and most of the troops were directly from Europe and were trained and used similar drill and tactics as back in the old country. Certain innovative types would try revolutionary tactics like skirmishing in the woods native style. That would ruffle throw old boys feathers quite a bit, just not a proper civilized way to fight.

As for appearance on the table I think, if my mind can still recall that far back, that figures would be in a single line or two deep. 18 Brits in a single does not really look all that impressive, somehow double lines have a better appeal to me. Perhaps going with a unit base represents a company might be a place to start, although I am really not that familiar with formations etc from the era. It might help with the non standard troops like native warbands or local militia that show up in the new world.

There should be much less open space and more rough / difficult terrain which would favour armies with better light & skirmishing troops that can work the flanks "through the woods" as the "line troops" would be confined to the limited, available open space.

Actually if your going to build a fort, a town or fight a battle you would tend to look for an open area. If the battle occurred in an area that had been settled for some time, then most of the trees would have been chopped down for buildings, fires (it gets cold over here in winter) fences etc so cleared land is more common in civilized areas than one might think.
However I do recall one battle where the British sent a battalion or it might have been the regiment can't recall exactly, down south to attack a French fort. So you have 1 general whose name I do not recall, his line infantry, some local trappers/traders (someone had to lead the way as there were no roads and who else has any idea where down there is anyway?) and 100 laborers or so, along with some guns. They had to make their own road as they went. Yes they chopped down trees to clear the way so the artillery could move with them. After a few months they arrive at the French fort, next day they line up and blast away like back in the old country, with the locals skirmishing on the sidelines in the bush "native style". The British general was killed, and the next day his troops buried him then marched back up North, marching over his grave so the French or natives could not find it and desecrate the body. That was a typical campaign over here. Even the battle for Quebec came down to a single day of shooting. And once again small numbers of troops. Company sized basic units might not work in Europe where although they are small battles the numbers would likely be greater than here, but a battalion level as basic unit might work. I do not recall reading much about battalion guns being available over here or used but have read some references to grenades still being used.
As for horses, they were pretty rare in numbers over here so standing up to cavalry was not a concern in North America.
Just some more thoughts.

MikeHorah wrote:The 1792=1800 lists (other than French) are of course likely to be more representative of earlier 18th century European armies. I suppose what one would want to know is what do games with two unreformed armies pitted against each other look and feel like? One of my initial thoughts is that infantry bases with a double rank of figures are probably not right as one is likely to revert to Btns rather than Regts so the unit " footprint" is different and another is that attachments aren't appropriate either. What is your view on those?

The basic battlefield unit in the Napoleonic Wars was the battalion too. It isn't used as such in FOGN largely for reasons of playability, at least that's what I assumed. Brigades were also important in armies that used multi-battalion regiments but the rules generally ignore them, again I presume, for reasons of playability within the game-system. For a set of rules that covered batles of the size of FOGN games, the brigade would be the equivalent. Wings or lines could fill the role of divisions and armies those of corps. Really big forces, as at Blenheim, could be more than one army. The reason there were fewer squares is that units kept their flanks aligned or covered, rather than manoeuvering in battalion columns with gaps in between (napoleonic infantry also used closed columns against cavalry. Marmont believed that a twonrank line was best versus infantry and it should form four ranks manoeuvering in case of attack by cavalry. A lot of C18th infantry was customarily in four ranks so thst might need to be considered. The best course IMHO is to ask those who've been running SYW games with minimal modification of the rules how their games progressed (AARs would be great): if games worked well on that basis, it might not be worthnwriting a new rulebook. A set of army lists with the few mods included might be worthwhile or maybe a completely different set of rules at a lower level for those Davey Crocketts out there.

Sarmaticus wrote:

MikeHorah wrote:The 1792=1800 lists (other than French) are of course likely to be more representative of earlier 18th century European armies. I suppose what one would want to know is what do games with two unreformed armies pitted against each other look and feel like? One of my initial thoughts is that infantry bases with a double rank of figures are probably not right as one is likely to revert to Btns rather than Regts so the unit " footprint" is different and another is that attachments aren't appropriate either. What is your view on those?

The basic battlefield unit in the Napoleonic Wars was the battalion too. It isn't used as such in FOGN largely for reasons of playability, at least that's what I assumed. Brigades were also important in armies that used multi-battalion regiments but the rules generally ignore them, again I presume, for reasons of playability within the game-system. For a set of rules that covered batles of the size of FOGN games, the brigade would be the equivalent. Wings or lines could fill the role of divisions and armies those of corps. Really big forces, as at Blenheim, could be more than one army. The reason there were fewer squares is that units kept their flanks aligned or covered, rather than manoeuvering in battalion columns with gaps in between (napoleonic infantry also used closed columns against cavalry. Marmont believed that a twonrank line was best versus infantry and it should form four ranks manoeuvering in case of attack by cavalry. A lot of C18th infantry was customarily in four ranks so thst might need to be considered. The best course IMHO is to ask those who've been running SYW games with minimal modification of the rules how their games progressed (AARs would be great): if games worked well on that basis, it might not be worthnwriting a new rulebook. A set of army lists with the few mods included might be worthwhile or maybe a completely different set of rules at a lower level for those Davey Crocketts out there.

We try to explain in the rules why we opted for regiments. Playability was not the sole impulse when we opted for infantry regiments rather than Btns. Initially I was very keen to represent the evolution of the demi brigade and the order mixed ( which took many forms) but with a decent number of miniatures at the Btn level that was very space hungry. And once I fully understood just how pervasive the infantry regiment, as such, was, as a tactical unit on the battlefield, I came off that . The infantry regiment as such was also of the same level of training and elan for the most part , less so a brigade formed from different regimental Btns . That supported a Corps level game in 2-3 hours much better than Btns and also the opportunity to model “ Grand Tactics” in a way that Btns cannot do so as easily when you have a very large number of units for a single Corps player to manage ( 2-3 three times more than with regiments. )I like to think we were able to combine historicity with playability. But that does not invalidate Btn based games - they are just different. I do them a lot still as its happens but not in 2-3 hrs on a medium sized table . A full Btn based Corps needs a lot of 28mm tin, time and table.

I agree about the issue of 2-4 deep lines. Our FOG(N) regiments’ “footprints” can be seen to represent more than one line of whatever depth in ranks as well as the horizontal and vertical intervals between and within Btns in a range of formations in a regiment. But the 4 deep Btn line of the earlier period when the line is the formation of choice for infantry on the battlefield, may justify a different design approach starting with defining the base infantry unit from scratch - which looks , just now , to be more likely to be a Btn. That also would help support lower level engagements which we have also been discussing in this thread . But I am totally open to views from all sides and as I have said earlier in this thread there is no project Terry and I are actually engaged on for this period at present so it is as open as it gets.

The choice between an amended FOG(N) and a completely new design is of course very important as the latter is much more demanding of "blood toil tears and sweat" albeit probably more stimulating .

Some things "off the top of my head"....

1) Basic unit should be the battalion and perhaps cavalry squadron.
2) Greater use of battalion guns which suit more methodical, linear style of warfare
3) "Corps" is not relevant. It could be the entire army but if we go to a "battalion" as the basic unit that armies might be too big, so perhaps "wing". Although these were not designed to be balanced, all arms forces. So it should be a player's "C-in-C" commanding with the FoG(N) division commanders replaced by brigade commanders.
4) I have no problem with a double rank of figures but the options should be between "line" (i.e., four bases wide and one base deep) and "march column" (one base wide and four deep). The former for combat and the latter for moving to the combat zone.
5) Infantry should be relatively impervious to cavalry from the front - same as the square for FoG(N). The bayonet replaced the pike without the need for "squares".
6) Light troops mostly restricted to "irregular".
7) Common use of field defences by some armies.
8 ) Infantry that was disciplined and held its fire until the enemy infantry was close seemed have the upper hand.
9) Less maneuvrable 'battery" artillery.
10) We may need to think about the tactics used by cavalry of the different nations.

This is from Don McHugh's WRG lists for the 7YW (Europe), from 1992 in the section where he explains the rules adaptations for the WRG 1685-1845 rules. (By the way, Don, complains that as of that year, that there was no easy to play set of rules which reflected the linear tactics of the period.) From the Rule Adaptations section:

"The main alteration to the rules are centred around the linear tactics used by the infantry of the period and their extensive use of battalion guns, which when combined gave them the ability to repulse cavalry by fire, without the need for forming squares. This, however, required a prolonged and very high standard of training which was not possible with the hurriedly conscripted massed armies of the Napoleonic period.

"It is true that towards the end of our period the increases in artillery pieces had led to the use of grand batteries, but the use of columns, although experimented with by Frederick were far from common. Artillery had greatly increased in an attempt to compensate for the falling quality of replacement troops, but these larger numbers made armies less manoeuvrable and so created other problems. The Prussians tried to overcome this with the first attempts at horse artillery, however, this was unsuccessful as it could not move fast enough to keep up with the cavalry, but was faster than the infantry and so ended up between both, unsupported by either, and easily destroyed. The numbers of light troops increased also, but they were still employed mainly on the flanks in a scouting and harassing role or to occupy difficult terrain, such as marshes and woods. The Austrian grenze were masters of this art and caused Frederick great problems, so much so that he tried to raise his own light troops but with little success. He was, however, successful in combating their hussars, and achieved this by training his hussars to fight like dragoons and not rely on skirmishing tactics."

That may not be the final word but I thought it useful to quote the thinking of someone else who attempted to adapt a primarily Napoleonic set of rules (even if it claimed 1685-1845).[/quote]


Thanks very much.

This is a really useful and helpful summary of the issues to be addressed and modelled- and expresses more clearly than I had many of the things that need to be catered for . Not for the fist time in wargaming someone ( Don McHugh) has been there before!

Taking it forward I guess what is needed is a short paper on " What warfare at the front edge of the battlefield was like", key and common characteristics of encounters between the component arms of infantry of the line , cavalry of various types and artillery ,their roles an functions and where it was different in different theatres. There is stuff like that in the FoG(N) rulebook which I originally wrote just for us to use as a summary when we kicked off the work in 2008. (We put it in for any readers who might be new to either the period or wargaming as a whole). I see a big bill to increase my library coming on

Which is another point - who do we want to use these rules - existing afficionados ( who will be relatively fewer in number than Napoleonic I would guess) or people wanting to try it out who have not done so before and so to spread interest? The former will be harder to please totally - as I was even with my own rules in FoG(N) being a dedicated Nappy Nerd The latter will want something easy to use - er - and fun rather important .

shadowdragon wrote:[



Some things "off the top of my head"....

1) Basic unit should be the battalion and perhaps cavalry squadron.
2) Greater use of battalion guns which suit more methodical, linear style of warfare
3) "Corps" is not relevant. It could be the entire army but if we go to a "battalion" as the basic unit that armies might be too big, so perhaps "wing". Although these were not designed to be balanced, all arms forces. So it should be a player's "C-in-C" commanding with the FoG(N) division commanders replaced by brigade commanders.
4) I have no problem with a double rank of figures but the options should be between "line" (i.e., four bases wide and one base deep) and "march column" (one base wide and four deep). The former for combat and the latter for moving to the combat zone.
5) Infantry should be relatively impervious to cavalry from the front - same as the square for FoG(N). The bayonet replaced the pike without the need for "squares".
6) Light troops mostly restricted to "irregular".
7) Common use of field defences by some armies.
8 ) Infantry that was disciplined and held its fire until the enemy infantry was close seemed have the upper hand.
9) Less maneuvrable 'battery" artillery.
10) We may need to think about the tactics used by cavalry of the different nations.

This is from Don McHugh's WRG lists for the 7YW (Europe), from 1992 in the section where he explains the rules adaptations for the WRG 1685-1845 rules. (By the way, Don, complains that as of that year, that there was no easy to play set of rules which reflected the linear tactics of the period.) From the Rule Adaptations section:

"The main alteration to the rules are centred around the linear tactics used by the infantry of the period and their extensive use of battalion guns, which when combined gave them the ability to repulse cavalry by fire, without the need for forming squares. This, however, required a prolonged and very high standard of training which was not possible with the hurriedly conscripted massed armies of the Napoleonic period.

"It is true that towards the end of our period the increases in artillery pieces had led to the use of grand batteries, but the use of columns, although experimented with by Frederick were far from common. Artillery had greatly increased in an attempt to compensate for the falling quality of replacement troops, but these larger numbers made armies less manoeuvrable and so created other problems. The Prussians tried to overcome this with the first attempts at horse artillery, however, this was unsuccessful as it could not move fast enough to keep up with the cavalry, but was faster than the infantry and so ended up between both, unsupported by either, and easily destroyed. The numbers of light troops increased also, but they were still employed mainly on the flanks in a scouting and harassing role or to occupy difficult terrain, such as marshes and woods. The Austrian grenze were masters of this art and caused Frederick great problems, so much so that he tried to raise his own light troops but with little success. He was, however, successful in combating their hussars, and achieved this by training his hussars to fight like dragoons and not rely on skirmishing tactics."

That may not be the final word but I thought it useful to quote the thinking of someone else who attempted to adapt a primarily Napoleonic set of rules (even if it claimed 1685-1845).

Sorry Messed up the quote box - too many quotes- thanks again

MikeHorah wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

MikeHorah wrote: Some feedback from users of the 1792-1800 lists might give us a clues as to how people feel they work in FOG(N) - those lists were not available for beta testing of the rules.

Well the 1792 Prussian list appears more viable than the 1806 list. I will know more over the winter.

Viable as in a better army /list?

Meaning more flexible and capable of fighting in the FOG N rules.

I don't have a clear feel yet for how i think the 1806 prussians should be structured. And I am going to re-read a lot 1806 material as I game with the army over the winter. But I would have expected something like...better infantry (superior or veteran), Only 2 infatnry divisions. No attahed officers in the infantry divisions. I suspect you got the Prussian Cav right. But essentially I think the 1806 was a pretty well trained and spirited unreformed army with atrocious command operations. Handicapping its CP, rally and double move would have been my instincts. I worry that the Prussian 1806 infantry is very much a plaything to the French infantry of 1806 (veteran reformed) more so than the early Austrian infantry. But as I go through detailed battle histories I plan to revise my views.

As an aside James Arnold books on the 1807 campaign really revised my understanding of the 1807 Russian army and leadership's performance.