Slitherine

An option would be the following:
A unit ignores the first hit taken if ANY of the following apply:
>> The unit taking the hit is large. (firing and combat)
>> The unit taking the hit is Superior and it is making an assault move. (firing only)
>> The unit taking the hit is Small and is an unreformed unit in extended line. (firing only)

Having given this more thought, I like idea of removing the -1 dice for CTs if in extended line - either all the time or only if they have rear support. Certainly making all infantry only face the rear if retiring more than 6MU would be a good amendment.

However the ignore a hit option probably needs more thought.

For a solid battle line, where 1 unreformed extended line is facing 2 reformed tactical units, the rule would work well and encourage more extended lines. It would avoid the big issue of extended lines being a magnet for enemy skirmish shooting.

However, in circumstances where the battle is broken up and 2 small units oppose each other 1 on 1, the unreformed unit would be at a huge advantage vs its reformed opponent. The skirmish fire of the reformed unit would be largely ineffectual (needing a hit on every dice) while any return skirmish fire from the unreformed unit (attachment or Brits) would be at normal effectiveness.

The reformed tactical unit would also find it very difficult to close on the unreformed one, with its doubled close range shooting. Conversely the unreformed unit, ignoring the 1st hit, would be reasonably confident closing on the reformed unit.

I think, on balance, that ignoring the a hit for small unreformed units is swinging the pendulum too much.

IF unreformed small units in extended line were to ignore a hit (and such a rule would provide a needed boost to those armies - being most of those in E&E - who field these troops) I think they should only ignore the hit when shot at by more than one opposing unit. This might mitigate the 'shot magnet' effect while avoiding the 1 on 1 issue above.

Thoughts?

This is getting confiusing!!!!

Keep it simple, only reducing by 1 if shot at by 2 or more enemy is totally different than large unit or superior charging, the second is a whole lot easier to forget as it only occurs occasionally where large unit is constant once shooting starts. Sorry but I understand what you are saying but in our games I still find the reformed French at an advantage most of the time. I do agree however that in E&E the reformed troops are more likely to find it harder to face off against their reformed opponents, but that was when historically the old empires usually did better versus the new French armies, and over time the French gained the advantages over their stuck in the old ways opponents.
In this case it seems that the game follows historical precedents rather well.

I agree with Blath & Dead.

My preference would be not to allow small unreformed extended lines to ignore a hit at all, because I fear it may make them too powerful 1 on 1. Better to look at other slight tweaks that might enhance the usefulness of unreformed troops.

My preference would be not to allow small unreformed extended lines to ignore a hit at all,

So were back to the old -POA for shooting at extended lines then... which makes the rules changes much simpler for sure

Too many changes will unsettle everybody . I am getting confused enough .

There are still some army list questions and other points but before we have an answer for one point, another arises . I think that at one time Terry will have to say STOP . Otherwise people will not trust the rules anymore .

I still wait for an answer about cavalry in the woods
Russian Uhlans in 1805-1805
How to consider russian guard cossacks
Russian guard in 1806-1807
and there are a lot of other questions ...

Terry please, if you want to take your time, it is just a game but at one point it should stabilize ( especially as Napoleon's battles is coming back in a new version see the warmoddeling site )

bahdahbum wrote:Too many changes will unsettle everybody . I am getting confused enough .
There are still some army list questions and other points but before we have an answer for one point, another arises . I think that at one time Terry will have to say STOP . Otherwise people will not trust the rules anymore .

Very good point. Lots of minor tweaking of the rules can result in a book covered with inked in errata - not the best look. While it's easy for us to throw ideas around, Terry has the more difficult task of finding a balance between preserving the integrity of the printed rules and making changes which improve the game.

That said, it's good for us in the cheap seats to put up views and discuss them. Occaisonally something may pop up that catches Terry's eye, while individual play groups may get ideas they wish to use in their games.

Cheers
Brett

Too many changes will unsettle everybody . I am getting confused enough .
There are still some army list questions and other points but before we have an answer for one point, another arises . I think that at one time Terry will have to say STOP . Otherwise people will not trust the rules anymore .

The forum is a great place to float new ideas for improving the rules, and this discussion is exactly that.
whether or not ideas discussed here make it into the rules (depends upon various factors :
Is it a simple change
Does it fix a problem that 'breaks' the rules
Does it offer enough of an improvment to the rules to justify it's inclusion.


We'll normally try to leave at least 6 months between updates, and actual changes (as oppposed to clarifications) will only be made with clear justification.
Points value changes are not likely to be made, but greater experience does indicate that some values are not perfect. In general, though, any changes would only make a few points difference to a typical army, and would therefore probably wait until sometime in the future (perhaps when a version 2 would be due).

At NatCon we used these two special rules for Unreformed infantry.

1. Remove the -1 dice on CTs for unreformed infantry (and British) in extended line. They should not be penalised for fighting in their preferred formation.
2. All infantry face backwards if they retire 6MU – regardless of formation. A retire of less than 6MU will leave them facing the enemy. Note that this will also benefit reformed infantry in extended line.

Of the 8 armies in the competition, there were 2 British, 1 unreformed Saxon, and a 1794 French army with some unreformed units.

I did notice a more extended lines being used compared to earlier competitions, but Tactical formation did seem to be the preferred formation in most cases.

I'll leave it to the users of those armies to comment in more detail.

Philip

Hi All

I have just come back from Natcon (see Philip's post under tournaments) - a great little tournie - thanks for your efforts in organising Philip.

My 1794 French included 3 small units of unreformed line (2x poor veteran with attached skirmishers and 1 x poor drilled) plus a small unit of unreformed LI (average Vets).

We had amended the rules so unreformed infantry in extended lines did not drop a dice for CTs, and all infantry faced front unless they retired 6MU or more. Both amendments worked very well, I would support them being officially adopted and don't think any more is needed than these 2 changes.

In two of the 6 games I used extended lines. On the first occaision the intention was take up space, the second was to double the firepower of one of the veteran units against a potentially threatening cavalry unit.

It is worth remembering that extended line should be an unusual formation. The 'normal' formation for unreformed infantry is represented as tactical - 2 battalions in line supported to the rear by 1 or 2 more. Deploying all battalions in line with no supports would have been a rare thing in my view.

Cheers
Brett

Good to see those changes.

But it still ignores the fact that your Unreformed LI move slower yet cost the same.
Being only able to move 4" in tactical is a major disadvantage.
So often in games being able to charge 6" would have completely changed the game.
The cost of troops must reflect their value in the game, otherwise the points system will remain a joke imo.

BrettPT wrote: It is worth remembering that extended line should be an unusual formation. The 'normal' formation for unreformed infantry is represented as tactical - 2 battalions in line supported to the rear by 1 or 2 more. Deploying all battalions in line with no supports would have been a rare thing in my view.

Cheers
Brett

IIRC unreformed armies normally deployed by lines and when deploying more than one regiment together, would place regiment in line with another in support or brigade in front of brigade, rather than each regiment in two lines of its own.

I like the suggested changes for Unreformed infantry. At present he game works well with reformed vs reformed, or unreformed vs unreformed, but reformed have a definite edge over unreformed beyond the points difference.

I like the idea for no CT penalty in extended line. No comment on the other ideas without a trial game.

But it still ignores the fact that your Unreformed LI move slower yet cost the same.
Being only able to move 4" in tactical is a major disadvantage.
So often in games being able to charge 6" would have completely changed the game.
The cost of troops must reflect their value in the game, otherwise the points system will remain a joke imo.

I'm reluctant to change the points values at the moment - too many books/lists involved.
If we were to change the points values I'd probabaly increase the cost or reformed light infantry by 1 or 2 points.

I find that only being able to charge 4" is a challenge, but one that can be overcome by careful planning. It just requires a different approach.
I can't remember an unreformed army winn a competition (in the UK) as yet - but I remember an Ottoman army leading with 1 game to go at warfare last year. (They lost the last game, but were certainly 'in danger' of winning the comp until then).

So often in games being able to charge 6" would have completely changed the game.

That seems positive enough ..

Moving more "slowly" 4 MU is not such a problem but did they really move more slowly . I think they reacted slowly, the command was slow to react to be more precise , they moved their armies more slowly due to all those wagons . The real thing with "unreformed is that they did not use lots of SK and so fire at 2 MU .

Firing at 2 MU requires ...a bit more attention and preparation .

I would favor all moves the same for everybody ( a human being moves the same ) but as it is more the tactical use that is in question just keep the 2 MU firing distance that is a difficulty in itself . And so no point changes , but unreformed is just a firing problem .

Any comments ?

bahdahbum wrote: Moving more "slowly" 4 MU is not such a problem but did they really move more slowly . I think they reacted slowly, the command was slow to react to be more precise , they moved their armies more slowly due to all those wagons .

I would favor all moves the same for everybody ( a human being moves the same ).

These speeds are an age old debate.
I think you have to be careful at human speeds, army marching speeds.
As you suggest there are reaction speeds.
Also a lot of the early period coalition unreformed would stop more often to form up. That was a big part of the French manuverablity, A column was just plain easier to keep in formation than a line and even more so versus a line that really didn't like any platoon or file falling behind.