Slitherine

terrys wrote: 3) Not sure what I can do to mitigate the high cost of quality artillery units, but I'll take a look at them.
Veterans are good - but superior and guard probably aren't worth the points.

No probably about it. They just plain aren't.

Just allow Guard artillery to not pay the cost for superior might fix it. But if you don't like that allow all superior artillery to not be bought as such.

regular light infantry in skirmish order , when they complete an evade, should go back into tactical?

The obvious danger with this is that it could make them even better. At least if you charge them at the moment they miss a couple of shooting phases while they turn around. If they end in tactical facing the chargers they are ie ready for action straight away.

Martin

terrys wrote:

Another one that could be looked at is the value of the different attachments. Artillery attachments seem very popular (with good reason) whereas skirmisher attachments are perhaps less exciting for the price.

.
We'll be looking at the total availability of artillery bases per list - much as the amendment for the early lists whereby each attachment will reduce the size and number of units of Artillery available. If, for example, you're only allowed 5 bases per corps (about 40 guns), then allocating 2 as attachments would mean that you'd only get 1 unit.
The number of guns per corps was often quite limited unless it was allocated extra guns from the artillery reserve - That would mean any additional guns must normally be in heavy units.

One risk in going too far is to take the combined arms aspect out of the game. If all artillery moves into attachments (which may be historically accurate). Then we have no serious role for artillery and we overpower infantry.

There is an important flavor of having artillery that keeps this a Napoleonic game. It is one of the challenges of the brigade scale corps level game you've picked. I haven't thought but allowing single base artillery not attached for lack of better description. I know a single battery often operated differently but only having the equivalent of massed batteries and all other artillery integral will spoil some of the feel.

shadowdragon wrote:I think we need to change the names of the extended line ... In the first case, it implies the unit with its battalions line abreast whether in line or battalion column since at least the experienced, well trained reformed units with their battalions in columns were supposed to maintain intervals between the columns that would allow the battalions to deploy into line. For example, infantry, at least non-conscript infantry, in unreformed armies shouldn't get a penalty for being in extended formation. Perhaps a penalty, except for conscripts, should be dropped altogether. Is it really valid and is it giving us the effect we want?

I think either extended line needs to be gotten rid of for simplicity or made more viable as outlined here.
Personally I would be happy if it was common. Just make it unable to go to square and also give it a negative in melee.
it does have the problem of taking too much fire already.

marty wrote:

regular light infantry in skirmish order , when they complete an evade, should go back into tactical?

The obvious danger with this is that it could make them even better. At least if you charge them at the moment they miss a couple of shooting phases while they turn around. If they end in tactical facing the chargers they are ie ready for action straight away.

There is a problem because the evade away and drift back just never really happened at this scale. It is a game mechanic.

What about not letting them evade? Making them take some melee risk?

Attrition.

I do think one of the features of simplicity has a issue. The ability to have units shooting at each other for long periods with no serious effect and the ability of units to go to waver and come back are bothersome.

I don't want to have an overly complicated system. But something where (I'm talking mostly infantry here) a unit can be spent without having been routed would be good. I think that is the practical method within existing mechanisms.

In time limited games there is the ability to keep cycling infantry into position endlessly and an opponent can be timed out. This is why people have turned to so much cavalry as the rapid arm of decision. An infantry battle just takes too long to win.

This is to step toward having situations where committing infantry to a "bayonet" attack is worthwhile. Right now it is heavily when an opponent is outclassed or wavering or a foregone solution. Now a good order versus spent infantry fight isn't a sure thing but worthwhile.

This need for attrition is critical with large infantry units. The one less hit and if they have a mounted attached are just kind of ridiculous in that they can stand for inordinately long periods until massed artillery arrives or the a flank falls or something.

You can imagine simple ways. Like a test for a large unit taking (unreduced) 5 hits in a turn can fail and becomes a small unit. Or whenever a unit is wavering and takes another cohesion loss it tests. Or all units wavering that don't have a CP spent on them test for going spent.

What about not letting them evade? Making them take some melee risk?

Could work. Would probably be best with a CT to check if they get back in formation in time and no defensive fire (hard to shoot through a cloud of your own hotly pursued retreating skirmishers). Would still need to allow actual evades for units that didn't deploy with formed "supports" (ie units that currently always have to be in skirmish)

Martin

What about not letting them evade? Making them take some melee risk?

That was the most simple fix we looked at - removing the evade from the game (except for irreg LC).

End result? Skirmishers stand and shoot (not very well) and fight a combat (badly).
It works fine against unreformed opponents, where the skirmishers can keep the range at over 4MU.
Against reformed opponents or mounted however, very dangerous unless you have a neighbouring unit to intercept assaults.

We moved from this to the idea that skirmishers when charged form up into tactical, taking a CT as they go (to reflect the forward skirmishing companies running back to their supports).

But no absolute consensus in our group on how to go with skirmishers, although all recognise that something should be done.

hazelbark wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:I think we need to change the names of the extended line ... In the first case, it implies the unit with its battalions line abreast whether in line or battalion column since at least the experienced, well trained reformed units with their battalions in columns were supposed to maintain intervals between the columns that would allow the battalions to deploy into line. For example, infantry, at least non-conscript infantry, in unreformed armies shouldn't get a penalty for being in extended formation. Perhaps a penalty, except for conscripts, should be dropped altogether. Is it really valid and is it giving us the effect we want?

I think either extended line needs to be gotten rid of for simplicity or made more viable as outlined here.
Personally I would be happy if it was common. Just make it unable to go to square and also give it a negative in melee.
it does have the problem of taking too much fire already.

I would be dead against not having the " extended line " or whatever we call it.

This was the favoured formation of 2 and 3 Btn regiment ancien regime ( unreformed) armies in the 1790s going back to the earlier part of the century, ie the constituent Btns of the regiment formed up side by side not one behind the other and each in 3 deep lines ( exceptions before anyone pipes up do not make the general rule ) and the transition to deeper regimental formations is part of the underlying narrative of the 23 years. To abandon it prior to 1800 would be effectively to marginalise that whole period .

It was partly through choice and developing doctrine but also through the withering away of the long service professional soldiers who made up the old armies and who had been drilled time out of mind in how to advance in such formations at regimental and brigade level . As time went by they could no longer do it or not as well.

This is why we limit the speed of advance of reformed units in extended line - but maybe we could reduce that by 1 MU or make them temporarily disordered if they advance in line more than 2 MUs ( but fire precedes movement so it is not that practical) . We could also not allow conscript level infantry to advance in extended line at all or even not allow them to form it in some lists
( French provisional units in 1813 -14 and landwehr).

The tricky thing is us awkward squad Brits who retained that capability as well as adapting to the other doctrines. Shoe- horning them in was a real problem to which I am not sure there is any different solution that will satisfy all - and it will probably dissatisfy many especially those for whom the behaviour of single Btn Brit regiments is what makes the Peninsula, at least, so appealing .I was at one early stage not convinced we could do it all and contemplated excluding it from the system

Given that the total number of British infantry who served in these wars must be well south of 10% or even 5% of all those engaged I have always been wary of allowing the design to be skewed much in their direction.

I would restrict this to a 3rd move ONLY if:
* Non Cavalry
* Corps Commander Skilled or better
* Divisional Commander Skilled of better
* No units out of Divisional Commander's radius.

In short I do not want mounted units moving from right rear to left front in one turn.

Valid comments - and the reason we want to Beta test any changes.

MDH wrote:I would be dead against not having the " extended line " or whatever we call it.

I too am against removing the extended line formation for the reasons you mention. It does, however, need to be viable.

Perhaps something that needs to be considered is when reformed infantry enter close range with the intention of engaging in a formal fire-fight (i.e., not as an assault). This is the standard practice of the ancien regime armies, but less so the later reformed armies as troop quality deteriorated. Forming a firing line from column while under is one of the more complicated maneouvres as noted by observers in the Napoleonic Wars (...and even line by LCol Chamberlain in Gods and Generals...LOL). If that's what a player has his reformed, tactical formation, infantry unit doing then one presumes the intention is to form a firing line, as difficult as that may be, or to stay and fire back whilst in column. Right now the reformed unit move into close range, then receives fire, which may or may not disorder the unit, and then returns fire. No problem with the sequencing but it does seem that reformed units are getting off somewhat lightly. Perhaps a reformed unit needs a CMT or to expend CP to stop within close range of a unreformed unit (or possibly just a reformed unit in extended line) or a modifier (cohesion or firing) for the firing phase immediately following entering and stopping within close range of unreformed unit.

MDH wrote:

shadowdragon wrote: We've had the discussion about a la debande or dispersed order. There is a valid case for constraining their evades / movement. They were highly flexible at the company and even battalion level, but at the regiment / brigade level?

I would differ re the 1792-95 French where it was often at regimental level and above ( and that includes line infantry deployed in that formation and we balance that by not letting them fire as light infantry and I think probably for Grenzers.
We do need to make sure that when not in the open they (including regular light infantry) are effective including on steep terrain.

I don't think I was clear, Mike. I did not mean that there shouldn't be FoG units (regiments or brigades) entirely in skirmish formation. What I did mean that when such a unit was entirely in skirmish formation it probably shouldn't have as high a battlefield manoeuvrability as is currently in the rules (i.e., reduce evades in some way or further restrict their ability to move in any direction). Ancien regime armies distrusted excessive numbers of skirmishers for fear of losing command and control over them. Perhaps that fear was justified and perhaps it wasn't. However, when one considers that 2,000 troops are in a loose skirmish line with a few in clumps as supports, there does seem to be a valid command and control issue that is different from a company of skirmishers somewhat ahead of their main supports and even different from getting a regiment of 3 or 4 battalions in close formation to move from here to there.

Just wondering here.

shadowdragon wrote:

MDH wrote:

shadowdragon wrote: We've had the discussion about a la debande or dispersed order. There is a valid case for constraining their evades / movement. They were highly flexible at the company and even battalion level, but at the regiment / brigade level?

I would differ re the 1792-95 French where it was often at regimental level and above ( and that includes line infantry deployed in that formation and we balance that by not letting them fire as light infantry and I think probably for Grenzers.
We do need to make sure that when not in the open they (including regular light infantry) are effective including on steep terrain.

I don't think I was clear, Mike. I did not mean that there shouldn't be FoG units (regiments or brigades) entirely in skirmish formation. What I did mean that when such a unit was entirely in skirmish formation it probably shouldn't have as high a battlefield manoeuvrability as is currently in the rules (i.e., reduce evades in some way or further restrict their ability to move in any direction). Ancien regime armies distrusted excessive numbers of skirmishers for fear of losing command and control over them. Perhaps that fear was justified and perhaps it wasn't. However, when one considers that 2,000 troops are in a loose skirmish line with a few in clumps as supports, there does seem to be a valid command and control issue that is different from a company of skirmishers somewhat ahead of their main supports and even different from getting a regiment of 3 or 4 battalions in close formation to move from here to there.

Just wondering here.

We are probably not far off each other in this - and other things - as indeed other posters on this thread It is a problem with the delayed tennis match of web based comms rather than face-to-face conversation preferably in an agreeable old geezers ( at least I am ) pub. You can get a lot further in that environment!

I am not a great mechanism nerd so am relatively easily persuaded to one or another point of view on that kind of stuff unless it seems to me to lose something uniquely historical in the mix or just screw up the game .( I still regret we cannot do order mixed in FOG(N)).I have been doing plenty of reading about the 18th century as part of working up a FOG ( Age of Reason) set so am a bit wary of the Imperialist era folks doing ex post hoc reasoning backwards

Its a bit about what we think a particular physical model on a table represents and hence what we imagine it ought to be capable of doing -or not. (The ancien regime distrust of light infantry was also about concerns of desertion . )

What I do cavil at is just " making things easier" for gamers. If it's too hard I suggest try easier rules and games or a different hobby . Being good at Napoleonic grand tactics ought to be hard .Plenty of commanders at the time found it was. I do

MDH wrote:I would be dead against not having the " extended line " or whatever we call it.

This was the favoured formation of 2 and 3 Btn regiment ancien regime ( unreformed) armies in the 1790s going back to the earlier part of the century, ie the constituent Btns of the regiment formed up side by side not one behind the other and each in 3 deep lines ( exceptions before anyone pipes up do not make the general rule ) and the transition to deeper regimental formations is part of the underlying narrative of the 23 years. To abandon it prior to 1800 would be effectively to marginalise that whole period.

Yea, but the rules functionally have everyone in the early period moving around in tactical unless I missed something.
The only game use for extended is to hold space or a terrain obstruction.
As it stands now why go into extended as the medium range firing infantry will cut you to pieces.

hazelbark wrote:

MDH wrote:I would be dead against not having the " extended line " or whatever we call it.

This was the favoured formation of 2 and 3 Btn regiment ancien regime ( unreformed) armies in the 1790s going back to the earlier part of the century, ie the constituent Btns of the regiment formed up side by side not one behind the other and each in 3 deep lines ( exceptions before anyone pipes up do not make the general rule ) and the transition to deeper regimental formations is part of the underlying narrative of the 23 years. To abandon it prior to 1800 would be effectively to marginalise that whole period.

Yea, but the rules functionally have everyone in the early period moving around in tactical unless I missed something.
The only game use for extended is to hold space or a terrain obstruction.
As it stands now why go into extended as the medium range firing infantry will cut you to pieces.

I suppose if we end up with unreformed fighting unreformed prior to 1800 then we have pretty much departed from any historical context anyway so who gives a toss about trying to preserve any specific element of historical simulation and trying to get gamers to do things even if they were subsequently abandoned by armies as less effective after 1800 ?

Most of them were fighting just the French not each other and guess what they lost a lot of the time. So unless you stick to that pairing and penalise tactical further for unreformed or give them so further advantage ,gamers will opt for the later anachronistic choice and not for the more historical one if the game makes it work better .

Rather makes we want to give up the pre 1800 model altogether as a lost cause….

I'm not convinced we need a thrid move mechanic. Its not clear what element of the game this is seeking to improve. The speed of games isn't impeded by the time to engage. Will we still have the period flavour if we have some units racing around the board or infantry moving faster than cavalry?

I like some of the more conservative ideas about skirmishing infantry and would support inclusion of the North Shore clubs CT for skirmishers who evade.

Something definitely needs to be done with Guard artillery as they are far too expensive.

I don't think there need to be any changes to cavalry though. They just don't make much impact on infantry on their own and I have little trouble with them in my games. They work very well against other cavarly and when used to exploit a weakenss created by other forces.

I agree that it does appear unusual that infantry can take a lot of fire and recover. However, I don't see many games that see this repeating and games moving into a stalemate. Once a force starts to take casualties and their line loses integrity the side who has some reserve to commit delivers an attack that produces a result.

hazelbark wrote:Yea, but the rules functionally have everyone in the early period moving around in tactical unless I missed something.
The only game use for extended is to hold space or a terrain obstruction.
As it stands now why go into extended as the medium range firing infantry will cut you to pieces.

Of course, tactical can be a brigade (or regiment) with two lines of battalions in line so it's not completely implausible for the early period.

Even with a brigade (or regiment) in extended line it would be standard practice to have another brigade, in extended line, immediately behind the front line brigade. I suppose at some level of abstraction units in tactical replicate that albeit with the command and control side by side instead of front and back. I did read somewhere that a complaint of 18th century brigade commanders was that once their brigades were formed up (in extended line) they had little to do. Tactical implies greater flexibility at the brigade level.

From a tournament player's perspective I can understand that we would ideally have every army with roughly an equal chance of winning regardless of the demonstrated historical superiority of one system over another. I don't mind helping the tournament side of things but I also think FoGN is an excellent historical game and wouldn't be interest in a version 2 that significantly sacrificed historical play.

So, how to represent ancien regime armies in a way that makes them viable in tournaments but without turning history on its head. There's only so much you can learn from the British army in the latter war years as they didn't face an 1805 Grande Armee, have to deal with massive amounts of artillery or have to maintain a large army. Waterloo is interesting as that's the closest they came to a big central European fight and, despite being on the winning side, they suffered a rather higher percentage of casualties than what they were used to in the Peninsula.

But, that's why we beta test, no? Looking forward to your ideas Terry and Mike....and don't give up the 1790's yet!

Daemionhunter wrote:I'm not convinced we need a thrid move mechanic.

It's just one idea to throw into the pot in thinking of additional uses for CPs. - mainly based on allowing the more practical use of infantry reserve formations in games which often only run for 5-8 turns.

We've used this in large refights (ie Austerlitz) where the pace of combat has prevented un-committed formations moving across the field as quickly as they did historically.

It came up as a discussion in the large 4,000 point multiplayer game we had in Thames last year. The French kept a strategic reserve (the Guard Corps) but was not able to commit it fast enough to make any difference. Andy (Hunter, not you mr daemionhunter) pointed out a dynamic of FoGN to only encourage keeping cavalry reserves, not infantry (unless they are rubbish infantry and you are just trying to hide them), as cavalry are the only reserve units able to get into the line fast enough to make a difference. Especially if you are unreformed.
Guard and elite infantry in particular should probably never be kept in reserve, to do so means your best troops are often effectively out of the battle.

From this discussion sprouted the idea of allowing multiple 2nd moves. Good troops in reserve with plenty of CPs should then hopefully be able to rapidly deploy to an area when needed.
They would still have the inherent brake of having to stop short of 6MU of enemy, and it would only really effect reserves as front line troops are usually in/will be in 6MU of enemy.

We also thought it might balance things up a little for defenders, giving them more chance to deploy reserve formations to counter an attacker loading up on one flank.
The other effect is allow the attacker to potentially move faster in his first turn. However this really just speeds the game, allowing the first 2 turns (the approach) to be condensed in one turn - at the risk for an attacker of passing some 2nd/3rd moves and not others, and ending up strung out.

Anyway, perhaps something to beta test?

Certainly don't give up on the 1790's.
Unreformed infantry have drawbacks, sure, but they are cheaper.

The 2 reasons not to form extended line now are:

1. Lose a dice on CTs; and
2. Get massed up on by shooters.

Perhaps an answer may be to allow unreformed troops not to lose a CT dice if they have rear support, and unreformed in extended line always count as a large unit against enemy shooting?

The 2 reasons not to form extended line now are:

1. Lose a dice on CTs; and
2. Get massed up on by shooters.

Perhaps an answer may be to allow unreformed troops not to lose a CT dice if they have rear support, and unreformed in extended line always count as a large unit against enemy shooting?

Your solution to issue 1) has been considered and could well be implemented..
Your solution to issue 2) is one of the ideas (among others) that we are looking at.