FOGN 2nd Edition

[shadowdragon]

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.

Issue 1 - no question about that.

Issue 2 - needs testing since force superiority should win out. I don't think we want 1 unit in extended line being at parity to 2 units in tactical. I suggest a benchmark comparison would be 2 unreformed units in tactical, side by side, versus 2 unreformed units in extended line, one behind the other. Assuming that each unit represents 4 battalions then each would have 4 battalions in a front line and 4 battalions in a rear, supporting line. The only difference is the battalions being relieved battalion by battalion within the brigades for the units in tactical and the front line being relieved as a whole by brigade. Despite this difference, this should still be close to a 50-50 situation. Maybe we want to skew it a little towards being extended line to encourage unreformed units to use that formation....even if just from a visual perspective.

Using the benchmark what we should see is something like this (i.e., expected outcomes with who fires first being averaged out - so assuming simultaneous fire, and assuming all units are fresh at the start):

Round 1: Front line unit in extended line drops 2 cohesion levels (to wavering) and retires, the 2 units in tactical each drop 1 cohesion level (to disordered);

2nd rank unit in extended line is now in the front line

Round 2: Unit in extended most likely drops 1 cohesion level (to disordered), but there's a good chance it could drop 2 level, and the 2 units in tactical each drop another cohesion level (to wavering)

Of course, recovery attempts.

It does seem like the expected results are a little bit in favour of the units in extended line, although I think the variation in dicing does need to be consider. Treating a small unit in extended as a large unit needs testing. Since the expectations are now:

Round 1: All units dropped one cohesion level (disordered). Unit in extended retires out of close range.
Round 2: If the rear extended unit has replaced the front one, units in tactical drop to wavering while the fresh unit in extended line drops to disordered. If the original front line unit in extended is re-engaged, the expectation is that it drops 1 level to wavering while 1 unit in tactical drops to wavering.

That's just a quick analysis. It needs testing in various contexts, such as who is moving into close range, etc., but it does seem like maybe that's too much of a shift. Worth testing though.

Seems to me the issue is the ease with which a player can rotate 2 units, front to back, in extended line in and out of the firing. In tactical the player doesn't need to do anything as this is assumed to happen automatically within the unit, so casualties are automatically shared with the battalions in the 2nd line.

[hazelbark]

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….

Mike, we are talking past each other. My apologies. I am saying that right now the historical unreformed versus French pre 1800 does not encourage the use of the extended line formation. We need the extended line formation to be more rewarding or players won't use.

I am keen for the early period. Your cynicism about excessively departing from historical context is something I agree with. I have not fought such a battle yet in FOGN and don't want to start. For me I have a hard and fast rule no civil wars and only historical (nation) opponents. Usually it is the same year but that is not always perfect.

[hazelbark]

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.

On your first point, there is quite a lot of commentary from a broad diverse player pool about cavalry being a critical and fast arm of decision. Which is historical I might add. But the number of player reaction of shock cavalry attached artillery, guard cavalry all designed to punch through.

The infantry battle also manages to replicate history, but time constraints for players are a problem. So that has created a migration to mounted.

[shadowdragon]

1. Expand the 2nd move concept to allow as many subsequent moves outside of 6MU as you like, needing to pass a CMT for each one. Would speed play, allow for more sweeping moves, and permit reserves to get into the game before it is too late.

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.

This might be a separate issue for single corps tournament play versus multi-corps 'historical' play. The intent of FoGN was a single corps, presumably fighting a particular mission in the context of a larger battle. In that situation, one wouldn't see infantry reserves rapidly moving to support the corps in action. Perhaps some cavalry. In a larger, multi-corps battle there should be a big difference between corps committed to the battle and those in reserve. I'm not sure what I'm suggesting but the Empire rules had separate Grand Tactical movement from the corps / divisional engagement. Maybe there's something that could be borrowed from FoGR in terms of its Grand Division movement (or whatever it's called - can't recall off the top of my head).

Perhaps a nice addition would be some rules that apply for larger, multi-corps battles....or maybe that would break the system. Just an idea to think about.

[terrys]

Perhaps a nice addition would be some rules that apply for larger, multi-corps battles....or maybe that would break the system. Just an idea to think about.

Well we will have to replace the army lists in the original rule set with something .......

[hazelbark]

This might be a separate issue for single corps tournament play versus multi-corps 'historical' play. The intent of FoGN was a single corps, presumably fighting a particular mission in the context of a larger battle. In that situation, one wouldn't see infantry reserves rapidly moving to support the corps in action. Perhaps some cavalry. In a larger, multi-corps battle there should be a big difference between corps committed to the battle and those in reserve. I'm not sure what I'm suggesting but the Empire rules had separate Grand Tactical movement from the corps / divisional engagement. Maybe there's something that could be borrowed from FoGR in terms of its Grand Division movement (or whatever it's called - can't recall off the top of my head).

Perhaps a nice addition would be some rules that apply for larger, multi-corps battles....or maybe that would break the system. Just an idea to think about.

I think this is a good point. It incidentally highlights one of my grumpy contentions with the rules is I would prefer a "normal" size to be a bigger battle than is current...Auerstadt, Marengo size. Rather than current 800 point. We need healthier Corps sized formations...which I thing would detour the cavalry-centric nature of some players.

I think several rule systems have a grand tactical movement for reserves. Age of Eagles does for example tries to graft that in. I could see something like specifically designated reserve divisions that are also beyond 10 MU of an enemy can multiple move. That might fit with the hinted at reference to new scenarios and attacker reserve divisions. I understand why people want these formations to get to 6 MU but creates too much of a slingshot to a position. I am worried less if its infantry but a lot if its cavalry. We also have to find a way for unreformed infantry to matter in this environment. 10 MU is a long way for unreformed, but 6 MU is obviously nothing for reformed or cavalry.

[shadowdragon]

Perhaps formations (divisions) in reserve an triple move the turn they are activated. I'd rather see the triple move applied to a reserve division than used by regiments / brigades of divisions already engaged.

[adonald]

Well we will have to replace the army lists in the original rule set with something .......

A larger typeface and stop repeating yourselves.... Not putting the lists in and only saying something ONCE will allow you to use a larger typeface and I might then be able to read it.

Alastair

[MDH]

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….

Mike, we are talking past each other. My apologies. I am saying that right now the historical unreformed versus French pre 1800 does not encourage the use of the extended line formation. We need the extended line formation to be more rewarding or players won't use.



I am keen for the early period. Your cynicism about excessively departing from historical context is something I agree with. I have not fought such a battle yet in FOGN and don't want to start. For me I have a hard and fast rule no civil wars and only historical (nation) opponents. Usually it is the same year but that is not always perfect.

We agree in aims certainly. Its just frustrating. Its not cynicism so much as a "sod it why bother "shrug " - as the Scandinavians say "Ja well " .

Terry and I have exchanged in the last 36 hours on some reasonably historically valid ideas re extended line in particular including some of those posted here. They will need testing and they will not meet with universal support and may have some unintended downsides. Simplicity can be the enemy of getting it right but complexity puts people off. Trying to resolve this may take my mind off the trauma of the last 24 hours politically as we descend further into a version of Britain in 600 AD :

[Russ1664]

Less is more perhaps?

There is much discussion on changes and ideas for extra rules, but is there is any opportunity to simplify some of the complexities in the rules, areas where there are lots of rules or complexity but to little effect?

For example in how many games do gunners, having abandoned their guns, get an opportunity to recover them? Could abandoned guns just be removed?

Rear support; has exceptions for squares and infantry attacking towns, could it be simplified so that we have only one set of rules defining all rear all support?

[Blathergut]

We've had guns come back.

[hazelbark]

Less is more perhaps?

There is much discussion on changes and ideas for extra rules, but is there is any opportunity to simplify some of the complexities in the rules, areas where there are lots of rules or complexity but to little effect?

For example in how many games do gunners, having abandoned their guns, get an opportunity to recover them? Could abandoned guns just be removed?

Rear support; has exceptions for squares and infantry attacking towns, could it be simplified so that we have only one set of rules defining all rear all support?

I suspect the simplification bits and clarity are what a large chunk of this is really about.

[Daemionhunter]

In regard to infantry reserves I agree with Brett's point. I do tend to use cavalry as the reserve because infantry can't get to the key point fast enough. Perhaps a third move allowance or another kind of "march" move mechanic would be good. Of course a slightly deeper defenders deployment area might help too. This would of course bring them closer to the attackers LoC once their movement restrictions ended.

I also support a change to rear support moves for Conscripts in square, seems silly that a change in formation suddenly negates this benefit.

In my game with Brett last night he had cavalry charge through some infantry of the same division at a unit of my infantry. I formed square, disordered, but bounced the cavalry with fire from adjacent units. The infantry who had been charged through then advanced through the rebuffed cavalry in the movement phase to come within two of the square. The rules seem to allow this as the restriction on moving through friends only applies if the friends to be interpenetrated move in the movement phase. The cavalry moved in assault phase not the movement phase so it was allowed, bah humbug. Was this intended I wonder.

[Blathergut]

I would consider that charge a move and not allow the interpenetration, but I know the line in the rules is "if doesn't move in movement phase." It's not like charge movement is really happening first in the entire turn time. Terry??

[adonald]

The British and Portuguese classification as 'move as unreformed, fight as reformed' should be thrown out. It's wrong. The British manouvred at the same speed as the French. Sure, there are a couple of comments by British officers on how fast the French manoeuvred, but there are others saying the exact opposite. The British used similar formations - British infantry attacks in column were repulsed by the French at Albuera. British and Portuguese brigades advanced in the 'ordre mixte' formation.

The only thing the British did differently was probably time their deployment into line better. Remember, the British went out of their way to spoil the French drill of advancing rapidly up to the enemy AND DELPLOY INTO LINE. These were:
1) deploying out of sight so the French field officers didn't know when was the best tme to deploy into line.
2) shooting the field officers with marksmen to break down the command of the columns.
3) Having large clouds of skirmishers to mask the actual firing line (some French observers said they had broken the British first line only to be repulsed by the second line - this was untrue - what they had done was push back the skirmish line, unmasking the actual line battalions behind it).

Also, in a comment above, someone said that behaviour by the British or in battles with the British shouldn't be modelled in this form of rule set - something like only 10% of the Napoleonic conflict involved the British. I'm not sure if that's true, but be consistent - if that's the thinking, why in Hades is there a special rule just for the British and their allies on their manoeuvre speed, even if it is wrong?

The British are reformed troops. It'd be good to fix that blinding error in the next edition.


Alastair Donald

[MDH]

Well we will have to replace the army lists in the original rule set with something .......

A larger typeface and stop repeating yourselves.... Not putting the lists in and only saying something ONCE will allow you to use a larger typeface and I might then be able to read it.

Alastair

I find it hard to read and even more important to navigate because of the layout as much as anything else! And FOG(AM)( I will pass over FOG(R) with which I am uninspired and unimpressed ) . But virtually every set of rules I have has many of these weaknesses. The board gamers ( Avalon Hill and SPI) cracked all this years but in miniatures we struggle it seems.

As I believe I may have said elsewhere the whole issue of font point size and layout was a publishing (Osprey) decision pretty much set by the FOG(AM) style or brand published just as we began work and not a matter for input or comment from humble ( commissioned) authors. Our original easy to read ( and edit and proof) word document was transformed into what you see .

I hope we will be able to break free for a 2nd ed that can be read easily and which we edit when drafting on screen , with paragraph and sub-paragraph numbers for ease of cross referencing and the ability to automate indexing We had to try doing it by eye and hand page by page with a demand for a turnaround of 48 hours and until you have final page numbers you cannot do an index.

I think publishers like Osprey see things like this primarily just as books and artefacts not as practical manuals or" instructions". Their main oeuvre Men at Arms etc has many of the same faults- having to flick between the colour plates and descriptions, no paragraph numbers, rarely any indexes and strange layouts interrupted by illustrations .

I would want to take out as much extraneous material as possible like ALL the eye candy and lists and the weird section dividers that serve no useful purpose I can see . The lists were only there because the publishers decided to have a gap of several months between the rules and the books of lists so we had to cobble them together very quickly just so you had something to kick off with . I'd like to retain some material that might still help or encourage new hobbyists or hobbyists new to the period for whom the 2nd ed might be their first copy .Plus a few extra or revamped lists to add some value.

I would ideally like to have algorithmic charts in each section to make it easier to navigate the processes ( this would be useful in all virtually rules ) but I don't know if I have the skills to design them. I may have a go but I need a template.

Of course the more changes we make to the rules the greater the risk of errors happening all over again especially with cross referencing. But with three years of playing experience between us and beta testers that may be mitigated .

[BrettPT]

Thanks for disclosing the publishing challenges you guys faced Mike. We'll redirect set-out grumbles to Osprey

- and good idea to leave out the osprey piccies - or to perhaps replace some of them with some photos of actual fog(n) units/formations. I quite like looking at photos of well painted miniatures. There are plenty of gorgeous armies fog(n) out there now and I'm sure their owners would be happy to supply pics if desired.

[MDH]

Also, in a comment above, someone said that behaviour by the British or in battles with the British shouldn't be modelled in this form of rule set - something like only 10% of the Napoleonic conflict involved the British. I'm not sure if that's true, but be consistent - if that's the thinking, why in Hades is there a special rule just for the British and their allies on their manoeuvre speed, even if it is wrong?

The British are reformed troops. It'd be good to fix that blinding error in the next edition.


Alastair Donald

You don't write for the BBC do you ?" Speaking on this programme the prime Minister said " I like chips in brown gravy" .Headline Pm denies paternity case"

This what I actually wrote.

"The tricky thing is us awkward squad Brits who retained that capability[moving forward in line in good order] 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 suggest your paraphrase maybe a "blinding error".

We devised a special rule to attempt to represent that distinctiveness from the other continental armies but I do not think you can argue that the British army as such was anything other than a small percentage of the troops engaged in the wars which is not the same as Britain's involvement which was persistent . The Navy diplomacy and money were our big contributions .

Unlike the Wars of Marlborough we were not a major land power then . Had we adopted mass conscription our armies might well have behaved pretty much the same as all the others including much more artillery and more 2 Btn regiments in the field . But the peninsula might not have been the major land theatre of operations in that case and just a sideshow (it nearly was anyway and if the Spanish had given up it would have been .) Then it would have been the low countries and the Rhine as the main theatre cooperating with the Austrians ( as we tried to do and failed in the 1790's )the other most persistent opponent of the French over the 23 years .

So using post 1800 British practice as some kind of benchmark or baseline against which to judge all the others would have been the wrong end of the telescope. That is all I was saying. Some past rule sets have been a bit anglo centric that way in my view. Setting the French as the baseline was the foundation.

It may be that a Btn based game would work much better for the Brits in the Peninsula and be manageable which was one of my earlier thoughts on this project .There was no absolute reason why FoG(N) had to cover everything . We have not covered the War of 1812 with the US either nor the wars in India.

Now if you are saying you don't think we should make them any different to the continental armies ( they are not in the 1790s), or better still if you have different way to do that some might not cavil that much - given they are comparatively de minimis - but many others will not agree I suggest.

[MDH]

Thanks for disclosing the publishing challenges you guys faced Mike. We'll redirect set-out grumbles to Osprey

- and good idea to leave out the osprey piccies - or to perhaps replace some of them with some photos of actual fog(n) units/formations. I quite like looking at photos of well painted miniatures. There are plenty of gorgeous armies fog(n) out there now and I'm sure their owners would be happy to supply pics if desired.

Actually yes I think some figures in proper FoGN) formations ( which were not much available when we were drafting them for obvious reasons) would be a good idea and it would actually be useful! And I am forgetting one of my own oft-expressed views (eg in the WD Nugget) about the aesthetic values of miniatures wargaming .

[BrettPT]

The British are reformed troops. It'd be good to fix that blinding error in the next edition.

Had a re-look at the definitions in the rules:

"Reformed infantry regiments are mostly assumed to have introduced light infantry companies into their battalion formations and to have stopped using line as their normal formation in a battle"
"Unreformed regiments are mostly assumed to still use the line as their normal formation in battle. They have no integral light infantry companies"

So the key indicators seem to be:
1) Is line their normal formation in battle; and
2) Do they have battalion skirmish companies?

If you had to choose from the list of formations (say column, line, l'order mix, square, battalion mass) to pick their 'normal' tactical formaton, wouldn't you say it's line for the Brits?
The skirmish criteria is covered by allowing Brits dispensation to skirmish shoot.

I think Brits are modelled ok - but they deserve a point per base discount to compensate for the 4MU move.