Slitherine

hazelbark wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:
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.

I rather agree with this as it need not be deleterious to those who play the " standard game" - which by the way I never do! But I do think a deeper table helps. Double distance on roads does help of course and I often have a lateral road in my rear area to facilitate that with a reserve on the road in column of march.

I have suggested to Terry allowing unreformed infantry in tactical to move 6MUs off road if more that 16MUs from the enemy throughout - ie out of artillery range. This represents what in the mid 18th century was called an " open column". This not as such a tactical formation.

Each Btn was in platoon width with platoon intervals and platoons in three ranks( or company width in smaller combined Grenadier Btns). Btsn in a regiment would be one behind the other usually as it was part of along column of such formations. This formation was for use on the battle field when moving to their planned positions , usually at an oblique angle to that so that each Btn could wheel readily by platoons simultaneously into line, the senior Btn on the right of course It is not a close column of march which we already allow for but which was not an on-the battle field formation.

That does not of course address bigger battles. Just now having doing a 28m census after rebasing I am planning a "virtual"campaign ( no map just 7 battles corps on corps) with 7 Corps a side - French circa 1812 v Russian, Austrians and Russians cc 1812-13. Most Corps have 4 Divs with provision for a reinforcing div from another Corps " marching to the sound of the guns" I also have a C-in C- Wing commander provision for multi corps engagements command range 30MUs, from the figure not the base as I have them mounted on a larger irregular shaped non standard bases.

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"

The definition is not useful. What is a "normal formation". Troops of the Napoleonic period adopted a number of formations on a battlefield depending on where they were in relation to the enemy and the threats against them. Both the French and British advanced in column, and it's certainly true that the French drill required them to form line when their attack column got within range of the enemy. As it turned out, many of their opponents broke before the column needed to deploy into line, but that's a measure of the Frenchs opponents, and not their intention. The British didn't have that luxury, French units facing them didn't break and run when the British approached so the British formed into line. This didn't always happen either, Colbournes brigade at Albuera initially ran into the French in column and got caught out of formation - due, it appears, to the poor visibility and terrain. However, in a famous case at Salamanca, a British division advanced across open ground in line, but this saw due to exposure to artillery fire. There are descriptions of the French trying to deploy into line after their column has run into the British. Sometimes they did, other times they failed. The rules do not model this - the French are always assumed to deploy into line as their tactical unit firepower at close range or point blank is the same as an unreformed factual unit - so there shouldn't be a difference for the British either.

I'm afraid quoting from the rule definitions didn't help in this case.

Alastair Donald

Hi Al.
I was merely making the point that British are modelled ok under the existing rule definitions - not whether those definitions may or may not need work.
I think that the rapid movement of the Brits at Salamanca can be modelled under existing rules, where unreformed infantry move 6MU in the first 2 turns as attacker.

shadowdragon wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

BrettPT wrote:
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.

How about:

1. Brigade groups containing no cavalry may attempt a 3rd move (if outside of 6MU throughout); and
2. On a turn that they are due to arrive, off table reserve formations instead of entering the table may announce they are strategically moving, left or right. They will then enter on their following turn, a sector to the left/right as the case may be.

(1) may encourage better use of infantry reserves, without overegging mounted movement or allowing individual units to hare around a flank by themselves
(2) may allow more flexibility for a strategic reserve, particularly in defence as a potential counter to an attacker 'loading up' against one flank (including by triple moving an infantry formation around it).

Hi Al.
I was merely making the point that British are modelled ok under the existing rule definitions - not whether those definitions may or may not need work.
I think that the rapid movement of the Brits at Salamanca can be modelled under existing rules, where unreformed infantry move 6MU in the first 2 turns as attacker.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I wasn't using the Salamanca example of a British division advancing in line as an example of a rapid movement, but rather as an example of the wide variety of formations available to well trained troops. I would have to say that, on balance, using the definitions in the rules, the British post 1800 would be reformed - light infantry companies in their line battalions and the predominant use of columns to manoeuvre on the battlefield. It is a mistake, probably reinforced by 1970s school history lessons, that the British troops manoeuvred differently from the French. The different natures of their opponents led them to employ different components of those drills. The British, on occasion, Seemed to have to deploy a fuller set of those drills as the French were good troops and did not allow anything less. The French in facing poor opponents such as the pre-British trained Portuguese, or the Spanish armies, did not need to complete some of their manoeuvres, such as forming a line to engage their opponents at close range, as those opponents would run off! Still the same basic drills. The French Middle Guard at Waterloo shook out of their attack columns (or squares?) into line to engage the British on the ridge. D'Erlon's corps advanced in columns made up of deployed battalions IN LINE to overcome the problem of deploying into line close to British battalions in defence as a response to their experience in the Peninsula.

There is very little difference between the armies, and since the French are the reformed troop gold standard, the British are reformed as well.

Alastair Donald

I have suggested to Terry allowing unreformed infantry in tactical to move 6MUs off road if more that 16MUs from the enemy throughout - ie out of artillery range. This represents what in the mid 18th century was called an " open column". This not as such a tactical formation.

In the Dundas' British Army manual (1792) the term "open column" was definitely a battlefield tactical formation. You may be referring to the "column of route" of of march which was four files wide and the pace was around 75 paces per minute, the soldiers were permitted to relax, not in step nor with carried arms and files were loosened. The battlefield columns were called:

Open column, occupying the same extent of ground as when in line, minus the front of its leading division, usually 20 yards between companies;
Half distance column, where the distance between companies was 10 yards;
Quarter distance column, where the distance between companies was 5 yards;
Close column, where the distance between companies was 1 pace.

The close column was used to pass a defile or bridge, to make an attack 'in certain confused situations', or to oppose cavalry should there be a chance of that cavalry surprising the formation (the men could simply turn outwards to face the enemy).

These were the battlefield column formations that British infantry used repeatedly in the Napoleonic period. The British recognised that "columns were essential for cohesion and regularity of pace" (Haythornthwaite, P; British Napoleonic Infantry Tactics; Osprey (2008) pp 13-15).

Just another point in favour of the British being reformed in the rules.

Alastair Donald

adonald wrote:

I have suggested to Terry allowing unreformed infantry in tactical to move 6MUs off road if more that 16MUs from the enemy throughout - ie out of artillery range. This represents what in the mid 18th century was called an " open column". This not as such a tactical formation.

In the Dundas' British Army manual (1792) the term "open column" was definitely a battlefield tactical formation. You may be referring to the "column of route" of of march which was four files wide and the pace was around 75 paces per minute, the soldiers were permitted to relax, not in step nor with carried arms and files were loosened. The battlefield columns were called:

Open column, occupying the same extent of ground as when in line, minus the front of its leading division, usually 20 yards between companies;
Half distance column, where the distance between companies was 10 yards;
Quarter distance column, where the distance between companies was 5 yards;
Close column, where the distance between companies was 1 pace.

The close column was used to pass a defile or bridge, to make an attack 'in certain confused situations', or to oppose cavalry should there be a chance of that cavalry surprising the formation (the men could simply turn outwards to face the enemy).

These were the battlefield column formations that British infantry used repeatedly in the Napoleonic period. The British recognised that "columns were essential for cohesion and regularity of pace" (Haythornthwaite, P; British Napoleonic Infantry Tactics; Osprey (2008) pp 13-15).

Just another point in favour of the British being reformed in the rules.

Alastair Donald

No I was not referring to that open column or indeed to the British in 1792. I said mid 18th century and meant it and my references are Duffy among others. When old style linear armies moved onto the battle field prior to reforming in line they did so in columns one platoon width with an interval between between platoons of one platoon width. ( Combined grenadiers usually company width and in interval),. This enabled units to wheel by platoons into line usually by the right of left less common by the centre but with the senior Btn of the regiment on the right . But it was not as such an attacking formation. They avoided ,if at all possible, being in this formation under fire . Close columns of march are already allowed for but presently we restrict unreformed infantry to 4 MUs in tactical except in the first two moves if they are the tactical ( ie 2x2 and 3x2) and can only move 6MUs when one stand behind the other (1x4 and 1x6). Now within the footprint of tactical for an unreformed old style units it is readily possible that within tactical there may be more than two or more Btns in such a formation ( depths in miniatures games are usually artificially too long) . This is a way of making unreformed units of the 1790's a bit more mobile.

So as I read this, a simple question arises.

Why do we need unreformed to move 4 mu?

At first I thought why not make all unreformed after say 1807 move 6 mu. Then I thought about the game impacts and realized it could likely be applied to the whole army.

You can compensate by making certain maneuvers harder for unreformed.

It would give up the clunky nature of the early period. Which is undesirable.
But right now I think what are the chances of Austrian grenadier ever getting into position to assault a French line? between the lack of firepower and the disadvantage of assaulting an enemy in good order...

The game problem is 4 MU is a LOT worse than 6 MU. Settle for 5 MU maybe?

One option of making them clunky is require unreformed infantry divisions to have at least 5 infantry units. This combined with the discussion of needing more need for CP would make the CiC of a unreformed division clunky. The morale problems of trying to rally are serious given the historical OBs we've seen with large divisions. It would also better reflect the early period where unreformed armies did not operate divisions like the French. The Russian Division of '07. The Austrian and Russian columns of earlier are all plagued with CiC that currently is represented more by 4 mu than much else.

hazelbark wrote:One option of making them clunky is require unreformed infantry divisions to have at least 5 infantry units.

An excellent idea for historical flavour, but it's horrible when it comes to making up a decent army list (as I've found with my 1792-4 French)
The issue is that you feel like one hand is tied behind your back, with no commensurate points compensation. It's easier to just field a later army where you are not so restricted.

So I fear that making infantry divisions have at least 5 units may simply encourage people avoid those lists... unless there is also some points bonus with it - ie all DCs in this list cost 10 points less ... or something.

Part of me cant help but think there is a value in maintaining distinctions between troops (whether fully unreformed or British), even if they may overstate historical differences a little, for the sake of variety and interest. One potential "weak point" of Napoleonics is the essential "sameness" of all the opponents (ie guys with muskets, on horses with sword/pistol and artillery). One aspect of FOG N I have enjoyed is the way playing the different nationalities feels significantly different.

martin

Again a bit more blue sky thinking about extended line.

Bottom line there needs more payoff for being in the formation.

Perhaps any outcome move is a d6-2. I could also see changing the outcome move entirely for extended line. These early period armies did not yield ground so much as break and shatter. This would make them better at holding ground. No outcome unless wavering. This gives them a chance to close and stay within 2MU. Right now, they rarely survive at 2 MU range and get pushed out. You can make the extended line formation a 4 MU mover.

Then as suggested by others they need to absorb less hits somewhat. Or give them a bonus to rally if disrupted.

Then a wavering extended line that takes an outcome of over 4 MU is spent.

So stronger to hold, slower to advance, but more brittle one they get pushed.

Oh and a unit being interpenetrated by an extended line needs to not suffer as easily. This is the other weakness of the formation especially for 4 MU movers. When the unit falls back or routs, the whole is massive and can't be filled. The interpentration rules make reserves a cascade problem not a fill the whole problem.

BrettPT wrote:

hazelbark wrote:One option of making them clunky is require unreformed infantry divisions to have at least 5 infantry units.

An excellent idea for historical flavour, but it's horrible when it comes to making up a decent army list (as I've found with my 1792-4 French)
The issue is that you feel like one hand is tied behind your back, with no commensurate points compensation. It's easier to just field a later army where you are not so restricted.

So I fear that making infantry divisions have at least 5 units may simply encourage people avoid those lists... unless there is also some points bonus with it - ie all DCs in this list cost 10 points less ... or something.

That is a tournament problem agreed. I rather have the history.
How many unreformed armies are you seeing in tourneys that aren't themed.
You can also give the army a higher break point.

marty wrote:Part of me cant help but think there is a value in maintaining distinctions between troops (whether fully unreformed or British), even if they may overstate historical differences a little, for the sake of variety and interest. One potential "weak point" of Napoleonics is the essential "sameness" of all the opponents (ie guys with muskets, on horses with sword/pistol and artillery). One aspect of FOG N I have enjoyed is the way playing the different nationalities feels significantly different.

martin

Strongly agree. but you may be able to solve that some other ways.

I'll test a second version of these rules.

Al, Brett, Andrew, Phillip, Kendall and I play each other all the time - Mike might also want to be part of it as well.

I actually don't have a problem with extended line as it currently works - as it should be vulnerable to medium range fire. The problem exists with the dynamic of the penalty of the reduction of the die when in extended line for the taking of a CT test - why continue with this? Unreformed troops are TRAINED to fight in extended lines and where is the evidence that troops were inherently more brittle in this formation? I accept that they were slower and more unwieldy, but given the training of the age and that fact that after the 1770's all armies favored the 'Prussian' model, I suggest that having a rule mechanism that makes unreformed troops MORE unstable when in their tactically preferred battle field formation, has always seemed very odd to me.

Also there is (or was?) the ridiculous effect of the outcome move on extended line when taking four hits - you had a 50% chance of moving bugger all away from the opposing units firing at you and then presenting your rear towards them. If you changed this to say that you only turned to face the rear if you moved 6 inches (or more), then that would solve this problem as well, without the need for the encumbering process of additional special rules for the extended line.

The British are a 5% problem, are they? How very Hofschroer of you...Actually the poms fought in two man deep extended line, so if you REALLY wanted to make the rules about them then you should really allow British infantry to have a wider frontage than every other infantry in the game. Why not just let the poms be reformed infantry that can also fight in extended line as unreformed? Wouldn't that solve your dramas?? They are already paid for as reformed, so if they want to go into extended line and be unreformed, what's the issue? An extra inch of movement?? Indeed, the adoption of such a measure for the poms would actually be an incentive.

I suggest that a bigger issue is the lack of decent terrain rules or the mechanism of them.

What do you consider the best defensive terrain feature? Mine is a gentle hill, for the following - you can charge down it, you can stand in extended line upon it without the stupid CT penalty and you can hide behind it, if need be. Anything more substantial than this is detrimental to the defender.

Try and defend a wood or an enclosed field - you'll shoot and fight poorly, having less dice than anyone else shooting at you or stabbing at you. If you choose to defend the edge of the terrain feature, then you have just made your worst error. Have you noticed that if you charge a unit defending the PERIMETER of a terrain feature then you suffer none of the ill effects that the defending unit has? Why allow this to continue? BOTH sides suffer the detriments of fighting in a town event though the assaulting unit remains outside of the town. Seems inconsistent.

Why not adopt a simple rule that says if you assault a unit in a terrain feature then you are no longer in the open but count as being in other circumstances or are at least affected by the same problems as unit you are assaulting? In that way defending a terrain feature will actually be worthwhile and we might start seeing some attractive FOG N tables at tournaments.

Sharp Practise, the Too Fat Lardies' rule set, has a very good write up on the difference between "Prussian" and "French" systems.

The Prussian system had the column (yes, moving columns) being led by the right hand company. When deploying into line this company must form the right of the line, each subsequent company forming up on the left. This was a slow process and really meant the regiment could only deploy if going to the right. Frederick the Great's victory at Leuthen shows this well when he manoeuvred to the right.

The French system allowed any company to take the lead and the line formed up on that company. This was supposed to be eight times faster for a line to be deployed than in the Prussian system.

I've also seen the marching in line may not have been too much slower than column. If so then perhaps let both unreformed and reformed move 6MU but give the unreformed a slight disadvantage when it comes to doing CMTs within 6MU to reflect their slower tactical manoeuvring to get into line.

Coming in late-ish into the discussion. Great that you guys are taking this on - very exciting! Love the rules but they do need some love.

Fully support making British 1 point cheaper, making light inf less effective/more expensive, removing penalties for unreformed being in extended line, more varied set up options, cleaning up book layout and providing a better typeface, like 3 move cav idea - works well in FOG R.

Some bug bears of mine that I would like to see fixed that I haven't yet seen discussed:

1. Unreformed infantry should be 1 point cheaper due to their movement penalty (avg drilled unreformed w skirmish attachment cost the same and shoot the same as avg drilled reformed, but move 33% slower - a BIG disadvanatge). Unreformed armies that do well seem to max out their cavalry to compensate for over-priced infantry.

2. Abandoned artillery rule is too onerous - you hardly ever see the artillery again and if you do they're probably wavering. Think about not making them drop morale when they abandon, and be able to test as often as they like to return. No-one voluntarily abandons because you're pretty much lost anyway.

3. Moving away in response to fire is messy as you move away from the firers not to your rear - causes unnnecessary complexity with units crashing into each other, debates around split angles, etc - just make them fall back to their rear.

4. Similarly clarify/clean up mechanisms when falling back to 3MU from 3 firing hits. And just make it straight back and 3MU from the shooters not all enemy, otherwise you can get some odd situations where units leapfrog miles back.

5. Clunky rules re outcome moves reaching table edges, uncrossable terrain, etc. Mimic tried and tested other FOG systems - leave the table and lost if an outcome move goes over the edge, halt when hitting other uncrossables and fight/destroyed if contacted by pursuers.

6. The less unnecessary base movement, the less complexity - take away artillery pivots to fire, but allow them a two or three base wide zone of fire depending on the range, as in FOG R. Removes odd range changes, tricky pivots, meauring 1MU moves, etc

7. Reduce the complexity of rear and flank support - too many inclusions/exclusions - e.g. skirmishers give flank but not rear, cavalry can support inf but not vice versa, etc. We've been playing for years now and still keep having to look this up.

6. Counter-charges/intercept charges - still unclear whether or not single units of cav can be pulled out of a line of cav - shouldn't be allowed.

7. Cavalry in difficult terrain - LC too powerful & can clear out inf skirmishers. Cav shouldn't be allowed to charge in difficult.

8. Expand indexing on right-hand blue strip on pages to make navigation easier as per FOG R and A/M rules

Re point 7:
It seems to have been the contemporary opinion that infantry were at a disadvantage in terrain, such as woods, where they had to fight cavalry. Beresina and Hanau are battles where cavalry pounced on infantry that had made that midtake. Dense forest, where cavalry and artillery couldn't move at all, was obviously different but where both sides had to break ranks, the cavalry were believed to have the advantage.

It seems to have been the contemporary opinion that infantry were at a disadvantage in terrain, such as woods, where they had to fight cavalry. Beresina and Hanau are battles where cavalry pounced on infantry that had made that midtake. Dense forest, where cavalry and artillery couldn't move at all, was obviously different but where both sides had to break ranks, the cavalry were believed to have the advantage.

Important to note the difference between difficult terrain and rough terrain. Open woods are rough, and infantry may be vulnerable there. But difficult terrain, which is not just dense woods, but diffcult ground like steep hills, cavalry were at a decided disadvantage, and did not venture into them after infantry. Many examples from the Peninsula.

Alastair Donald

Fully support making British 1 point cheaper

I don't think 12 to 15 points 'discount' for the British is going to make a blind bit of difference in an 800pt army, this is not a solution, and certainly doesn't compensate for not being able to charge 6 MU or even catch up to manouvering Reformed troops.

The simplist solution, and the mose accurate, based on historical dirll and behaviour, is to make the British reformed.

Alastair

Sarmaticus wrote:Re point 7:
It seems to have been the contemporary opinion that infantry were at a disadvantage in terrain, such as woods, where they had to fight cavalry. Beresina and Hanau are battles where cavalry pounced on infantry that had made that midtake. Dense forest, where cavalry and artillery couldn't move at all, was obviously different but where both sides had to break ranks, the cavalry were believed to have the advantage.

I've heard this before, but sorry I believe is totally wrong wargamer fiction. They are anomalies.

If cavalry would attack waiting infantry through the woods then why didn't it happen at:
Hohenlinden, Jena, Friedland, Teugen, Borodino, Quatra Bras and Waterloo just to name some that easily come off the opt of the head.
Why did in countless more battles commanders anchor there army's flanks on woods. Bennigsen is notable in the 07 campaign for saying he wanted to deploy away from woods because he knew the French could attack through them. And he had copious Cossacks supposedly ideal for this yet didn't.

Furthermore why would the Napoleonic era feature this unique ability of mounted when it didn't exist before that. The closest is Frederick's daring maneuvers through wooded terrain fro flank attacks. But his cavalry formed up before attacking in the clear and many of those were fiascos as well.