Villages: Is there something I'm missing?

[shadowdragon]

Right now it seems that defending a village is more of a liability than a benefit.

For BG towards the very end of the period (5 bases of shot and 1 base of pike) - one defending and the other engaging via firefight from 2":

The BG in the village fires only with the front rank (3 bases) less disorder (-1 base) = 2 bases at 4+ to hit (expected hits = 1)

The attacking BG fires with 5 bases (no reduction) at -1 POA for cover = 5+ to hit (expected hits = 1 2/3)

Even if the POA for cover was -2 that still be nearly an even exchange. Have I missed something? Aside from the fact that the shot need not worry about cavalry.

Not that it's a problem for the period, as it doesn't seem that villages are a big factor in field battles. However, if one were to extend the rules to re-create the Battle of Blenheim, it would be a problem as villages were a big feature in that battle. Certainly that approach needs reconsidering for FoG:N as villages are a dominant feature of battles.

[timmy1]

While I have not worked the numbers, that looks about right. Try it with a BG of 4 Dragoons in the village and run it again. That was their role, not P&S BGs.

As for the 18th C, the rules authors have said that too many special rules are required so that is why 1698 is the end date - so yes Blenheim would not work, as designed.

[shadowdragon]

While I have not worked the numbers, that looks about right. Try it with a BG of 4 Dragoons in the village and run it again. That was their role, not P&S BGs.

As for the 18th C, the rules authors have said that too many special rules are required so that is why 1698 is the end date - so yes Blenheim would not work, as designed.

There's not a lot of difference for the dragoons.

If the dragoons (with muskets) have all 4 bases in the front rank, that's 3 bases (-1 base out of 3 for disorder) at 4+ = 1.5 hits. Facing 3 files from a 5 base shot / 1 base pike BG would give their opponents 5 bases at 5+ = 1 2/3 hits.

For enclosed fields, etc., it's no problem as they're not disordered and they get the benefit of cover. They get 2 hits (expected) versus the unchanged 1 2/3 hits from the enemy.

A -2 POA for "hard cover" would help, as would a +1 CT for being in such cover.

For what it's worth it would seem that most 18th Century and Napoleonic rules believe that later artillery is worse as they reduce the effect of fire against units in villages. But I wouldn't think it's worth changing for FoG:R.

[SirGarnet]

The problem with villages, even more than woods, is that the terrain does not favor organized fire and indeed provides opportunities for lying low, spoils of war, malingering, cowardice or even desertion that don't exist when delivering fire from ranks under the watchful eyes of senior soldiers. In addition, there is no guarantee of adequate fields of fire that would allow the defenders to bring their musketry all to bear, though some villages with a defined perimeter that can be loopholed and surrounding fields of fire make very good positions.

So it's quite reasonable that formations shooting from outside could concentrate more muskets than the defenders.

Light Foot don't lose dice for disorder, but since they count 1 dice per 2 bases don't put out a lot of firepower although they do cover frontage.

[shadowdragon]

The problem with villages, even more than woods, is that the terrain does not favor organized fire and indeed provides opportunities for lying low, spoils of war, malingering, cowardice or even desertion that don't exist when delivering fire from ranks under the watchful eyes of senior soldiers. In addition, there is no guarantee of adequate fields of fire that would allow the defenders to bring their musketry all to bear, though some villages with a defined perimeter that can be loopholed and surrounding fields of fire make very good positions.

So it's quite reasonable that formations shooting from outside could concentrate more muskets than the defenders.

Light Foot don't lose dice for disorder, but since they count 1 dice per 2 bases don't put out a lot of firepower although they do cover frontage.

I agree that troops in villages didn't put out the same number of bullets as troops in the open. However, the reduction of effectiveness shooting into a village (just -1 POA) is far too little. Certainly the current rule carried over into FoG:N would not allow an accurate representation of the fierce engagements over villages that occurred in many, many battles of the Napoleonic Wars.

Light Foot would lose dice if they were disordered, but they are never disordered by any type of terrain. Dragoons, on the other hand, are disordered by difficult terrain and therefore do lose dice in villages.

[deadtorius]

In the Napoleonic era it was common for a single soldier to man a loophole and be fed the muskets of 2 or 3 of his companions that would reload and hand them forward, thus allowing more firepower in a limited space. I don't think this was the case in pike and shot, where it seems every man loaded and fired his own gun. I suppose it is also possible they did not break down the command to work in smaller units as they would later on, and so the defenders might end up congregated into larger groups in tight quarters, outside the buildings. Fighting from inside houses etc might have been done with smaller actions more like a skirmish. Just a thought.

[nickdives]

As per a similar thread whilst their firing at vbillage tgts may be concentrated, however once a unit attacks said village then their effectivnesswould be "disordrderd" as they would be split up, as above into small skirmish action with one lot maybe winning the fight for the brewery, another losing the fight for the pub and some others having nothing to do but poke their pikes at the side of a house. So the main difference in the melee is that the defenders will be "disordered" because they are dispersed around the village edge, probably behind baracaded/defensive positions whilst the attackers will be in the same position but probably (if the defenders have done their job) in the open.

It is because of this that, in my games, if a defending unit starts the game defending a village they lose the disorder tag. However if a unit marches into a village to take up a hasty defence then they are disordered.

[shadowdragon]

As per a similar thread whilst their firing at vbillage tgts may be concentrated, however once a unit attacks said village then their effectivnesswould be "disordrderd" as they would be split up, as above into small skirmish action with one lot maybe winning the fight for the brewery, another losing the fight for the pub and some others having nothing to do but poke their pikes at the side of a house. So the main difference in the melee is that the defenders will be "disordered" because they are dispersed around the village edge, probably behind baracaded/defensive positions whilst the attackers will be in the same position but probably (if the defenders have done their job) in the open.

It is because of this that, in my games, if a defending unit starts the game defending a village they lose the disorder tag. However if a unit marches into a village to take up a hasty defence then they are disordered.

I have no problem with units in a village being disordered. They should have a reduced effectiveness. Whether or not they should be restricted to front rank bases only could be debated since the 2nd rank of shot bases do not fire simultaneously with troops represented by the 1st rank of bases (i.e., fire by rotation). That's not dissimilar to troops in a built up area firing in turn through appropriate openings. Certainly there should be no reduction in the number of bases firing from shot in the open. However, their effectiveness is way too high. It's simple math since "aimed fire" is really a man-sized target the width of the firing unit. Troops in built-up areas expose maybe 25% of their body plus there will be gaps in the line...so something like 10-25% effectiveness as a rough order calculation compared to hitting a formed target in the open. The current reduction in effectiveness is 33% for a net -1 POA. In comparison shot in the built up area will be reduced 50% (only front) rank and maybe by another 1/3 of the remainder if the shot aren't optimised at only 2 files firing per BG (so a reduction of 50-66%). I'm okay with that reduction, but a -2 POA (66% reduction) for shooting at "hard" targets should be considered for scenario play and perhaps a +1 CT for defenders. I'd certainly do this if I wanted to extend the rules into the early 18th century.

What it comes down to is that cover and dispersion become increasing responses by armies to the increasing effectiveness of firepower. The end of the period for FoG:R is on the borderline of treating cover with a simplistic rule.

By the way, I AM NOT suggesting a v2.0 for FoG:R.

[SirGarnet]

In the Napoleonic era it was common for a single soldier to man a loophole and be fed the muskets of 2 or 3 of his companions that would reload and hand them forward, thus allowing more firepower in a limited space. I don't think this was the case in pike and shot, where it seems every man loaded and fired his own gun.

One technical factor affecting this was that bores were not standardized and consistent, so each musketeer had to make sure he had suitable diameter shot (best done by casting your own lead shot to fit), and powder loads would vary (barrel strength an issue). The 16th century Japanese did at times rotate loading and firing from rear ranks, but they were pioneers in early standardization of calibres from each manufacturer (those they differed across manufacturers) so that both powder loads and shot within a unit would be interchangeable.

[deadtorius]

Believe that difference in size also affected artillery, one of the tools they had was a gauge to see if the balls would fit down the barrel or not. Nothing like blasting away in a battle and finding you got sent cannon balls that were too big for your barrel openings....
Standardization seems to have been a bit of a slow concept in this period