Slitherine

British, Prussian, Russian and French fire at 6 inches but Austrians at 2!
With other disadvantages of being unreformed I can't see queues forming to fight as Austrians.
Which is a shame because they look good on the table.
I would be happy to use my Austrians at the club and get my troops from the published lists but pay for them as reformed.
Otherwise its Frenchies for me every time. And as a French player I would be happy to allow my Austrian opponent the right to use his infantry as reformed. I want a good, fair wargame.
Can't believe that it was generally the case that Austrian firepower effective range was only 1/3 that of their contemporaries.

You've missed the Spainish shooting at 2mu and most of the Condederation Troops shooting at 6mu.

A few cavalry units or attachments and the french shooting is pretty ineffecive at medium. Until i saw this i thought it was a bigger difference.

Being in large units also helps. Getting 3 hits to cause a cohesion drop is quite demanding when you need to roll 5s. Conversely adding a skirmisher attachment to a large unit of unreformed infantry is really good value giving 4 dice rather than 3. A large unit of unreformed infantry with a skirmisher attachment will outshoot a small unit of reformed infantry at medium range.

I expect that the real problem with Austrians is the relative shortage of attachments combined with being unreformed. If you want to soften the enemy up before an assault, you'll probably need to use massed artillery.

They seemed potent in our first game here.

-8pts a base compared to French 10 or more
-I had to move into medium range (couldn't then shoot)...they then had options:

a) charge in and stop at 2MU...shooting first in the fire phase
b) move in close and deny the French their inherent skirmisher fire

Being cheaper and in larger units was a challenge to assault them. They were half the price of my veteran French Light infantry.

Albion1 wrote:British, Prussian, Russian and French fire at 6 inches but Austrians at 2!
With other disadvantages of being unreformed I can't see queues forming to fight as Austrians.
Which is a shame because they look good on the table.
I would be happy to use my Austrians at the club and get my troops from the published lists but pay for them as reformed.
Otherwise its Frenchies for me every time. And as a French player I would be happy to allow my Austrian opponent the right to use his infantry as reformed. I want a good, fair wargame.
Can't believe that it was generally the case that Austrian firepower effective range was only 1/3 that of their contemporaries.

Its not just the Austrians - before 1806 most nations are classified as unreformed and in the early 1790s even some of the French. This is one of the ways we have modelled the relative impact of the French revolution and Napoleon on European ancien regime doctrine which was severely challenged . The latter was based on the assumption that units would deploy into line to fire and fight and not use a column of divisions (divison is a double company in this context) or a closed column which the French didi not invent but came to use first and most completely in a concerted fashion.

In a regimental context of two or more battalions within the tactical footprint, that is not the same as extended line as lines would be delpoyed behind each other or echeloned in the old style. ( see page 83 which shows this well). It also reflects the use - or non use - of significant trained light infantry left flank companies as in the French and British armies. The latter still prefered the line but had a superior trained method of delivering firing - rolling company fire along the line not single rank firing so they could manitain a continous rate of fire and were often in two not three ranks so were even more powerful as the third rank was considered ineffective by most observers including Napoleon. Trained left flank companies with the different formations used within the tactical footprint have the effect of extending the zone of fire of a regiment hence the range factor.

The Austrians throughout the period never do get this busienss if integral skirmsih companies quite right. They did it a bit but not enough and not in enough numbers nor trained very well nor were they sound in their use of specialist light infantry or pure light infantry - which was woeful. My view is that the Austrian army was at its best relative to its opponents in the 1790s. But it has good artillery and good cavalry and in later periodns can be used in Corps mixed in with divisions from other nations.

Bit of an essay sorry! I should get out more....

Appreciate the time taken over your reply Mike and I appreciate the undoubted depth of knowledge which has gone into the rules. Austrian infantry though performed very well on numerous occasions and were not the useless whipping boys many imagine them to be.
My argument though is a wargaming one. If you only have an Austrian army or, God forbid, Spanish, you are disadvantaged in every game from the start. I think everyone understands that Spanish (or Austrians) will have more poor troops than the French but are compensated in the point system by having more troops. Being unreformed troops they are disadvantaged further though. Anyone having French and Austrians will be inclined, I think, to take the French to a tournament. They are better than British infantry at the same points cost. "Am I to take British or French to the Midsommer Napoleonic tournament? French I think as they are better value" (in points cost). Not sure if this is historically justified but anything discouraging people from using some colourful and interesting armies needs to be addressed. You say the Austrians have good artillery and cavalry but so do most of the other armies, no real advantage there.
I think that for serious simulators the unreformed/reformed differences may be of interest but I think all wargamers like to feel they are in with a chance and should have the option to pay for their infantry to be on a par with opponents.

Gods forbid souls played armies they like.

Albion1 wrote: I think that for serious simulators the unreformed/reformed differences may be of interest but I think all wargamers like to feel they are in with a chance and should have the option to pay for their infantry to be on a par with opponents.

AS s a person who has played a tournament best army style and played for the history. I think you are jumping too quickly to the better worse decision.

For instance I suspect (yet to try) poor drilled line infantry in a large unit with attached artillery is a pretty fearsome defensive unit. that is 46 points that should hold off a 4 base french line at 40 quite well.

Medium range
2 dice versus 3 for French. The long range fire for both will be pretty ineffectual.
Close range
8 dice versus 4 for French.

The large unit takes one less hit.
So not so simple.

I think that for serious simulators the unreformed/reformed differences may be of interest but I think all wargamers like to feel they are in with a chance and should have the option to pay for their infantry to be on a par with opponents.

The Austrian army isn't as poor as you suggest.
> They are 20% cheaper than their (French) opponents.
> It is strong in Artillery
> It can have one mixed division in which every line unit can have a skirmisher attachment (making them the equivalent of 'reformed' for firing).
> It can have up to 22 bases of cavalry without using a cavalry division.
> It can have almost all units in 4's or 6's.

Austrians can't use the same tactics as most of the other nations and have to develope their own. They can work well though, and if anyone wants to play the earlier period battles, it's a skill that will be needed, because most nations have 'unreformed' infantry prior to 1810.

I think that for serious simulators the unreformed/reformed differences may be of interest but I think all wargamers like to feel they are in with a chance and should have the option to pay for their infantry to be on a par with opponents.

I have often wondered about such comments, as all armies are not historically the same, so why make them so. What makes the period, is the different armies and tactics used.
Surely it is the role of the points system to balance up the game, not the blandness of the army.

If you play as you say, I think the game will be down to the luck of the dice and not the skill of the player.

I have an Austrian army that needs finishing and I am not put off that task by these rules. Far from it I look forward to seeing if I can beat a French army with something different.

Just my opinion

Don

For what it is worth, Austrians are currently my favourite army to play under FoGN. I seem to have no less success with them than with my French Line Corps. On my results to date, my worst performing army is, sadly, a French Guard Corps, which I think is a very hard force to master.

My most successful armies have been my (mainly Poor Drilled) Westphalians, and an Austrian Reserve Corps (Grenadiers and lots of cavalry, especially Cuirassiers). The Reserve Corps is fun to play, and a particularly difficult force for opponents to face.

As previously mentioned, use of cavalry and large units can minimise the effect of enemy skirmish fire. However you do need a degree of courage to push your unreformed troops forwards to close range when on the offensive. Makes for exciting games.

Most importantly, the Austrians (Reserve Corps aside) usually outnumbers their reformed opponents. I have found that - as a general rule - 2 units beats 1 in FoGN almost despite quality. This is because of the dual effect of doubling your dice, plus forcing your opponent to split theirs.

The real trick is how to maneourvre 2 units to line up against 1 ...

Cheers
Brett

Sounds like skill is entering the equation again.
Our first try out I used my Austrians, and as we are preparing to move up from the 1/72 scale armies I currently have to the really nice gotta have 28mm plastics I am going to start with Austrians again. Perhaps I am a bugger for punishment or its just those lovely white uniforms, whichever I hope to someday work out how to use them effectively.

Oiii...even your average veteran grenadiers are 3pts cheaper...dang...plus a rifle skirmisher...all my commanders will be dead by the time I get into you!!!

not really, grenadiers can not have skirmishers attached, it will be the drilled boys that will be killing your commanders

Re page 133 or so... Austrian Infantry move as unreformed, fire as reformed & are costed as unreformed.

Seems they get the best of both worlds, cheaper & just as effective.

Re page 133 or so... Austrian Infantry move as unreformed, fire as reformed & are costed as unreformed.

... in error. Terry has confirmed that 1813 Austrians are just plain old unreformed, full stop.

deadtorius wrote: Perhaps I am a bugger for punishment or its just those lovely white uniforms, whichever I hope to someday work out how to use them effectively.

Saxons and Westphalians have nice lovely white uniforms too

BrettPT wrote:

Re page 133 or so... Austrian Infantry move as unreformed, fire as reformed & are costed as unreformed.

... in error. Terry has confirmed that 1813 Austrians are just plain old unreformed, full stop.

Is the a list of the errors & clarifications available, or is this the only one so far ?

I think you will see them listed off by posters in the errata thread. We have been promised that the proper correct costs are in the lists in the army books.

Saxons and Westphalians have nice lovely white uniforms too

Yes they do, my 1/72 scale armies also includes Saxons, dear old dad was born in Saxony so just had to do up an army of them. They also have some very intricate flags as well