800 or 1000

[bahdahbum]

Hy,

aftetr 3 test games ( and funny ones ) , there is still one question : 800 or 1000 points .

We found out that 800 may be a bit to few in many army lists as you have so many compulsary units that you barely can "buy" other units .

Any comments ?

[Scrumpy]

H-Con is 850 (and that is too small for me tbh) I think 900-1000 at a minimum for FoG(N)

[Blathergut]

I agree: 1000pts seems to 'plump up' the battlefield nicely.

[Blathergut]

Now, since the Austrians are 20% cheaper, that means they only get 800 pts to spend...

[panda2]

Whilst I wouldn't necessarily disagree with those that "enjoy" a high points game more, I do have my doubts about extending the points limit too far from a realism perspective.

My 800 pt 1809 Austrian Army of the Danube army (with no Divisions added from reserve) comes to over 29,000 men if you total up the bases. However, the biggest Austrian Corps at Wagram was only just over 25,000 men with the smallest being 16,000 and the average around 20,000. Even at 800 pts you can already find yourself in fantasy territory with the Austrians. Things must be even worse with the Russians where in the major battles of the period, such as Borodino or Leipzig, the Infantry Corps (with cavalry detatched) would typically be around 12-14,000. You might be able to keep a 900 pt army within the bounds of realism by adding an expensive division from reserve, but I have serious doubts that you could do this at 1000 pts.

On the other hand, I can also sympathise with those people that would like to field a 30-40,000 man French Corps d'Armee and find 800 pts too limiting. An 800 pt 1809 French army using only the minimum cavalry (to maximise infantry and thus corp size) only comes to around 21,000 men when you total up the bases. However, I would also note that in the case of the large French corps they generally had 5-6 Divisions, rather than the 3-4 common in a FOG-N game.

On this last point, I would note that whilst there was a large variation in the size of Corps between the various nations, infantry division sizes were often reasonably comparable at around 6-8,000 men (with the exception of obvious crisis like the French in 1813, for example). It might therefore be worth considering for 1000+ points games increasing the number of divisions allowed in a corp for armies like the French that used large corps and, for armies like the Austians and Russians that typically had smaller corp with only 2-3 divisions, allowing a second corp to be fielded.

Finally, some consideration would also need to be given to some of the smaller allied nations in a higher points game, if you wanted to keep their forces within realistic bounds.

Andy D

[viperofmilan]

I admit to being torn on this one. Having played a few games, I fully appreciate the desire to increase point totals to permit more varied and expansive lists. But I also am very sympathetic to any move to increase the historicity (and decrease the gaminess) of all lists. In my opinion, the equal points face off (at whatever point level you want to choose) is not the way to go with FogN. Even in a tournament setting, the wealth of potential scenario information available make tournaments more akin to what is commonly done with FOW much more attractive - at least to this gamer. I have entusiasticlly participated in even points face off FoGAM and FogR tourneys, but do not see myself participating in any FoGN tourneys structured along similar even points face off lines.

Kevin

[Scrumpy]

So we have a tourney of Borodino, Lepzig or Talavera refights?

[atatnet]

Viperofmilan: interesting points on scenarios. I think FoGN is suitable for both tournament-styles: confrontation (what we have now) and scenario-based (like FoW). Play-testing of different scenarios suitable for tourneys would be great fun and very necessary to produced balanced scenarios.

Off the top of my head,the following scenario titles could be designed:

1. Attack-defence
The attacking player has a bit more points worth of troops while the defending player has points to purchase fortifications and/or to place limited defensive terrain.

2. Meeting engagement
Played length-wise on the table. Both players' units trickle in onto the table in marching order and grab objectives.

3. Breakthrough
Attacking player must reach opposing end of the table.

4. Rear guard action
Self-explanatory.

I'm sure there are historical examples where actions like these actually happened. e.g Waterloo was an Attack-defence scenario.

[CLAVDIVS]

How about 850 points or 870 points games

[Ambiorix]

I am certainly not adverse to higher points, but on condition an extra divisional commander can be chosen.
Especially current armies with only max 3 divisional commanders would be extra handicapped should they field 1000 points armies; maybe 1 extra commander for each 200-300 points above 800 ?
And why not an extra Corps Commander ?

[bahdahbum]

Ambiorix , 4 division commander is enough even at 1000 points unless you use only poor conscript units everywhere

[Ambiorix]

Correct Jacques, my point however is 1000 points are a handicap for armies with only THREE commanders, hence the proposition to add one, raising it to 4 and 5 for the others (to maintain their advantage for command and control).

BTW, happy 21 july

[bahdahbum]

adapt and win

[bahdahbum]

adapt and win

[CutEmUp]

I say 650 for two reasons

Reason 1 - painting 1000 points of napoleonics at the quality a paint is a pain in the ass...
Sub Reason 1a - the crap most people put on the table is bad enough, you want put much stuff out there and it'll be worse.

Reason 2 - I want room on the table to maneuver

[CutEmUp]

Addendum

Reason #3 I want people to have to make hard choices when building an army list

[terrys]

The rules for larger games could be modified....
For example
> All armies could be permitted to use 4 divisional commander. (Add 1 Competent DC to those with a maximum of 3).
> Rivers may not be placed more than 12MU from the flank edge
> The attacker MUST flank march if he has a difference of 3 or over on his attrition.
Flank marching has the effect of making the frontage wider. They arrive much easier (and earlier) than they do in other FOG rules.

Just suggestions......

[bahdahbum]

JILU and I found out tjat with 1000 points we could use very interesting units and that it did add some spice .

Now I am interested in the FOW scenario mode suggested by atatnet

I think there is a distinct possibility there .

Yesterday we had a very interesting game ( 1000 1813 prussians vs the 1812 Royal Italian army ) . With the Italians I was on the defensive and had to wait a long long time before my reserves arrived ...and managed to win thanks to a glorious wavering square that resisted a dragoon charge and thanks to the glorious charge of the Italian horse guard which routed another prussian dragoon unit ...but the delay for the arrival of my reserves was very interesting to play . For most of the battle I had to do with 75 % of my force...

[edb1815]

One additional point for tournaments would be the time factor. FOG-AM or FOG-R 800 pt games are allocated 3 to 3 1/2 hours for each round. What would be a realistic time frame for a 1000pt FOG-N game?

[hazelbark]

One additional point for tournaments would be the time factor. FOG-AM or FOG-R 800 pt games are allocated 3 to 3 1/2 hours for each round. What would be a realistic time frame for a 1000pt FOG-N game?

I think this is very evolutionary. Right now a lot of people are learning mechanisms.