Slitherine

Hey guys,

This is the list that I came up with after playing one game and reading through the rulebook and ToN. I played a similar list in my only game and remember having a lot of surplus command, so i figured that having a lot of command wasn't very necessary if I was going to just sit back and shoot cannons. Is this lack of command in addition to sparse cavalry going to be an issue? I know the list is kind of static but I think it will allow me to focus on learning the game mechanics while providing me with a good foundation of miniatures for expanding the army in the future. Thanks for any suggestions.

Competent Core Commander

Competent Division Commander
Large Musketeers- Average Drilled
Large Musketeers- Poor Drilled
Small Jaegers- Average Drilled
Large 12 pdr- Average Drilled

Competent Division Commander
Large Musketeers- Average Drilled
Large Musketeers- Average Drilled
Large Musketeers- Average Drilled
Small Jaegers- Average Veteran
Large 6 pdr- Average Drilled

Competent Division Commander
Small Dragoons- Average Drilled
Small Dragoons- Average Drilled
Small Hussars- Average Drilled

Fieldworks x 3

Using a mixed division in this list seemed like a nightmare so i went with a minimal cav division that I can at least use to react to a loaded up flank or plug up holes in my line.

You can certainly run a 3 division army at 800 points no problem.

Did you buy attachments and not list them?

The large artillery aren't really worth it. Drop at least the medium down to a small size. Buy attachments

I have found a mix of small and large line units better. drop at least one large to small in 2nd division and buy attachments.

Generally for the Russians I mean artillery attachments.

Large Poor Drilled with an artillery attachment are pretty effective.

My concern is your army is very Russian. Meaning static. And you don't have enough artillery for firepower. Your infantry will get out shot by many. Your mounted is really only a counterstrike force.

Can you buy a Cossack? I think they are great for the Russians as you will be on the defensive they can slow the inevitable swing onto your flank.

I have to agree that you want to get attachments, especially artillery attachments. If you don't get them you will likely get shot up badly. Artillery with skirmish attachment in a single reformed unit is a real nasty unit to have to take shooting from.
Keep in mind that if you have cavalry within 6MU you can force your opponents to lose dice at med range, something they will likely try with you.

Personally I find large artillery units can get in the way but it looks like you are planning to stand and let the enemy come to you so it might not be as much of an issue for you. I would drop at least one battery to small, might want to consider both being small. Heavy guns get extra dice at long range but that won't last long so maybe one turn of shooting then they are the same as the Med guns.

Give it a run and see how it works for you that is the best advice I can think to give.

Cavalry Attachments can be very good value, In a shooting match reformed with cavalry v reformed, the loss of 2 dice of the one without cavalry reduces their shooting to not much at all. Light infantry + artillery and cavalry attachments look good (64 points). Not a fan of skirmish attachments with reformed only 1 dice at medium range for 8 points, 10 points for artillery attachments gives +1 at medium and +2 dice at close better value. One of the major strengths of the Russ 1812 list is the number of artillery attachments,

Large Artillery, too unwieldily in the field (the pivoting of a long unit means it's less likely to be able to fire on the right target), OK in fieldworks (where they get the 180 degree fire ), but no need with the Russ 1812 list to get large just give the small Artillery unit an attachment and save the 10 points. (small Artillery unit with attachment is still 3 wide with the same pivot limitations, and takes up 3 fieldworks like a large is my understanding)

Mixed divisions are very useful, Cavalry can charge through infantry of same division and presence of cavalry with 6MU cuts down shooting dice, Russ 1812 you need 3 infantry, 1art + cav so minimum of 5 for a mixed division.

soylentgreeen202 wrote:i figured that having a lot of command wasn't very necessary

The forces fielded by the entrants in our recent Battlecry Tournament would support this.

Some data:
12 players
12 CCs: 9 x competent, 3 x skilled, no exceptional
39 DCs: 37 competent, 2 skilled, no exceptional

1 of the skilled DCs was compulsory in a 3 division Polish corps, the other led a large 5 unit Westphalian cavalry division

5 players fielded charismatic commanders

9 players fielded 3 divisions, 3 players fielded 4 divisions

The 1st place getter fielded a skilled CC, the other 2 skilled CCs were fielded by players who came near the bottom of the table.

Conclusions?
1. Even with the new amendments, players feel exceptional commanders are not worth the points
2. Skilled DCs are not worth the points (unless compulsory or to command a particularly unwieldy division)
3. Skilled CCs may be worth considering
4. Charismatic commanders are worth considering.

Also, for those interested in the structure fielded by the top players:

1st place: 1812 Russians: 4 divisions, 14 units (7 infantry, 2 shock HC, 2LC, 3 artillery) - 11 drilled, 2 conscript, 1 irregular
2nd place: 1812 French: 3 divisions, 14 units (6 infantry, 5 LC, 3 artillery) – 5 veteran, 6 drilled, 3 conscript
3rd place: 1815 Dutch: 4 divisions, 15 units (8 infantry, 2 shock HC, 2LC, 3 artillery) – 9 drilled, 6 conscript
4th place: 1810 British: 3 divisions, 11 units (7 infantry, 1 shock HC, 1LC, 2 artillery) – 9 veteran, 2 drilled

Dragoons it seems were not popular amongst our leading players, although they had no problem fielding conscript units. None of our top four players fielded any Guard units and there were only 2 (French LC) superior units in these lists. The 1815 Dutch included 6 poor units.

5 of the players were highly experianced (40+ games played before the tournament), the remaining 7 relative newbies (under 10 games played).
One of the newbies managed to come 2nd - well done Keith!

Cheers
Brett

awesome data.

Thanks.

Brett ran a great tournament managing to umpire a few complicated rules issues while playing himself.
My 1812 Russians had a Skilled Charismatic Commander and three Continent Divisional Commanders.
First Division had small AV LI, small AV inf w MA, small AD inf w MA, small Hvy Art AD, small AD LC, small AD HC.
Second division had small AD LI, small AD inf w MA, large AC inf w MA, small AD Med Art w officer.
Third division had two small AD shock HC and small AD Horse Arty.
This worked well and gave me options to tackle most things except a river, two steep hills and two dense forests!
I play Flames and 40k as well and FoGN is easily the best game.
However the players tend to be a little older. One of my "friends" noted that counting two spectators one of my games had well over 200 years around the table. I pointed out that at least I hadn't got tabled by a ten year old playing X-Wing!

I pointed out that at least I hadn't got tabled by a ten year old playing X-Wing!

Lets hear it for old age

Brett thanks for those tournament stats.
I normally use a skilled CC myself, make the Division commanders all average. We started using the lists in the back of the rules and Austrians could have an exceptional commander and I took one for the first few games till I discovered I never used most of his command points anyway. Always nice to see how others find things work, gives you some food for thought about what I use in our games.

BrettPT wrote: Conclusions?
1. Even with the new amendments, players feel exceptional commanders are not worth the points
2. Skilled DCs are not worth the points (unless compulsory or to command a particularly unwieldy division)
3. Skilled CCs may be worth considering
4. Charismatic commanders are worth considering.

Ok maybe I missed it in the forum, but what are the "new amendments"?

Also did you find that players substituted officer attachments for skilled commanders?

Thanks

Eric

The new amendment is that an Exceptional Commander can reroll any single failed cohesion test of a unit he is within 4 MU of, but they can not use any inherent rerolling for being superior or guard or poor. It was an attempt to make Exceptional commanders more attractive to see them on the table but it does not appear that it happened so far. They are still just too expensive, and players seem to have mastered their command points so the need for 3 extra is not deemed necessary.

It was in the downloads section and has the updated building rules as well there.

deadtorius wrote:The new amendment is that an Exceptional Commander can reroll any single failed cohesion test of a unit he is within 4 MU of, but they can not use any inherent rerolling for being superior or guard or poor. It was an attempt to make Exceptional commanders more attractive to see them on the table but it does not appear that it happened so far. They are still just too expensive, and players seem to have mastered their command points so the need for 3 extra is not deemed necessary.

It was in the downloads section and has the updated building rules as well there.

Missed it Thanks!

Thanks for all the advice so far. When I play next I'll only take 6pdrs and have more artillery and cavalry attachments. I have just a few more questions before I buy my figures. What cavalry would you recommend starting with? I'd like to have 4 units worth in order to form an entire cav division while having cav attachments. Should I get one of each (dragoons, hussars, uhlans, cossacks) or prefer some over others? thanks!

soylentgreeen202 wrote:Thanks for all the advice so far. When I play next I'll only take 6pdrs and have more artillery and cavalry attachments. I have just a few more questions before I buy my figures. What cavalry would you recommend starting with? I'd like to have 4 units worth in order to form an entire cav division while having cav attachments. Should I get one of each (dragoons, hussars, uhlans, cossacks) or prefer some over others? thanks!

That's a good mix. I'd say:
1 Cossack is cheap and helpful
1-2 Dragoons
1 Hussars
1 Uhlan