Point revisions

[Rhornell]

Hi,

Having play quite a few games now, I have come to the conclusion that while FOGN is a great set of rules someone of the points costs are wrong.
I would suggest the following changes to reflect the actual game value of troops.

Unreformed Infantry need to be 1 point cheaper.
Reasoning;
They move slower, which in FOGN is a big thing!
Average Drilled Unreformed cost 40 points for a small unit with a Skirmisher, which make them the same cost a reformed without a Skirmisher.
But they only move 2/3 as fast.
They often end up facing the wrong way after outcome moves. (this probably needs to be fixed in the rules as it makes no sense)

Unreformed Light infantry need to be 1 point cheaper, because of their 2/3 movement speed.

We had only 2 player using unreformed armies at a recent convention in Auckland, they are just not cost effective!

Superior Infantry cost need to be cheaper, they are not better than Veterans.
The upgrade for foot is not worth the cost.

British need to be cheaper, it is completely illogical to cost them the same as reformed but make them move slower.

Troops that cannot form Square (there should be more of them, but that another issue) should be cheaper.

Troops that must remain in Skirmish should be cheaper.

cheers rich

[BrettPT]

Hi Richard

In the most part I'ld be inclined to agree with you.

Certainly only moving 4MU is a serious disadvantage for unreformed and British armies. The latest amendments to allow you to move 6MU for the first turn will help when attacking, but are of no use if defending or after the first 2 turns. The issue of facing away when you retire 4+ MU is an anomally that should be errata'd away at some stage (do you agree Terry?)

A point less for troops that cannot form square or must be deployed in skirmish formation, and certainly for superior foot (and artillery for that matter) is warranted. Average veteran infantry are probably better (and cheaper) than superior drilled.

Whether all unreformed infantry should drop a point is a difficult one. At the bottom end, 3 points for poor conscripts might be too cheap. Average veteran unreformed at the current 10 points is reasonable, as is 6 points for poor drilled. The issue is really whether a drop for average drilled to 7 would be warranted.

Average drilled form the bulk of most unreformed armies. It makes a difference IMO whether unreformed infantry units are large or small. 56 points for a large unreformed infantry unit with a skirmisher is okish - you do get a 4 point discount for moving slower compared to a large reformed unit and you have a more realistic chance to move to close range without getting bumped back to 3MU by the enemy's close range fire.

Small unreformed units are tough to run. When trolling through the various Austrian lists, I generally ignore any that don't allow large infantry units...

With the army list books published, an offical errata to the points is may not be practical. However there is no reason why local amendments cannot be adopted. We'll have a chat after the NZ Nationals at Easter and see if there is general agreement to look at this in NZ.

My current thoughts for points changes worth considering are:

Superior reformed infantry and light infantry +3 (rather than +4 and +5)
Unreformed drilled infantry 7 (rather than 8 )
British infantry (not light) -1
Any infantry unit that cannot form square or must be in skirmish -1

Irregular cavalry with lance +1 (rather than +2)
Poor LC -2 (rather than -1)

All superior artillery +4 (rather than +4, +7 and +6)
All poor artillery -4 (rather than -4 and -5)
Rocket attachments 6 (rather than 10)

Skilled commander 40 (rather than 50)
Exceptional Commander 60 (rather than 80)

It may also be worth considering whether cavalry are too cheap across the board, and an extra point or two for every cavalry base is warranted.

Thoughts?

Cheers
Brett

[Rhornell]

I think one of the great things about FOGN is that the base points per base are high enough to allow change... eg Reformed AV Drilled is 10 points.
I agree that poor conscripts may not be able to be made cheaper, but Av Drilled and Sup Drill certainly can be.

Light Infantry should be cheaper if unreformed 11 vs 12 eg 44 vs 48 for a small unit AV Drilled.
This is only a 13% saving which I believe is fair for the penalties moving 4" incurs.

I agree that with the large vs small unreformed bit, my 1806 Prussians are very difficult to use.

I agree with the artillery comments, if artillery are in hand to hand the superior is not going to save them. I had never noticed before that Heavy Guns were +7 for being Superior.

I agree on the commander comments, people don't use them unless they have to at the moment.

cheers rich

[BrettPT]

Light Infantry should be cheaper if unreformed 11 vs 12 eg 44 vs 48 for a small unit AV Drilled.
This is only a 13% saving which I believe is fair for the penalties moving 4" incurs.

Leaving unreformed LI at 12 and increasing the cost of reformed LI to 13 might be a better way to go here.

At the moment, a small reformed av drilled line unit with a skirmisher attachment costs the same pints (48) as a reformed LI unit.
However the LI get an extra dice for shooting and can form skirmish.

[BrettPT]

An alternative to looking at the points for unreformed might be to closer examine their movement rates. This would have the bonus of being able to be put into place by a simple errata.

A couple of options would be to increase the move in tactical to 5MU, or to allow unreformed to move 6MU if they remain outside of 6MU of enemy.

An increase to 5MU would flow on to a minor change the dynamics of the unreformed game, by allowing an unreformed unit to move from outside skirmish range to close range while only take 1 round, rather than 2, of skirmish fire. (ie unreformed koves to 7MU. enemy closes to 6MU to shoot in their turn, unreformed takes a skirmish shot in their own follwoing turn before closing the range to 2MU).

This might enhance the usefulness of unreformed troops, however not that much (as reformed troops can currently move from outside 6MU straight into clsoe range if they chose, but we rarely see players choosing to do this).

Increasing the movement rate to 5MU in tactical also has the advantage in that it would help mitigate the 'retiring and turning around' issue.

As an alternative, unreformed infantry could move 6MU in tactical when outside of 6 enemy. This would reflect that maneourve outside of the danger zone is largely in column, and is something already permitted for attacking unreformed troops in the first 2 turns.

Any perceived grand-tactical inertia for un-reformed armies would be represented by lower army initiative ratings and worse Generals (meaning more games as defender and less double moves). Unreformed troops under this option would continue to move 4MU within 6 of enemy, reflecting that they have formed into lines once they get to 400 yards of the enemy.

If one of these options were adopted, my thoughts are that the points for unreformed and British infantry could probably be left as they are.

Cheers
Brett

[Blathergut]

Austrians are already too cheap!!! Everywhere you shoot....large unit...large unit...over there...large unit...blechhh!!

[hazelbark]

Any perceived grand-tactical inertia for un-reformed armies would be represented by lower army initiative ratings and worse Generals (meaning more games as defender and less double moves). Unreformed troops under this option would continue to move 4MU within 6 of enemy, reflecting that they have formed into lines once they get to 400 yards of the enemy.

Doesn't your recent data suggest "worse generals" is not perceived by players as a problem?

[BrettPT]

Doesn't your recent data suggest "worse generals" is not perceived by players as a problem?

Good point. At the moment you can get by most turns by simply attaching a level 1 commander to one unit and using his a single CP to do something else. An extra CP from the CC can be added in if their is a 3rd unit that needs to CMT.

If the points for better generals were to drop, it might not actually make that much difference as to how many L2 and L3 generals we see. If you can manage ok with competant commander, you might as well not spend any points upgrading him.

One thing that would definately make a difference is if the 'free CP for attached commanders' was dropped. Leave commanders with the 4+ to pass a CMT when leading a unit, but make units use a CP to take a CMT even if led by a commander. Straight away the total requirement for CPs in an army would more or less double, increasing the practical benefit gained from fielding better commanders.

[hazelbark]

Players need to be careful about the command ranges when the attach generals. Often it is overlooked.

[hazelbark]

You also wrote

9 players fielded 3 divisions, 3 players fielded 4 divisions

what's interesting is I have seen local players push to get the 4th division.
But 3 divisions with 12-15 units. Suggests even less need for CPs.
I find them handy needing to advance charge, fall back charge through. Not to mention flank marches.

[BrettPT]

I like to try and get 4 divisions as well, however I'm usually thinking of the number of rally rolls that would give me, rather than the number of CPs.
Don't get me wrong, having enough CPs is very important, my thoughts however is that you can get by with L1 generals, most of the time, and spend the points saved elsewhere.

The reduction to 4MU for attaching your commanders has an effect, however if you are keping your divisions together then it's not often a problem.

What would peoples thoughts be on ditching the 'free' CP for commanders? Anyone want to try a game played like this and see what effect it has?

Cheers
Brett

[hazelbark]

Agree on the rally rolls.

Personally I am not ready for that surgery. I'd say a significant portion of our lists have a skilled in them. Maybe your are further along in the evolution i'd like to see more game comparisons to see the differences. We aren't tournament playing like you so we may be missing the min/max.

[terrys]

I don't think we'll be making points changes in the near future. In most cases it's just a few points per army.
Feel free to make local amendment as you wish.

For unreformed infantry I've been considering a few amendments which are:
1) Remove the -1 dice on CTs for unreformed infantry (and British) in extended line. They should not be penalised for fighting in their preferred formation.
2) Remove the –POA for firing at extended line at long range. – instead: ignore the first hit against extended line at all ranges....although I haven’t decided whether to additionally remove a hit for large units and superior units charging. Testing will be required.
3) All infantry face backwards if they retire 6MU – regardless of formation. A retire of less than 6MU will leave them facing the enemy. Note that this will also benefit reformed infantry in extended line.

In general I don't think extended line is used often enough - because of the current disadvantages.

Comments would be welcome.

[deadtorius]

1)

Remove the -1 dice on CTs for unreformed infantry (and British) in extended line. They should not be penalised for fighting in their preferred formation.

I like this one myself. I usually start my Grenzers in extended skirmish line to block the French self propelled cannons from blasting me on turn 2 (guess who normally makes the prolong CMT...)

2) Remove the –POA for firing at extended line at long range. – instead: ignore the first hit against extended line at all ranges....although I haven’t decided whether to additionally remove a hit for large units and superior units charging. Testing will be required.

I like the - POA being removed and make it ignore the first hit. This makes going into extended line with a small unit more advantageous.
I would prefer to keep the large unit and superior hit ignore in place. Blathergut has started making his Light Infantry large and running them 3 deep, it is hard to stop them but also is the one advantage Austria with so many large units has to help make up for short shooting ranges.

3) All infantry face backwards if they retire 6MU – regardless of formation. A retire of less than 6MU will leave them facing the enemy. Note that this will also benefit reformed infantry in extended line.

I like this one.
In our last game an Austrian unit retired 5 MU and ended the turn backside to the French who had shot it up from 2 MU and then moved up and got a free shot with a +POA at a wavering unit only because it retired more than 4 MU.
We realized that had that been a French unit it would still have ended facing the enemy and would have at least gotten a chance to return fire before it was shot to broke and would have had a chance to survive unlike it Austrian target.

Perhaps we will start to see more extended lines being used in future with some of these changes.

[Blathergut]

1) Remove the -1 dice on CTs for unreformed infantry (and British) in extended line. They should not be penalised for fighting in their preferred formation.

What was the rational originally for removing 1 dice?

2) Remove the –POA for firing at extended line at long range. – instead: ignore the first hit against extended line at all ranges....although I haven’t decided whether to additionally remove a hit for large units and superior units charging. Testing will be required.

I almost always face Austrian unreformed in large units. Removing the first two hits seems extreme. I'll be lucky to halt them at best and they probably have no intention of moving anywhere.

3) All infantry face backwards if they retire 6MU – regardless of formation. A retire of less than 6MU will leave them facing the enemy. Note that this will also benefit reformed infantry in extended line.

Another plus for the cheap unreformed infantry. Not to be the naysayer, but perhaps this should lead to an increase by a point in cost? Beyond a slower frontal movement, is there any disadvantage or better, advantage remaining for the reformed infantry? The Austrians usually have either artillery or skirmishers with each unit, equaling out medium firepower. In fact, the French usually come up short, reduced by 2 for Austrian horse near while the rifle skirmishers only lose 1.

[hazelbark]

Another plus for the cheap unreformed infantry. Not to be the naysayer, but perhaps this should lead to an increase by a point in cost? Beyond a slower frontal movement, is there any disadvantage or better, advantage remaining for the reformed infantry? The Austrians usually have either artillery or skirmishers with each unit, equaling out medium firepower. In fact, the French usually come up short, reduced by 2 for Austrian horse near while the rifle skirmishers only lose 1.

I am not convinced this expenditure of attachments isn't resolved in the points system currently. Having faced austrians with a french i am not sold that they are uber powerful.

[BrettPT]

1) Remove the -1 dice on CTs for unreformed infantry (and British) in extended line.

This would also avoid the silliness of a damaged extended line forming tactical in its movement phase in order to avoid a -1 dice in the rally phase.

I guess the rational for the current rule is that extended lines, by definition, do not enjoy the moral advantage of having supports to their rear. Perhaps a better amendment might be extended lines can ignore the -1 CT dice if they have another unit in rear support (or they are on a hill)?

2) Remove the –POA for firing at extended line at long range. – instead: ignore the first hit against extended line at all ranges....although I haven’t decided whether to additionally remove a hit for large units and superior units charging. Testing will be required.

Interesting idea. This would definately make player's reconsider extended lines.

3) All infantry face backwards if they retire 6MU – regardless of formation. A retire of less than 6MU will leave them facing the enemy. Note that this will also benefit reformed infantry in extended line.

Good amendment!

In general I don't think extended line is used often enough - because of the current disadvantages.

Agreed

[terrys]

1) Remove the -1 dice on CTs for unreformed infantry (and British) in extended line. They should not be penalised for fighting in their preferred formation.

What was the rational originally for removing 1 dice?

The rationale was that it would be difficult for the regiment officers to bring the unit back under control due to the area taken up by the extended line. (nearly 400mtrs for a small unit and 600mtrs for a large unit).

2) Remove the –POA for firing at extended line at long range. – instead: ignore the first hit against extended line at all ranges....although I haven’t decided whether to additionally remove a hit for large units and superior units charging. Testing will be required.

I almost always face Austrian unreformed in large units. Removing the first two hits seems extreme. I'll be lucky to halt them at best and they probably have no intention of moving anywhere.

An option would be the following:
A unit ignores the first hit taken if ANY of the following apply:
>> The unit taking the hit is large. (firing and combat)
>> The unit taking the hit is Superior and it is making an assault move. (firing only)
>> The unit taking the hit is Small and is an unreformed unit in extended line. (firing only)

3) All infantry face backwards if they retire 6MU – regardless of formation. A retire of less than 6MU will leave them facing the enemy. Note that this will also benefit reformed infantry in extended line.

Another plus for the cheap unreformed infantry. Not to be the naysayer, but perhaps this should lead to an increase by a point in cost? Beyond a slower frontal movement, is there any disadvantage or better, advantage remaining for the reformed infantry? The Austrians usually have either artillery or skirmishers with each unit, equaling out medium firepower. In fact, the French usually come up short, reduced by 2 for Austrian horse near while the rifle skirmishers only lose 1.

Maybe all 3 would unbalance the game towards unreformed infantry. They still suffer from a 4MU move and no medium range firing withoutskirmisher attachments. We have to balance that against the 2pt reduction. We won't be changing the points value so we'll have to get the balance of effectiveness on the table top correct.

[deadtorius]

An option would be the following:
A unit ignores the first hit taken if ANY of the following apply:
>> The unit taking the hit is large. (firing and combat)
>> The unit taking the hit is Superior and it is making an assault move. (firing only)
>> The unit taking the hit is Small and is an unreformed unit in extended line. (firing only)

This makes more sense than reducing by 2 hits if in extended line and follows along with the current large superior units can still only reduce hits by 1. No matter how badly Austria would like to reduce those hits by 2 we are happy with this suggestion

3) All infantry face backwards if they retire 6MU – regardless of formation. A retire of less than 6MU will leave them facing the enemy. Note that this will also benefit reformed infantry in extended line.

Another plus for the cheap unreformed infantry. Not to be the naysayer, but perhaps this should lead to an increase by a point in cost? Beyond a slower frontal movement, is there any disadvantage or better, advantage remaining for the reformed infantry? The Austrians usually have either artillery or skirmishers with each unit, equaling out medium firepower. In fact, the French usually come up short, reduced by 2 for Austrian horse near while the rifle skirmishers only lose 1.

Maybe all 3 would unbalance the game towards unreformed infantry. They still suffer from a 4MU move and no medium range firing without skirmisher attachments. We have to balance that against the 2pt reduction. We won't be changing the points value so we'll have to get the balance of effectiveness on the table top correct.

I don't think allowing an unreformed infantry to face the enemy after being driven back just under 6 MU is all that much of a bonus. It just keeps the Reformed troops from getting a free move and shot at the enemies rear. I think at present the reformed shooting is still a better bonus as its forces most of the unreformed troops to have to move into range and risk the close range shooting. Reformed troops can stand back at just under 6 MU and pick off the unreformed boys, drop them down to disordered and they have to CMT to even get into range. Allowing them to face the enemy while being driven back is pretty small bonus if you ask me.

[Blathergut]

Dead. and I can try this and see what comes of it then.

1-no dice reduction for CT in extended line
2-reduce 1 hit in any one of the 3 situations
3-6MU move thingie