Amendment - Guard & Shock Cavalry

[BrettPT]

1. Problem
Medium quality (ie average drilled) Guard & Shock cavalry are too cost effective. In particular, fresh Guard Cavalry benefit by not being able to be broken in combat (unless caught by pursuers) - even if they take massive numbers of hits, as the maximum damage they can take is 2 cohesion drops. This can lead to a 'I don't care of the odds are stacked against me, I'll charge anyway as I am Guard and cannot lose' mentality.
Also, both Guard and Shock cavalry can charge on spent horses without a CMT, something even flashy superior Hussars on lighter horses cannot do.

2. Simple Fix
- change the 'Effect of Combat Hits' table so that 6+ hits gives 3 cohesion losses for Guard.
- page 69, under 'Spent Units', delete the words "shock or Guard Cavalry or are"
- an alternative change to page 69 would be to change the words "shock or Guard Cavalry or are Guard Infantry " to "Superior"

3. Improvement
This would end the immunity of fresh Guard Cavalry to rout when taking a pounding in combat.
A change to page 69 would remove a significant bonus from Guard and Shock cavalry - making them slightly less cost effective - and have the spin-off of adding an small extra use for CPs. The bonus would remain for Guard infantry.
The alternative amendment to page 69 would have similar effects, but reserve the 'we don't care if we are tired, we'll charge anyway' to troops of superior elan.

[hazelbark]

While I see the problem on guard cavalry only taking 2 hits. I am not sure i like the solution.

If i had my way I would only increase the point cost for guard average cavalry.
You could increase the victory point cost of having lost 1 base of Guard cavalry i think is prefered to the combat table change.
Guard average cavalry is not that abundant and list solutions could be just as easy. The Italian cavlary and who else is the significant issue here?

an alternative change to page 69 would be to change the words "shock or Guard Cavalry or are Guard Infantry " to "Superior"

Now I don't like this except it make superio a better choice, which is good and increases the strain on command pips which i like. A milder version of this would be require the command pip to charge but there is no roll, it is automatic if they get the pip.

[BrettPT]

Hi Hazelbark

Good to have your input.

If i had my way I would only increase the point cost for guard average cavalry.

I agree that points changes are the obvious solution to balance issues, however I understand that Terry is loathe to do this (too many amendments to the army books) and would prefer to adjust the rules rather than the points.

You could increase the victory point cost of having lost 1 base of Guard cavalry

Yes, although while this purhaps provides a slight disencentive to using Guard cavalry, it doesn't really address the issue of relative invulnerability.

Guard average cavalry is not that abundant and list solutions could be just as easy. The Italian cavalry and who else is the significant issue here?

Absolutely look at the lists. Start by removing 'Guard' status from the Neapolitan list, and upgrade the elan average instead (I think they are poor at the moment). Andy at our club has a Neapolitan army and would be the first to say that Guard Neapolitans are pretty dubious.

You could probably go through the lists and change most "Average Drilled Guard", or "Average Conscript Guard" cavalry unit to "Superior Drilled/Conscript Line" cavalry.

Even though it is rare in the lists, average drilled Guard cavalry do appear on table. When looking to field French Guard, I suspect players, troll the lists like I do to find a combo that doesn't require Superior Veteran Guard Artillery, and allows average drilled Guard cavalry. Keith here in NZ has just added a Neapolitan contingent ot his 1812 French - mainly to get their Guard LC unit.

change the words "shock or Guard Cavalry or are Guard Infantry " to "Superior"...
- Now I don't like this

Surprising, as this is almost a no-brainer to me. Spent cavalry represent blown horses, I would think that Shock cavalry would suffer comparatively more than other cavalry from blown horses, not less. The change would have a spinoff of being a slight points balancer for Guard and Shock cavalry, and, as you say, increase the CP drain in an army.

[hazelbark]

When looking to field French Guard, I suspect players, troll the lists like I do to find a combo that doesn't require Superior Veteran Guard Artillery, and allows average drilled Guard cavalry.

The artillery point cost for veteran guard artillery is fundamentally broken. Seriously and to the point of ridiculous. I had a friendly game where i wanted to try Russian Guard, had to troll as you said to come up with a version without artillery.

[Sarmaticus]

Surprising, as this is almost a no-brainer to me. Spent cavalry represent blown horses, I would think that Shock cavalry would suffer comparatively more than other cavalry from blown horses, not less. The change would have a spinoff of being a slight points balancer for Guard and Shock cavalry, and, as you say, increase the CP drain in an army.

Not necessarily so: Shock cavalry would normally be spared outpost duty, etc. and so keep their mounts in better condition. It could vary from unit to unit: Marbot goes on at length on the measures he took to keep his Chasseurs-a-cheval regiment in good shape before and during the Retreat of 1812. As a general rule, though, battle cavalry should be in better condition than the workhorses of campaigning.

[KeefM]

Guard average cavalry is not that abundant and list solutions could be just as easy. The Italian cavalry and who else is the significant issue here?

Absolutely look at the lists. Start by removing 'Guard' status from the Neapolitan list, and upgrade the elan average instead (I think they are poor at the moment). Andy at our club has a Neapolitan army and would be the first to say that Guard Neapolitans are pretty dubious.

You could probably go through the lists and change most "Average Drilled Guard", or "Average Conscript Guard" cavalry unit to "Superior Drilled/Conscript Line" cavalry.

Even though it is rare in the lists, average drilled Guard cavalry do appear on table. When looking to field French Guard, I suspect players, troll the lists like I do to find a combo that doesn't require Superior Veteran Guard Artillery, and allows average drilled Guard cavalry. Keith here in NZ has just added a Neapolitan contingent ot his 1812 French - mainly to get their Guard LC unit.


Oi you . The main reason for getting the Neapolitans was to get some cheap as Poor Conscripts. (Actually, it was even more probably about having some non-blue uniforms !) Anyways, the Poor Drilled Guard were a much much later purchase and I am not yet altogether convinced they are all that a good choice among my current combinations. Though it does have to be acknowledged that they do have very pretty pink uniforms that also happen to match my luggage !!

All that aside . . . maybe the easier simplest solution to the "guard" problem is to add 6 points instead of 4 to the purchase price.

Otherwise I completely agree with a shift to further constraining CP use AND moving the freebie charge to superior troops.

[terrys]

I've been looking at guards in general for a while now - and been testing them in games.
Although they are tough, they're not invulneratble, and they're still not easy to rally when broken. (I lost the Grenadiers a Cheval last night - and the guard chasseurs retired wavering from dragoons).

The real question is - how tough should guards be? Certainly, the British French and Russian guard units were a step above their 'line' equivalents.
I agree that some 'guards' are not worthy of the status - With the guards of Naples, Sweden and Spain springing to mind. However, the number of guards available to those armies isn't enough to dominate battles.
French old guard light cavalry were used in much the same way as normal heavy cavalry, and only guards status allows them to do that.
At the moment the only change I'm seriously thinking about is removing their ability to ignore routing non-guard units.

There certainly is a problem with the cost of guard artillery - who really aren't good value for the points. they can severly restrict your choices in lists where they're compulsary. The only real solution to that is to reduce the costs for the superior and veteran upgrades.

[hazelbark]

There certainly is a problem with the cost of guard artillery - who really aren't good value for the points. they can severly restrict your choices in lists where they're compulsary. The only real solution to that is to reduce the costs for the superior and veteran upgrades.

You could allow any Guard Artillery rated as Superior to be rated as average when purchased. This is the mostly overpriced part of artillery. I mean the veteran status helps on shooting and lots of other things. Average Veteran Guard is still expensive for the most part you get something for what you pay for. The Veteran rating is better than the guard rating for artillery.

Average Veteran Line
Average Drilled Guard

Which would you buy for artillery if given a choice?

[hazelbark]

I've used Russian Guard infantry once.

Is there a problem with Guard infantry in the game? I suspect not.

It is a singular unit of guard cavarly to try to win the cavalry fight.

How about doubling the losses for Guard cavalry on the victory points and the 10-30% rule?

[KendallB]

How about dropping guard status for the artillery?

The only benefit I can see for having it is a reroll when trying to stand and ignoring routing non-guards. That'll save 8 points per unit.

[terrys]

Is there a problem with Guard infantry in the game? I suspect not.
It is a singular unit of guard cavarly to try to win the cavalry fight.
How about doubling the losses for Guard cavalry on the victory points and the 10-30% rule?

While not being a bad idea for large and historical battles, for a smaller 800-1000pt battle, you already get a large reduction in the number of units, so this would be a double whammy.
There may be other options for increasing the risk of using guards. Perhaps doubling the range for CTs for broken guards units - or giving a +1 on CTs for all non-guard units within 4MU of a broken guards unit. There isn't such a problem with entire guards divisions - due to the smaller number of units, but the single unit of guard in a division of line troops can be quite powerful.

How about dropping guard status for the artillery?
The only benefit I can see for having it is a reroll when trying to stand and ignoring routing non-guards. That'll save 8 points per unit.

I think I'd rather drop them from superior to average and save 8pts per base.

[hazelbark]

Is there a problem with Guard infantry in the game? I suspect not.
It is a singular unit of guard cavarly to try to win the cavalry fight.
How about doubling the losses for Guard cavalry on the victory points and the 10-30% rule?

While not being a bad idea for large and historical battles, for a smaller 800-1000pt battle, you already get a large reduction in the number of units, so this would be a double whammy.
There may be other options for increasing the risk of using guards. Perhaps doubling the range for CTs for broken guards units - or giving a +1 on CTs for all non-guard units within 4MU of a broken guards unit. There isn't such a problem with entire guards divisions - due to the smaller number of units, but the single unit of guard in a division of line troops can be quite powerful.

Have to disagree with you here. The opposite is true in the competition games. The whole point of what people are saying is mixing in one unit of guard cavalry is being done to win the mounted battle. Since they don't break in close combat when starting fresh, they don't cause all those CT checks you are worried about.

One average drilled Guard cavarly is what (and I am putting words in Brett's mouth) all the hub-bub is about. This is a modest cost in a point battle and people are reckless with them since they don't die in single combat. Making a cost for the expending the best troops of your army is warrented. You can make it apply to guard troops not in a guard division. That would exempt most French and Russian and sometimes English. But it would up (minor) cost of the lone guard unit everyone wants to beef up their cavarly division with.

Justification:
Historically commanders knew they were committing something precious, but they still did.

[terrys]

Have to disagree with you here. The opposite is true in the competition games. The whole point of what people are saying is mixing in one unit of guard cavalry is being done to win the mounted battle. Since they don't break in close combat when starting fresh, they don't cause all those CT checks you are worried about.

I thought I was in agreement:

There isn't such a problem with entire guards divisions - due to the smaller number of units, but the single unit of guard in a division of line troops can be quite powerful.

Perhpas a solution would be to not allow non-guards to give rear support to guards? ... (could also stop flank supports - but there's less justification in that).
The single units of guards would then probably have 1 dice less, while their opponents would have 1 dice more - assuming they've been careful enough to arrange their rear supports correctly. It would also mean that with only 5 dice, the guards can't break an opponent in 1 move either.

[hazelbark]

Perhpas a solution would be to not allow non-guards to give rear support to guards? ... (could also stop flank supports - but there's less justification in that).
The single units of guards would then probably have 1 dice less, while their opponents would have 1 dice more - assuming they've been careful enough to arrange their rear supports correctly. It would also mean that with only 5 dice, the guards can't break an opponent in 1 move either.

That could work, I'd like to see Brett's thoughts. I was going for less impact on the rules.

[BrettPT]

Some good discussion here.

I agree that Guard infantry work fine, it is the Guard cavalry that need a look at. There is less of a problem with the top end Guard cavalry, they are excellent but you pay a packet of points for superior veteran guards.
As others have commented, it's really average drilled Guard cavalry that need a look at (mostly the odd unit thrown into a cavalry division, but also the Neapolitan Guard cavalry division, and French Young Guard or Russian Guard cavalry divisions).

Picking together some of Terry's ideas, I think a combo of the following would cover it nicely:

1. Only Guard can provide rear support to Guard
2. Drop the Guard 'don't test to see routers' rule; and
3. +1 to pass a CT for seeing a Guard unit routing

(1) Would slightly lesson the effectiveness of the single Guard cavalry unit in a line formation
(2) Would not be much of an issue for superior veteran Guards - who should pass their CT anyway - but would impact on average drilled guard
(3) Introduces a slight two-edged sword aspect for Guard, perhaps encouraging not throwing them into action too recklessly. I also like that if you lost your LOC, and then the Guards broke, neighbouring units would automatically fail their test for seeing routers. I can think of a famous battle where something approaching that happened!

Cheers
Brett

[hazelbark]

3. +1 to pass a CT for seeing a Guard unit routing

This may be too much

This makes it mostly luck to not fail for seeing a Guard break.
Even a veteran will drop a level something like 60% of the time with needing a 6.

[BrettPT]

Yeah maybe ...

I do like how this might make you take a little more care about committing Guards though - especially into really bad situations in reliance they won't rout.
Remember it is pretty hard to break a fresh Guard unit, and you can't do it in a single combat round.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that conventional wisdom of the time was that Guard units were not expected to be broken, except perhaps by enemy Guards. So I think it reasonable for the morale effect of broken Guards to be greater than that of a broken line unit.

I used to like the old "J" value system in the Napoleon's Battles rules. Under that system Guard troops were awesome, but if your opponent broke them your army morale was in trouble. Something like this could easily be adopted into FoGN by increasing the ACV loss for a broken Guard unit. However I like the concept of penalising the CT for neighbours better.

Cheers
Brett

[bahdahbum]

Russian Guard cavalry divisions

The russian guard cavalry was efficient so I do not see a problem with those units . You should sometimes try to get your hands on russian sources ( translated of course ) . We rely too often on french sources .

I am currently reading the 1812 campaign but from the russian point of view ( in french ) . Quite refreshing .

[terrys]

1. Only Guard can provide rear support to Guard
2. Drop the Guard 'don't test to see routers' rule; and
3. +1 to pass a CT for seeing a Guard unit routing

I think all 3 would be overkill, and stop single unit of guards entirely.
Perhaps (3) should not be +1 to pass a CT, but an increased range of 6MU for testing. It's not quite as damaging.

[bahdahbum]

Guard uits were still guard units . Even YGD units are difficult to break as they are guard ( and sometimes conscript ) . The whole question is about MORAL .

Guard status did boost a unit's moral and that is important .The unit will not break because it simply refuses to break and will go on against "all odds . It can also be a trap as the guard unit can stay and be isolated .

An average guard unit is simply a unit that has not seen much combat but still has high moral .

Now I would say that having units testing at 6 MU if a guard unit routs may be interesting .I

I would also suggest : a destroyed guard unit counts as 1,5 unit or 2 units for the army morale . That would make some people think twice before throwing away guard units