Slitherine

Hi All,

I've played very very few games (3 maybe 4) spread out over the years, so I'm a long LONG way from an expert. People might even refer to me as a seal ripe for the clubbing, so I MAY (read as probably do) have some hidden nuance missed in my reading.

My opponent , who is vastly more experienced than I am says that for the most part poeple use 'Competent' Corps Commanders, and 'Skilled' divisional commanders.

I'm wondering about this. From my understanding, a Corps Commander can allocate his PIPs to subordinate commanders. So, if I took an exceptional commander and got 3 PIPs that would be more cost effective (at 50 points total) than 3 skilled commanders (at 20 points each) (costs over and above the 'competent commander you'd have to start with) AND it gives you the flexibility of allocating PIPs where and when you need them rather than having a Pip over with a commander not being pressed when you really need 2 PIPs to the divisional commander who is doing loads for the cause.

Am I missing something?

I think you may have misunderstood me, or perhaps I misspoke.

Most people use competent divisional commanders but are often more willing to spend the points to get a better corps commander. It is worth remembering though that there is a little more to a skilled divisional commander than pips. He is more likely to arrive from reserve or as a flank march and he can move three units as a brigade.

In general the better corps commander is a better bet because it makes you more likely to attack, which is an outright advantage in FOG N.

Martin

marty wrote:I think you may have misunderstood me, or perhaps I misspoke.

Most people use competent divisional commanders but are often more willing to spend the points to get a better corps commander. It is worth remembering though that there is a little more to a skilled divisional commander than pips. He is more likely to arrive from reserve or as a flank march and he can move three units as a brigade.

In general the better corps commander is a better bet because it makes you more likely to attack, which is an outright advantage in FOG N.

Martin

Not sure what was said to be honest. At the very least what I understood was different to what you're saying now, but I was dog tired yesterday so unlikely to have heard much the way it was intended .

By the way, the list I made up was illegal upon further research, because I had 3 units of Wurttembergers in a division that also had Saxons et al... which was/is illegal as if you have 3 or more units they must be in a division of their own.

I'm having trouble getting the list to work the way I want it to.

I'm also having trouble with the French 1805-07 list, but that's because I'm like a dog with a bone about Davout & III Corps

I've even looked at the Prussians at Auerstadt, and the list doesn't seem able to make historical orbats either. Not really that bothered by it, but interesting none-the-less.

I've even looked at the Prussians at Auerstadt, and the list doesn't seem able to make historical orbats either. Not really that bothered by it, but interesting none-the-less.

The authors have often said that historical orbats take precedence over the lists. The lists are an attempt at making a "normal" corps, particular battles being made up of what was available at the time, not necessarily sticking to the official compositions if you don't have the troops on hand or have some extras if you are lucky.
You might want to try making a historical army, then you can drop the max and mins and it sounds like it might be more what you are looking to do. As long as your opponent does not oppose it why not for a friendly game. Tournaments need the lists or who knows what kind of armies you would end up with....

deadtorius wrote:

I've even looked at the Prussians at Auerstadt, and the list doesn't seem able to make historical orbats either. Not really that bothered by it, but interesting none-the-less.

The authors have often said that historical orbats take precedence over the lists. The lists are an attempt at making a "normal" corps, particular battles being made up of what was available at the time, not necessarily sticking to the official compositions if you don't have the troops on hand or have some extras if you are lucky.
You might want to try making a historical army, then you can drop the max and mins and it sounds like it might be more what you are looking to do. As long as your opponent does not oppose it why not for a friendly game. Tournaments need the lists or who knows what kind of armies you would end up with....

I wasn't really having a go, but am a little surprised.

I mean THE campaign of 1805-1807 was the Jena Auerstadt campaign, and the entire army of Prussia seems to not be able to be made via the lists... which seems odd given that we have the historical data. I don't have the lists on hand, but it seems impossible (for example) to legally make an advanced guard of the Prussian army at either Jena or Auerstadt. And I don't doubt that the fault could be in my reading of the lists.

And as to 'what I'm looking for' - realistically I'm going to be playing 'tournament style' games as it's what seems to happen here more than historical match-ups. Given that I find it really difficult to give away the history that I do know of Jena-Auerstadt I'm probably best to find some army that I know nothing about.

I guess my biggest struggle I have stems from my baptism of fire with the old WRG horse and Musket rules where you'd have 1 bn of Old Guard Grenadiers, next to 1 bn of musketeers next to 1 regt of Cuirassiers next to 1 bn of Bavarian infantry... which I don't think would have historically happened ANYWHERE. Sure, it's just tin soliders, and I understand that, but if it's just tin soldiers why are we so strict on lists? .

Either which way, the reason I started this thread is because in my posts over a year ago I received e-mails stating that the lists were likely to change yet I hadn't seen any change. If they'd made the change then I'd like to drop the additional unit of Legere, if they haven't, then I'll be stuck with that unit and I'll just run a ligne as a legere and be fine with that (although it's more points ) (edit - actually that part of my post was in a different thread, so ignore this)

When you say "legally make" do you mean within 800 points or at any level?

hazelbark wrote:When you say "legally make" do you mean within 800 points or at any level?

Not speaking for raven, but...Blucher's advance guard division at Auerstadt had:

4 battalions of fusiliers (2,400 troops) = 1 large unit (list only allows one small unit - 4 bases)
4 battalions (2 regiments) of hussars (2,800 troops) = 4 small hussars (list only allows two small Prussian hussar units)
1 regiment of dragoons (700 troops) = 1 small dragoon unit

That's 1 infantry and 5 cavalry in one division. Even if you strip out some of the cavalry to form a 2nd cavalry division you will still have only one infantry unit left in the mixed advance guard division. According to the rules you need two infantry units. If the list allowed 8 bases of fusiliers (2 regimental equivalents each of 2 battalions), then it would work. You'd have....two divisions, which is okay since the 1806 Prussian divisions are mini-corps....and advance guard 'division' of 2 fusilier units and 2 hussar units and a cavalry 'division' of 2 hussar units and a dragoon unit.

shadowdragon wrote:

hazelbark wrote:When you say "legally make" do you mean within 800 points or at any level?

Not speaking for raven, but...Blucher's advance guard division at Auerstadt had:

4 battalions of fusiliers (2,400 troops) = 1 large unit (list only allows one small unit - 4 bases)
4 battalions (2 regiments) of hussars (2,800 troops) = 4 small hussars (list only allows two small Prussian hussar units)
1 regiment of dragoons (700 troops) = 1 small dragoon unit

That's 1 infantry and 5 cavalry in one division. Even if you strip out some of the cavalry to form a 2nd cavalry division you will still have only one infantry unit left in the mixed advance guard division. According to the rules you need two infantry units. If the list allowed 8 bases of fusiliers (2 regimental equivalents each of 2 battalions), then it would work. You'd have....two divisions, which is okay since the 1806 Prussian divisions are mini-corps....and advance guard 'division' of 2 fusilier units and 2 hussar units and a cavalry 'division' of 2 hussar units and a dragoon unit.

Yeah, that and the III Corps had 600 Legere, which is arguably not enough to even make up a small unit... and would probably be better made into skirmisher attachments.

I've heard the arguments about ligne not being much different to leger, but then if you start down that road why do you have compulsory ligne? I mean, if they all acted as legere, why not rate them at leger and let the entire corps be legere.

I'm not losing a great deal of sleep over this, and I'm sure historical rules sets throughout time have made minimums and maximums that probably didn't meet any historical orbats, however we are often extremely limited of our information so really it's subject to debate. There is no debate that in name, the Advanced Guard had 1 large Fusilier OR 2 small Fusiliers (probably more accurately 2 small) and that III Corps had 600 legere.

ravenflight wrote:Yeah, that and the III Corps had 600 Legere, which is arguably not enough to even make up a small unit... and would probably be better made into skirmisher attachments.

Nafziger has 2 battalions for the 13th Legere for 1450 troops. Chandler also lists 2 battalions but with no regimental strength. Was one of the battalions detached during the battle?

Also Nafzier has the 3rd battalions, for those regiments that had a 3rd battalion, consisting only of the grenadier and voltigeur companies for about 400-650 troops per division. I've chosen to treat them as skirmisher attachments.

Altogether, that amounts to 3,000 for the 13th legere and the 3rd battalion with only flank companies.

And this is now waaaaay off topic.

I'll admit that my information comes from hand written notes that I made about 30 years ago and I didn't take down my source. They came from a bunch of different areas. What's more, I'm going by my memory of those notes because I don't have them on me right now... I may have mis-remembered, or mis-read my own notes.

I researched III Corps quite extensively. It's by far my favourite historical formation and the battle of Auerstadt my favourite european battle.

And how is this off topic? Davout had 3 pips didn't he?

ravenflight wrote:I'll admit that my information comes from hand written notes that I made about 30 years ago and I didn't take down my source. They came from a bunch of different areas. What's more, I'm going by my memory of those notes because I don't have them on me right now... I may have mis-remembered, or mis-read my own notes.

I researched III Corps quite extensively. It's by far my favourite historical formation and the battle of Auerstadt my favourite european battle.

And how is this off topic? Davout had 3 pips didn't he?

Yes, he did...or was it 4 pips.

My favourite battle too. It's the Prussian artillery that gives me fits. The information is all over the place. Were the battalion guns present or not. If so, they warrant being treated as attached artillery in my opinion. What about the bridge batteries? Were they 6pdr, 8pdr or 12pdr? I think they were originally 12pdr but the Prussians might have been making changes.

shadowdragon wrote:Nafziger has 2 battalions for the 13th Legere for 1450 troops. Chandler also lists 2 battalions but with no regimental strength. Was one of the battalions detached during the battle?

You're quite right. My notes say that the 13th Leger was 1507 men strong.

It was the battalion that was approximately 600 strong.

I had down to company strength (68 men per company average) so when I painted them up I could do the right numbers of everything.

shadowdragon wrote:

hazelbark wrote:When you say "legally make" do you mean within 800 points or at any level?

Not speaking for raven, but...Blucher's advance guard division at Auerstadt had:

If I remember that was what struggled onto the field. His Corps which may or may not have "technically" been an advanced guard division was spread all about.

So it may be a bit of modeling straggling into battle versus and actual.

hazelbark wrote:If I remember that was what struggled onto the field. His Corps which may or may not have "technically" been an advanced guard division was spread all about.

So it may be a bit of modeling straggling into battle versus and actual.

He also seems to have commanded more cavalry than what's indicated in the advance guard. Chandler refers to Blucher commanding cuirassiers.

Supposedly the organizational structure was new for the Prussians. No doubt that would have contributed to the breakdown in command and control, which is one factor that makes it hard to come up with something appropriate for FoGN....and still make it an interesting game.

shadowdragon wrote: Supposedly the organizational structure was new for the Prussians. No doubt that would have contributed to the breakdown in command and control, which is one factor that makes it hard to come up with something appropriate for FoGN....and still make it an interesting game.

One of the missed opportunities in FOGN in my view. Was having a bigger command and control impact. We've talked the divisional officers not worth enough to buy better. But had some of the early armies 06 Prussians. 05 Austrians as examples been limited to say 3 divisions. They would start to take on a clunky factor. Then as in the Prussian 06 case, you could consider some good infantry representing their training then had it limited by command and control flexibility. But I fear that was too many moving parts from what they wanted in a 12-14 units of maneuver game.

hazelbark wrote:One of the missed opportunities in FOGN in my view. Was having a bigger command and control impact. We've talked the divisional officers not worth enough to buy better. But had some of the early armies 06 Prussians. 05 Austrians as examples been limited to say 3 divisions. They would start to take on a clunky factor. Then as in the Prussian 06 case, you could consider some good infantry representing their training then had it limited by command and control flexibility. But I fear that was too many moving parts from what they wanted in a 12-14 units of maneuver game.

We have just completed a tournament where there was no 'free' CP for being a commander - ie all CMTs required a pip. Attached commanders helped only in that you pass on a 4+ rather than 5+.

Worked well in stressing the pip system a little more, and markedly changes the worth of having skilled commanders.

Did you give officer attachments a PIP?

Martin

Officer attachments got one "free" CP per turn. Not one per phase.

I wonder if this is been considered for the update. Is an improvement I like the sound of it although they would probably need to tone down the other abilities of an exceptional corps commander if his PIPs suddenly became more valuable. I'm hoping his boost to rallying disappears anyway and that defending becomes less of a kick in the nuts.

Martin

I believe that 'no free pips' is being considered by Terry for version 1.5.
We also used an amendment to exceptional commanders: CCs don't get the re-roll rally attempts, but exceptional DCs still do.

reasoning,
- L3 CC's are pretty good value under a pip stressed environment and don't need anything extra
- the CC's job is to run the army, not rush around rallying units
- a DC is more responsible for keeping the cohesion of his regiments up
- L3 DCs are still expensive, have more pips than a division generally needs and so could use the re-roll buff.