Slitherine

As we are waiting for FOGN2 , I was wondering if we could not try another commande system and still not change all the rules, but the command mechanism

The actual game sequence has it that one side makes all his firings, after the other side and one side moves all his units ...well you know the drill .

I was wondering if that sequence could not be changed as to have a more "intense" game with more interaction .

The idea is to have each side move a command one at the time and a command will be a division if playing a small battle or a corps or column for biger battles .

But I also want the quality of the general to have an impact on the battle . A competent general will be able to interact with one division before having to move all his units at the same time. A Skilled one may move two commands and the exceptionnal 3 commands.,

So instead of moving all the units of a side, side A activates one command, charges, fires, moves ..side B does the same, side A one again, side B once again and so on

If at one time one side has no more capacity to activate a unit, it will have to wait till the other side finishes to activate his own units up till the capacity is exhausted

At that point, side A finishes all his charges and moves as normal, side B does the same after .

It is not perfect but gives more interaction.

For simplicity sakes, combined charges could still be done as usual even if the units come from 2 different commands and for firing, hits a accumulated .

I do not know if my idea is clear enough .

I was unable to test it but as we will have to wait till 2017 for a V2 version, we can still discuss it .

The 2 merits I see is it exist and might enable more interaction and of course it will change the game ...

Interesting idea Bada.
I suspect it may be a change too radical, & would involve looking at the non-phasing shooting but perhaps if/when you have a chance you could play a game trailing your idea?

Cheers
Brett

I hope to try it after the worlds in Belgium ( last WE of august )

This is the mechanism used in a set of rules called Corps d'Armee by Geoffry Wooten. It's an excellent set but it does slow the game down a bit and you need some way to do large games with multiple players per side.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Corps-dArmee-N ... 0904417441

Hard to get now, but I still have my copy.

Will it slow down the game or speed it up as contact might be made earlier ...

My experience was slower

I wouldn't mess with the sequence at all. For me it is one of the best features of Fogn.

I'm with Geoff ... DO NOT mess with the Charge, Shoot, Move sequence - it is by far and away the bestest thing about FoGN.

Corps d'Armee (CdA) really was a great set of rules ... the "initiative" mechanism was especially very very cleverly done and made for an amazing game; but, equally, that truly brilliant initiative mechanism also rested heavily on needing a structured command/orders system along with restrictions around each 'order' and with a measure of uncertainty about the implementation of any order changes. I really really loved Corps d'Armee's initiative/order mechanism because it added yet another layer of complexity into game decision-making ! I'm just not sure that level of complexity is the game that FoGN aught to be given its brigade/regiment level simplifications.

In practice, it meant that as the player in CdA, you were much more taking the role of a Divisional General in the types of decisions you ended up making about how your Divisional orders worked for your individual units, rather than Corps level ones which is where FoGN aims for (although I do think FoGN could do to force players to keep their Divisions closer together and more coherent than it currently does in order to better replicate a Corps level in the Napoleonic period - separate Division's units did not intermingle nearly as much in practice as we do on the table !).

And, to my minds-eye, that's the key to thinking about what sort of game is FoGN supposed to be replicating ...

Are we as players making Corps level decisions about where my Divisions go and for what objectives (which is what the order/initiative system in CdA tried to do) ? Or are those Divisional level decisions about how my brigades should deploy and face an opposing force ? Or are they Brigade level decisions about what formations my units are adopting ? Etc. And all this comes back to overall design philosophy questions - get those 'right' and the rest will follow (inc ground scale and unit interactions).

Anyhows, FWIW, the key issues in FoGN needing fixing from a balanced game perspective are only relatively minor IMHO.

FoGN certainly does need a good edit and tidy up for clarity purposes - but nothing too major needs changing in the existing mechanisms and interactions.

The first order of business must be to get the rules translated from Cthuhlu to English.
Second is to sand off the gamey bits.
Third is break up the stylized boards.
Forth is to clean up list oddities.

Then tinkering can be contemplated.

My wish list.
A little more attrition impact on infantry.
A little more interesting commander options and need for CPs.

If everyone says no , OK

But do the rules work that fine ;..

As Hazelbark wrote, a few things have to be rewritten .

My only real problem lies in the interaction unreformed/reformed . Unreformed have too many difficulties assaulting unreformed or defend . From all I read I wonder why did the french usually go to close range to shoot at the ennemy if shooting from far away was that devastating ?

Those unreformed armies were not that helpless and we have to consider the fact that the french did lie often about their real loses and so on ...but I cannot thing of something as all I proposed has been disregarded ...