FoGN blog by Jeff Kent - 1792 Prussians vs 1812 Prussians
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Blathergut, Slitherine Core
-
BrettPT
- Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
- Posts: 1266
- Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: FoGN blog by Jeff Kent - 1792 Prussians vs 1812 Prussian
Good write-up Jeff
Keith, sounds like you were run close in that game. I didn't know you had early Prussians.
Was this your first bash with an unreformed list? - thoughts?
Cheers
Brett
Keith, sounds like you were run close in that game. I didn't know you had early Prussians.
Was this your first bash with an unreformed list? - thoughts?
Cheers
Brett
-
deadtorius
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4996
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am
Re: FoGN blog by Jeff Kent - 1792 Prussians vs 1812 Prussian
nice write up. Too bad your new improved troops could not defeat the old standard boys. I am just starting to paint up some Russians myself, after running straight Austrians since the rules came out. Soon I will get to try the fast and longer shooting reformed boys myself, looks like it could be quite a bit more different army than I am expecting though.
Re: FoGN blog by Jeff Kent - 1792 Prussians vs 1812 Prussian
A very very tight game . . . skin of the teeth stuff . . . from memory at one point I had 6 or 7 wavering units, but Jeff was simply not close enough to charge them mainly as a consequence of not having either of his two remaining cavalry near the contact line . . . a couple of times these wavering results occured from some quite jammy long range shooting scoring 4 hits at long or medium range and thus forcing outcomes moves that effectively got my mauled units out of strike reach . . . mind you, the resultant burst throughs did cause a bit of army cohesion loss which didn't help and led to having so many wavering units . . .
The three turning points were: a) winning the cavalry shoot out early meant that Jeff really did need to force the issue from there quickly or face too much flank pressure, b) the Prussian guard infantry decimated an attack by the grenadiers leaving Jeff hopelessly exposed to the counter attacks (and which ultimately broke his army), and c) the very timely rallying of one of my wavering units that was in his charge reach who then promptly saw off the incoming attack (had they not rallied and had broken either straight away or after the combat, the resultant tests would probably have carried away 5 or 6 uniits of mine !). So, very much touch and go.
I learnt a lot from the game in respect to both using and facing unreformed infantry. Firstly, in my view, they most defintinely need artillery and cavalry support close at hand to help fend off the peril of incoming reformed infantry shooting. Second, the total width of your defensive line cannot be too long from one end of the infantry units to the other as there is no way to support both ends of the line with 4MU moves.
Otherwise, the other observation I would make is that divisional and army structures need to be more thought through for an unreformed army IMHO in terms of how limited numbers of attachments and good units can be interwoven between two or more divisions so as to maximise the strong units that will probably end up in the front line and to minimise any unsupported ones to the rear or a set-back position. Irrespective of the merits or othwerise of using unreformed infantry, the cavalry is identical in capability as that in a reformed army AND effectively comes with quite a bit more support. Thus the issue, again IMHO, is about the bigger-picture mix of the army overall and the intended plan for using it rather than the question of individual unit strengths or the merits of unreformed vs reformed infantry (ie exactly the same issue as with the mix for reformed armies). The inherent "clumsiness" of unreformed infantry implies the need for more attention to how the divisions operate together and the overall mix of the army, at the same time as thinking more about the way you approach the 'contact zone' with that mix of units and divisions.
But then, you-all know that already !
Anyhows, as a result of playng just that one game, I had a radical rethink of the Prussian army mix along the lines above. One good 'for example' is definitely in bringing seperate artillery units instead of using replacement artillery attachments as allowed under the E+E amendments. The ability to interrupt an enemy attack, or least threaten to do so, with artillery (or to prosecute your own attacks) is important IMHO for unreformed infantry who are clunkier to respond to incoming threats. Ditto for how you utilise cavalry units within your overall deployment. Thus my "version 2" list looks the same ish in overall unit composition, but has a very different set-up.
Anyway, enough rambling . . .
The three turning points were: a) winning the cavalry shoot out early meant that Jeff really did need to force the issue from there quickly or face too much flank pressure, b) the Prussian guard infantry decimated an attack by the grenadiers leaving Jeff hopelessly exposed to the counter attacks (and which ultimately broke his army), and c) the very timely rallying of one of my wavering units that was in his charge reach who then promptly saw off the incoming attack (had they not rallied and had broken either straight away or after the combat, the resultant tests would probably have carried away 5 or 6 uniits of mine !). So, very much touch and go.
I learnt a lot from the game in respect to both using and facing unreformed infantry. Firstly, in my view, they most defintinely need artillery and cavalry support close at hand to help fend off the peril of incoming reformed infantry shooting. Second, the total width of your defensive line cannot be too long from one end of the infantry units to the other as there is no way to support both ends of the line with 4MU moves.
Otherwise, the other observation I would make is that divisional and army structures need to be more thought through for an unreformed army IMHO in terms of how limited numbers of attachments and good units can be interwoven between two or more divisions so as to maximise the strong units that will probably end up in the front line and to minimise any unsupported ones to the rear or a set-back position. Irrespective of the merits or othwerise of using unreformed infantry, the cavalry is identical in capability as that in a reformed army AND effectively comes with quite a bit more support. Thus the issue, again IMHO, is about the bigger-picture mix of the army overall and the intended plan for using it rather than the question of individual unit strengths or the merits of unreformed vs reformed infantry (ie exactly the same issue as with the mix for reformed armies). The inherent "clumsiness" of unreformed infantry implies the need for more attention to how the divisions operate together and the overall mix of the army, at the same time as thinking more about the way you approach the 'contact zone' with that mix of units and divisions.
But then, you-all know that already !
Anyhows, as a result of playng just that one game, I had a radical rethink of the Prussian army mix along the lines above. One good 'for example' is definitely in bringing seperate artillery units instead of using replacement artillery attachments as allowed under the E+E amendments. The ability to interrupt an enemy attack, or least threaten to do so, with artillery (or to prosecute your own attacks) is important IMHO for unreformed infantry who are clunkier to respond to incoming threats. Ditto for how you utilise cavalry units within your overall deployment. Thus my "version 2" list looks the same ish in overall unit composition, but has a very different set-up.
Anyway, enough rambling . . .