Play Test

Moderators: terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Play Test

Post by DavidT »

We had another playtest today.
1000 pints and two players per side.
Early 30YW Catholic Imperialist v early 30YW Swedes.
The Swedes had a mix of average and superior DH with CS v the Imperialists superior heavily armoured horse.

The Swedish Cavalry won across the board, although it was a close game with the imperialist LTs winning four of the five combats against the Swedish brigades.

Overall the new rules seem to work except:
I think Superior P/P DH are a point too cheap at 17 points. I feel that 18 points is better (although I am not totally convinced on this as there are a lot of other match ups which influence this); and
I don't believe that CS should negate better armour.

Based on what we are trying to represent, in the melee, the mounted do the fighting. The CS only provide fire support and, as a melee represents a series of attacks, the extra dice represents the fire support during these different attacks. The better armour of the imperialist horse should not be negated as, when the fighting starts, the CS fall back to let the mounted fight.

Purely from a game balance point of view, negating the better armour of the heavily armoured horse is a step too far.

As a committed Swede, I certainly don't mind the fact that that CS shot negate better armour, but from a historical perspective and for game balance, I don't think they should.

This is based on five different games between these two armies.
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Play Test

Post by nikgaukroger »

DavidT wrote:
Purely from a game balance point of view, negating the better armour of the heavily armoured horse is a step too far.

Can I just check how you have been playing the CS for the cuirassier vs Swedish horse fight. I have a nagging feeling that some are not quite sure on the extra dice in Melee bit (as I never did a proper wording on it when mentioned and I fear my intention will have been badly communicated) and just want to be sure your games have played it as intended.

Impact Phase

As both are Pi there are no PoA differences and so the Swedes get an extra dice for the combat.

Melee Phase

No PoA differences as both are Pi but cuirassiers have Better Armour - but this is negated by the CS. As the CS are having an effect there is no extra dice in combat.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Play Test

Post by nikgaukroger »

Quick thought.

Would it be useful to say that where a BF with CS gets an extra dice the player chooses which file it is applied to? By saying that explicitly it may help avoid confusion with multi-BG combats.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
jonphilp
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:01 pm

Re: Play Test

Post by jonphilp »

If we are going to allow the marker for cs to be moved along the front of the battle group/file can not the same rule be for regimental guns. At the moment for arc of fire they are treated as if in the central file which is not historical, as they are only a marker should they also be moved to the file of choice. This can have an impact when the arc of fire of a unit is not full frontal.
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Play Test

Post by nikgaukroger »

jonphilp wrote:If we are going to allow the marker for cs to be moved along the front of the battle group/file can not the same rule be for regimental guns. At the moment for arc of fire they are treated as if in the central file which is not historical, as they are only a marker should they also be moved to the file of choice. This can have an impact when the arc of fire of a unit is not full frontal.

I'm talking about combat not shooting.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
jonphilp
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:01 pm

Re: Play Test

Post by jonphilp »

If we can do this with CS should we not be able to do the same with the regimental gun markers to help with arc of fire issues
Vespasian28
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 477
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:04 pm

Re: Play Test

Post by Vespasian28 »

We re-fought most of Flodden today using the same armies as before and didn't get a decisive result due to time but it was heading for an English win. Should hope so too with the Scots pike bogged down as usual.

Autobreak rules did not kick in at all as unit breaks came from failed CT not base losses so cannot comment on that.

Armour rules were tried though during the melee phases and we noticed a couple of things:

Pike vs Longbow were essentially even combats from a POA pov as 4th rank of pike was matched by the sword leaving the Scots with better armour and the English re-rolling 6's. In all but 1 of the five melee rounds fought the English scored fewer hits than they would have if a POA down from Better Armour.

Pike vs HA Billmen gave a POA to the Scots for Pike so were up and re-rolling 6's and the English needing 5's and 6's to hit. The English lost two rounds of melee and won the other whereas under the old rule it would have been two draws and a win. They hung on through good CT and death rolls.

One game doesn't really prove much and the English seemed to be ahead but this is Flodden and the Scots were dice down in every melee. This game was a bit slow, as we tried to unlearn the old Better Armour POA, but we think our confusion was not from the new mechanism being more complicated but different from what we have been using the past few years.
Need more games and try Scots vs English where the former are not disordered most of the game. Overall view from my opponent, and others watching, is why armour in this period needs to be less effective?
DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Play Test

Post by DavidT »

nikgaukroger wrote:
DavidT wrote:
Purely from a game balance point of view, negating the better armour of the heavily armoured horse is a step too far.

Can I just check how you have been playing the CS for the cuirassier vs Swedish horse fight. I have a nagging feeling that some are not quite sure on the extra dice in Melee bit (as I never did a proper wording on it when mentioned and I fear my intention will have been badly communicated) and just want to be sure your games have played it as intended.

Impact Phase

As both are Pi there are no PoA differences and so the Swedes get an extra dice for the combat.

Melee Phase

No PoA differences as both are Pi but cuirassiers have Better Armour - but this is negated by the CS. As the CS are having an effect there is no extra dice in combat.
We have been playing it that both are on even POA in melee, so the CS give an extra dice. Then, when considering better armour, which impacts re-rolls, the CS negates this. This is how the current proposed amendments are written.
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Play Test

Post by nikgaukroger »

Had a feeling that was the case.

My bad - the extra dice in melee was a quick suggestion and I never went and tried to get some proper wording sorted.

In essence my thinking was that if CS are not having any effect on the Melee phase - be that PoA or Better Armour negation - then an extra dice would be applied. If they are negating a - PoA or Better Armour no extra dice.

Now it looks like you have been playing (understandably) that they can both negate the armour and get an extra dice and say that it is overkill - i.e. getting both the extra dice and the negating armour. Would I be right in saying that one or the other would be OK - i.e. either an extra dice OR negating better armour - in this match-up?

If so it also strikes me that just doing the extra dice may be the cleaner way to do it rules-wise (which is I think what you suggested in your post above). No doubt somebody can crunch numbers on what this means in terms of hits :-)
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Play Test

Post by DavidT »

I think an extra dice if at even or plus POA and not negating armour is simpler and clearer.
kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Play Test

Post by kevinj »

If we can do this with CS should we not be able to do the same with the regimental gun markers to help with arc of fire issues
The Regimental gun marker represents a number of small artillery pieces spread across the front of the BG. The shooting range and arc for it's one dice is measured from the centre because it is the most logical way to represent this.
jonphilp
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:01 pm

Re: Play Test

Post by jonphilp »

I know the sources are conflicting but we're not commanded shot dispersed in a formed cavalry body troop br troop which is the same thing.
DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Play Test

Post by DavidT »

At Breitenfeld, according to the battle plans, the Swedish cavalry on the left wing of their army was split into smaller sub-units, interspersed with CS.
Baudissins regiment (600 men) was split into 3 squadrons, with a detachment of 150 commanded shot between each squadron.
Caldenbach's regiment (550 men) was split into 2 squadrons, with a detachment of commanded shot between and a detachment between Caldenbach's and Baudissin's.
This gave 5 squadrons of mounted with 4 detachments of musketeers between.
It was similar on the other flank and at Lutzen.

However, when we represent this on the tabletop, we do not represent the individual squadrons as this is a level of detail below that at which we are playing our game.

In game terms, not being able to move the CS marker has very little effect. The angle of fire at long range is 5 base widths. At close range it is 3 base widths. 90% of the time this means that the CS can target the enemy. The wide arc of fire represents fire from the detachments spread between the mounted squadrons. In addition, the benefit of the CS was not really distant sniping, but in the fire at close range before combat, represented by the extra dice or the negation of a minus in combat.

In our play tests we have allowed a player to move the CS marker if doing an expansion or contraction or by rolling for a formation change.
Irrespective of where the base is in the BG, we have allowed the extra dice (when applicable) at impact and melee. However, if the BG is contacted by two enemy BGs, we have assumed that the extra dice (if applicable) must be against the BG fighting the base with the CS behind it.

This seems to work, makes CS worthwhile without unbalancing things, is relatively simple and limits cheesey play.
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Play Test

Post by nikgaukroger »

jonphilp wrote:If we can do this with CS should we not be able to do the same with the regimental gun markers to help with arc of fire issues
No. David's post summarises why quite nicely. No doubt there are edge case examples that crop up every now and again but nothing to worry about.

End of IMO.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Play Test

Post by kevinj »

Thinking about this it looks like there are a few things that need to be clarified and nailed down. For me we can just use the same principles as already exist and we shouldn't be getting into disputes about the position of the marker, it just indicates that the BG has commanded shot attached, so:

For shooting - treat the range and shooting arc exactly the same as the current rules for Regimental guns i.e. it is calculated from the centre file of the BG. If the BG has more than one centre file (i.e. is 2 or 4 bases wide), the owning player chooses which to use.

For impact/melee - if the BG is fighting 2 different enemy BGs that would allow an additional dice the owning player chooses which BG to use it against. This is exactly the same principle as choosing which dice to lose when allocating dice lost due to disruption etc.

I think we may also need to clarify that if the Commanded Shot is aiding a combat then it may not also shoot from an unengaged file.
jonphilp
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:01 pm

Re: Play Test

Post by jonphilp »

In my own clumsy way I was trying to get to the same position as stated by KevinJ. If we are using markers for CS & RM guns we should be consistent in how they are used let's not make the rule set more complex.
Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”