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 »

The second battle was between my Swedes and another friends Imperialists. There were three of us, so I played as Imperialist to see how the enemy CS could affect my Kuirassiere.

Swedes
As above

Imperialists
3 Sup Hvy Arm P/P Hse
1 Sup Arm P/P Hse
1 Avg Unarm C/P Hse
1 BG of 4 Drag
1 BG of 2 Med Arty
1 Sup LT
2 Avg LT
1 BG of Avg 6 MF M
1 BG of C LH
1 GC 2 TC

Unfortunately, my opponent wasn't interested in trying to take on my Kuirassiere and the terrain and his deployment meant that the mounted never got into contact until after, he had decided to ditch his CS to move further.

The only influence was his carbine Hse v mine where the CS meant he outshot me.
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:We tried 2 battles today.
Appreciate the effort, it is being very helpful :D

Overall, this works much better
Good to hear.

With regards to points fop CS, I am much happier with the latest proposals. However, the difference between the Hse and DH/Cav cost may be too great. An extra dice gives more advantage when you are rolling fewer dice. So a Hse BG which is roiling 4 dice gets more benefit from a 5th dice than a DH unit rolling 6 dice does from a 7th dice or rolling 8 and getting a 9th dice. The benefit in negating a -ve POA gives more advantage if you are rolling more dice. These would seem to balance out and so maybe the points costs should be evened out between Hse and DH/Cav.

In addition, the benefit of an extra dice in impact and melee will make a big difference to Sup and Elite mounted. So maybe the cost for Superior and Elite CS should increase?

Food for thought again :-)
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
benjones1211
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 353
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Play Test

Post by benjones1211 »

Another Playtest

Early Royalist Cornish option vs Eastern Association Parliament

Cornish
4 x TC
8 x Superior P&S Musket*
1 x 3 Dragoons
1 x Cavalier Superior Armoured
2 x Cavalier Average Armoured

Eastern Association
1 X GC
1 x FC
2 X TC
4 x Armoured DH
2 x Superior P&S
1 x Light Guns
4 x Average P&X
1 x 4 Dragoons

Basic battle report
Frontal charge by Cornish across an enclosed field, met by stern firepower, Cornish went in, won on one flank lost on the other, but managed to roll parliament up. Parliamentarian Flank march came on turn 3, Royalist held them off and a Cavalier unit broke a DH unit.
Cornish losses 2 out of 12, Parliament 12 out of 12.

Dragoons acted as they should, my dragoons had an obstacle which they hid behind, came out, horse moved towards them immediately went back in. His dragoons where in a village, came out to shoot, came too close, charged, went slow due to terrain, Cornish went fast just clipped them, dead Dragoons.

Having to spend less on DH and Cavaliers meant even though both these armies where superior heavy they managed to get to 12 BG's.

Again BG's of Average stayed around a while, we also use an extra -1 CT if 50% loss (-2 at 50%), we felt this also worked well although it did win the game for me as a Fragmented 3 base Average unit got hit once, had a GC within 12, no rear support rolled 8, and so failed by 1
+2 GC, -2 Frag -2 50% loss, gave me the last attrition point needed.

Had an interesting point come up.
6 Commanded out shot, alongside 2 Light Artillery, alongside 6 commanded out shot. Can they march together. We felt they could as the rules specified that divisions can ignore artillery for the purposes of having to be one base width apart. This may need to be specifically mentioned in the amendments which ever way its ruled.
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 »

Played another game to test out CS last night. Early 30YW Swedes v Early Louis XIV French again.

French
2 Sup Arm P/P DH
2 Sup Unarm IM/P Cav
2 Sup infantry 4/2 IF/M* with arm pike
2 Avg infantry 4/2 IF/M* with unarm pike
1 musketter company IF/M*
2 BG of 3 Drag
1 BG of 2 Med Arty
1 GC and 2 TC

Swedish
3 Sup brigades (2 with Reg Gun)
1 Avg brigade with RG
2 Avg Arm P/P DG with CS
1 Avg Arm P/P Hse with CS
1 Avg Arm P/P Hse
1 Avg Unarm C/P Hse with CS
1 BG of 4 Drag
1 BG of 2 Med Arty
1 GC and 2 TC

My army was the same as our previous game; my opponent had given his cavaliers melee pistol as per the proposed list changes and had made them unarmoured, using the points saved to get another BG of dragoons. Again, we were still using original points, with 8 points for average CS (for Hse and DH).

The cavalry clash on my left flank (involving all the cavalry as the right flank was full of enclosed fields) was a really tense affair. The CS balanced the battle very well and eventually we each lost 3 BGs of mounted. The rules for armour also worked well (reducing the cavaliers re-roll by one level when facing my armoured mounted).

The shooting of the CS was totally ineffective. In 3 rounds of shooting before I was charged they caused no base losses.

We used the current proposals for autobreak (i.e. we didn't make it -1 to CTs for each 25% casualties - I am very unsure about this as it affects all 4 strong mounted units quite significantly).

Overall a very close and enjoyable game which ended up 17-8 to my opponent. The small size of my army let me down (oh for another 1 attrition point).

We will now try using the revised points for mounted.
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 had another play test last night, using the following:
Revised points;
Revised CS proposal (latest version), with CS costing 4/8/12/16 points for poor through to elite;
Revised armour (with a reduction in re-rolls if your opponent has better armour);
Revised artillery to hit;
Revised dragoons; and
Revised autobreak.

I was using my trusty Swedes again; my opponent (not my usual one) was using Early 30YW Catholic.

Swedes
3 Sup brigades (2 with RG)
1 Avg brigade with RG
1 BG of 4 dragoons
1 BG of 2 hvy arty
2 BGs of 4 Avg arm P/P DH with CS
1 BG of 4 Avg arm P/P Hse with CS
1 BG of 4 Avg unarm C/P Hse with CS
1 BG of 4 Avg arm P/P Hse
1 GC and 2 TC

Imperialists
2 Sup Later Tercios
1 Avg Later Tercio
1 BG of 4 LH with carbine
1 BG of 3 dragoons
1 BG of 2 med arty
4 BGs of 4 Sup hvy arm P/P Hse
1 BG of 4 Avg unarm C/P Hse
1 GC and 2 or 3 TC

It was perfect terrain for a mounted clash with one open flank and one restricted flank containing a couple of enclosed fields.

The mounted clash was very close, justifying the cost for the CS, with the Swedes losing 3 BGs of mounted and the Imperialists 4 BGs.

The infantry clash in the centre saw the vaunted Swedish brigades thrown back by the Imperialist tercios, while the death of my dragoons on the left when they left their terrain and couldn’t regain it when the enemy LH came to support their dragoons, meant a victory for the wrong side (but a close one).

Overall, from my point of view, a big thumbs up for the proposed changes.

However, my opponents comment was that the changes to CS and armour were very complicated – he said it made it a bit like playing DBMM (where it seems like certain troops get a + if it is a Saturday and the wind is in the East) which he hates. I don’t mind the extra complexity, however, I did realise afterwards that I was doing the armour wrong in one combat where my armoured horse (without CS) were uphill to his heavily armoured horse and I forgot that better armour gives a + if you are at a net -, which was the case here.
The armour proposals and the CS proposals do add an extra level of complexity which I can see some players not liking.
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 »

Thank you for a good comprehensive report. I may be getting confused, but I believe that the current proposal is that we just use rerolls for better armour, in which case you played it right and that is one less bit of complexity. I would argue that the Commanded Shot position is no more complex than currently, where you can have half a BG protected and half not. At least it would all be the same for each BG.
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:
Overall, from my point of view, a big thumbs up for the proposed changes.
Always nice to hear 8) And thanks for the ongoing testing.

On complexity I think the CS suggestion may be a little more so than the rules as they stand currently but not, IMO, by much and I think it is worth it in this case and I think the other suggestions are changes but do not add complexity (just a bit of time to adjust) so we should be OK.
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
benjones1211
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 353
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Play Test

Post by benjones1211 »

Another ECW playtest

This time 1643 Parliament against 1646 Royalist

One flank had a lot of terrain, the other some, the middle was open.

Parliament (All Average)
4 x Pistol, Pistol Armoured Horse+ CS
1 x Carbine, Pistol Horse
6 x P&S Average
1 x 4 Dragoons
1 x Med Art
2 x 2 Cuir Hvy Arm, Pistol, Pistol

Royalist
3 x Avg P&S
3 x Sup 6xMusketeers
2 x 3 Dragoons
4 x Sup Arm Cavalier Pistol, Pistol

Just going over the bits the rules used

Both sets of infantry started their lines on the flank with terrain leaving despite the terrain a very open Cavalry flank (right for Royalist), here Parliament had 4 x Pistol, Pistol Armoured Horse+ CS supported by 1 Cuir. Royalist had 3 Cavaliers.


Cavaliers took one look at 4 x Pistol, Pistol Armoured Horse+ CS and refused the flank, but eventually they had to go in, only one could reach on the left hand end of the line so went in and lost over 2 turns, impact, melee, melee , death role after each loss. Went in on end unit and then used third element (as lost one on impact) to expand on the left side rather than into the unit on the right. (both units had generals). This brought up an interesting problem. Although the cavaliers where only fighting the left hand unit the right hand one was an overlap, with the CS on the file that caused the overlap. We talked over whether this gives the unit in overlap 2 dice or 1. We decided on one as that is what overlaps give, we also said that as the CS was in this file it couldn't shoot as that file was fighting, just the way it falls. Small diagram below
H H H H
H H+CS H+CS H
C C C

when this cavalier died the P Horse pursued losing its CS and impacting another Cavalier. The other end of the line the Cavalier charged into the right hand H, but this time it was Sup Cavalier w General, against Avg Horse w/o. This Cavalier won taking the H to 3 and disrupting them, also expanded to the right to not be contacting unit to left.
P H went fragged in melee. The one that had pursued went disrupted, but didn't lose a base. Decision time. The unit providing flank help to the fragged unit could get on the flank of the cavalier charged by the pursuer on a CMT, but would lose its CS, and chose to do that. The other unit turned so it would be heading for the flank of the right hand cavalier that was winning.
The right hand cavalier won and eventually charged the supporting 2 man Cuir, the other Horse with CS intercepted losing its CS.
The left hand cavalier was charged in the flank and eventually routed.

At this point time was up, a 2.5 hr game with set terrain and starting 6" forward.
Royalist had inflicted 14 out 15 and Parliament 4 out of 12 a 16-4 win to me. The Royalist had won the left flank and the infantry centre, the Parliament foot where down to 2 3 man average units, so under the old rules would have routed and lost the game. But despite the lasting a little longer this is not a problem.

Tom thought the CS worked really well, they forced the Cavaliers to charge rather than just sitting off, where the unit had a General, it won, where it didn't and was faced by superiors with a general it lost. The unit w/o CS on the other flank lost to disrupted Cavaliers to show the difference, All four eventually lost their CS, one from pursuing, one from routing, one from a 5 MU move, one from charging in intercept, the last two where choices that where made for tactical reasons. He felt the CS where well worth the money, we are currently charging them as Regimental Guns as that is what we can use on the army creator. He also realised that under most circumstances he would eventually lose all of them. He also thought as you would be generally using them defensively and Carbine, Pistol is the same as Pistol, Pistol now then he might go for the former to have a better chance of disrupting the Cavaliers before they charge, although this would give the Cavaliers a better chance to win on impact.

Armour only came up once the Cavaliers fighting the HA Cuir, it does mean the Cavaliers with a general really didn't feel the pain at all as reroll was reduced from 2 to 1.
Last edited by benjones1211 on Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Thank you for a good write up Ben. A couple of questions:

Commanded Shot - were you allowing an additional dice in melee if the horse to which they were attached were otherwise even?

Dragoons - how were they used and did the changes have any effect?
benjones1211
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 353
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Play Test

Post by benjones1211 »

Yes we allowed the extra die in melee as well as impact if otherwise even.

So the first melee round had Parliament unit that was contacted had 5 dice, Cavaliers with overlap to left had 5 dice, then parliament had 1 dice as overlap on right of cavaliers (although the CS was here, we decided the overlap only got 1 dice not 2). I lost all 3 rounds not to the unit in front but the fact the overlap hit each time. On impact I had 4 dice to 5 lost 4-3 (I was superior w general, he was Avg with general), melee 3-3 draw with unit but lost 4-3 due to overlap, next round drew 4-4 (I had 4 dice they had 5) but lost 5-4 due to overlap and failed death roll every time. His dice where slightly better than mine despite having better rerolls. His average unit on the overlap had no general.

Tom had a unit of four dragoons on the extreme right, going through the terrain, one of the reasons the cavaliers retreated a bit on that flank was so they where not being shot at by them unless they came into the open. The unit did nothing due to the melees and the fact once it was within 6MU, it was slowed down.

I had 2x3 dragoons on the left flank, both at the first time the artillery shot at them took a hit, rolled a 1 on the death roll and then proceeded to hide behind the Cavaliers that took out the Carbine, Pistol unit w/o a CS and eventually the artillery in the pursuit.
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 »

Thanks Ben. Do you think that the extra melee dice is justified or is it a step too far?
benjones1211
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 353
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Play Test

Post by benjones1211 »

That's a good question.

I don't know, obviously I took that into account when I first looked at my 3 cavaliers v his 4 units with CS, I new that I would get overlaps on the ends but in the middle I would have more dice against me, and being Superior v Average was not enough to feel justified. I would have been happier going in knowing once we were in melee I would have the advantage after having been at a disadvantage in the impact. But that's the same if it had been an original line of Mtd + commanded shot in-between, due to being at a minus to the CS.

Under the original rules his four units with 4 commanded shot would have been 12 wide which would have been the same width as my 3 Cavaliers, so losing any bases would have made it instantly difficult. Now he is 8 wide whilst I am 12 so some losses don't affect too badly as long as I don't go below 10, allowing 2 overlaps.

So after rambling on again, I feel the added dice at melee makes the line much harder to go for, but no harder than under the old rules, its just a different harder, if you get my drift, so I think the overall effect for game balance is the same.
RonanTheLibrarian
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:58 am

Re: Play Test

Post by RonanTheLibrarian »

(just re-read the AAR - question answered)
"No plan survives the first contact with the dice."

"There is something wrong with our bloody dice today!"
viking123
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: Play Test

Post by viking123 »

I am having some difficulty with the commanded shot references in Ben's report.
In the rep[ort Ben talks about the CS being on one file and giving it an extra dice. He goes on that as that file was an overlap they only gave it one dice as an overlap.

Yet in the discussion on "Commanded Shot" Nik said that "the BG with commanded shot would count any base as Protected". In which case it does not matter which file has the CS.

What am I misunderstanding?
Jhykronos
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Play Test

Post by Jhykronos »

viking123 wrote:I am having some difficulty with the commanded shot references in Ben's report.
In the rep[ort Ben talks about the CS being on one file and giving it an extra dice. He goes on that as that file was an overlap they only gave it one dice as an overlap.

Yet in the discussion on "Commanded Shot" Nik said that "the BG with commanded shot would count any base as Protected". In which case it does not matter which file has the CS.

What am I misunderstanding?
I don't think it's a matter of files. They are playing the suggested rule that commanded shot give an extra dice in situations where the POA's are equal or in the CS unit's favor.

If I understand the description right, the units lined up like this (C = Cavalier, H= Horse with commanded shot)

__HHHH
__HHHH
CCCC__

The cavaliers got 5 dice (2x2 + 1 for the overlap), while the contacted horse unit got 5 (4x1 + 1 for the CS), and the overlapping horse unit provided 1 more (not 2).
....


It does bring up a good point with how this should work with multi-unit melees... if a unit has equal or better POA vs one enemy but less against another, do they get the extra dice?
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 »

Jhykronos wrote: It does bring up a good point with how this should work with multi-unit melees... if a unit has equal or better POA vs one enemy but less against another, do they get the extra dice?
This came up in one of our playtests. My unit of P/P DH with CS was charged by a unit of Impact Mtd/P Cavaliers and P/P DH. We played it that the CS made the melee even POA between my DH and the Cavaliers and gave one extra dice against the enemy DH.
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 »

benjones1211 wrote:
So after rambling on again, I feel the added dice at melee makes the line much harder to go for, but no harder than under the old rules, its just a different harder, if you get my drift, so I think the overall effect for game balance is the same.
This is the sort of effect for the game that we have been aiming for. The issues raised about CS were not that its effect was wrong but with other things.
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 »

benjones1211 wrote: Cavaliers took one look at 4 x Pistol, Pistol Armoured Horse+ CS and refused the flank, but eventually they had to go in, only one could reach on the left hand end of the line so went in and lost over 2 turns, impact, melee, melee , death role after each loss. Went in on end unit and then used third element (as lost one on impact) to expand on the left side rather than into the unit on the right. (both units had generals). This brought up an interesting problem. Although the cavaliers where only fighting the left hand unit the right hand one was an overlap, with the CS on the file that caused the overlap. We talked over whether this gives the unit in overlap 2 dice or 1. We decided on one as that is what overlaps give, we also said that as the CS was in this file it couldn't shoot as that file was fighting, just the way it falls.
The overlap is clearly something that needs to be defined.

A very easy solution is to say that an overlap can only ever contribute 1 dice to a combat - and I'd go with that as it is very clean.

Thoughts?
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 »

viking123 wrote:I am having some difficulty with the commanded shot references in Ben's report.
In the rep[ort Ben talks about the CS being on one file and giving it an extra dice. He goes on that as that file was an overlap they only gave it one dice as an overlap.

Yet in the discussion on "Commanded Shot" Nik said that "the BG with commanded shot would count any base as Protected". In which case it does not matter which file has the CS.

What am I misunderstanding?
That the position of the CS marker would affect whether it can shoot or not I think. No effect on combat though.
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
benjones1211
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 353
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Play Test

Post by benjones1211 »

There where two parts to it.
As the overlapping troop had CS (doesn't matter where it is) do they get an additional dice on the overlap. Our decision was no.
As the overlapping troop had a CS and it was on the file which was the overlap file could it shoot, our decision was no as that's the luck of the draw. If it had been on the other file it would have been able to shoot. We also ruled it couldn't be moved to the other file while the combat was on.
Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”