Genral options

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Napoleonics.

Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Blathergut, Slitherine Core

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Genral options

Post by ravenflight »

Hi All,

I'm still yet to play my first game so am definitely not speaking with the voice of experience.

I'm wondering how much effect general quality, charisma and troop quality can interact.

Those following my posts will probably remember that I'm going to be building (if I ever get around to it) an 1806 French force. From the book "Emperors and Eagles" there seems to be several 'stand out' options for the French.

Firstly, they get the full options of Generals. Everything and in decent numbers... indeed, if you have more than two divisional generals, the third and fourth must be skilled!

Secondly, they get to have up to two Charismatic Generals.

Thirdly, none of their army is low quality... the whole lot is Average Drilled at the very worst.

So, I guess my question is "are 2 'skilled' or 'exceptional' Divisional commanders worth the points, and is Charisma worth the points?"

My guess it that Charisma is worth it because it gives you a bonus on the dice when trying to get people to do things. I'm not sure that quality really helps that much.

thoughts?

With examples if possible?
Blathergut
Field Marshal - Elefant
Field Marshal - Elefant
Posts: 5875
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada

Re: Genral options

Post by Blathergut »

The 1805 French is my favourite list. Lots of possible ways to build a corps.

-I will always take an exceptional + charisma corps commander...lots of points to hand out each turn or use himself moving with a unit...plus a reroll on one missed cohesion test

-The only 'problem' with the army is the restriction of competent divisional commanders. You don't need all that skill with the exceptional corps commander.

-Charisma is well worth the 10 points in my opinion. In fact, with the army, you can have 3 charismatic leaders if you add in a cavalry commander from the reserve. Where the charisma really tells is with a veteran force rolling 4 dice for cohesion tests. Make them Guard superiors and they are also rerolling 1's and 2's!

-I wouldn't bother with exceptional divisional commanders. Too expensive. At least with the CC you have that chance to gain an extra unit and get the points back. Being better quality, the army is expensive. It helps that it has the least minimum bases of the French lists and Guard count towards those minimums if you take them. The superior, veteran Guard shock cavalry, with artillery and a charismatic divisional (or corps!! :twisted: ) commander, is almost unstoppable. I had toyed with running it large the next time out! 8)
BrettPT
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Genral options

Post by BrettPT »

I would echo blathers comments. Exceptional cc worth considering to get the best chance of winning initiative.
Forget about exceptional doc's though.

A skilled dc in a high aggression list gives you an outflank option . My thoughts are that at 800 points 1806 french are a 3 division list.
Cheers
Brett
ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Genral options

Post by ravenflight »

Thanks for your comments all:

Ok, so I've made up a 3 Division army which means that I HAVE to have a skilled commander.

As per previous posts I'm trying to keep it as much as possible to III Corps at the Battle of Auerstadt, so my tentative army has Gudin as Skilled and Morand and Friant as Competent Charismatic. The idea being that (as per above) Gudin may be used for outflanking purposes or filling gaps so needs to have the skill level where Morant and Friant will be doing the actual fighting so get the better quality troops and Charisma.

My question is would it be better to have my Cavalry and/or Artillery NOT in the division that will be doing the outflanks and plugging gaps or doesn't it really matter?

Thanks.
Saxonian
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:00 am

Re: Genral options

Post by Saxonian »

If you are going for the exceptional CC, chances are you will be attacking more often than not. Using artillery units when attacking can be challenging.
One of the options to consider is the use of your minimum artillery bases as attachments rather than separate units - check the errata for EandA for the exact rules.
If you are intending to go with a flank march, remember that the units that come on may need to travel a bit to get into a position to be effective, so having a cavalry division do this is something to think about, with horse arty or attachments if available.
ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Genral options

Post by ravenflight »

Saxonian wrote:If you are going for the exceptional CC, chances are you will be attacking more often than not. Using artillery units when attacking can be challenging.
One of the options to consider is the use of your minimum artillery bases as attachments rather than separate units - check the errata for EandA for the exact rules.
If you are intending to go with a flank march, remember that the units that come on may need to travel a bit to get into a position to be effective, so having a cavalry division do this is something to think about, with horse arty or attachments if available.
Thanks.

I knew about the artillery, but I still need to have a battery. The Attachments are limited to 1 per division. I've got 3 divisions, so can't get rid of the 4th artillery minima without taking a fourth division... which is prohibitively expensive. So, I have 2 divisions with attachments, and one without and a battery of medium guns. I can't see any way around it???
Saxonian
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:00 am

Re: Genral options

Post by Saxonian »

I don't have the list in front of me - is it possible to take the artillery unit as horse artillery?
This is a good option to put with your cav division, use the historical tactic of forcing the enemy into square and then blasting them. Squares have no shooting at medium range.

Don't get me wrong, foot artillery is very useful on the attack. Just not as easy to use as it is in defence, as you need to advance and unlimber, and then prolong into medium range. And I can tell you from personal experience it can be frustrating trying to prolong drilled artillery with a CMT, as you cannot attach a commander. Veterans do it more easily, but of course they cost more points.
viperofmilan
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:26 am

Re: Genral options

Post by viperofmilan »

Charismatic is always worth the 10 points - if you have them. As a rookie, I used to flank march with a cavalry division; now I never do so. Cavalry is too useful on-table, and the arrival of flank marchers still a bit chancy. The only time I use an exceptional divisional commander is with my Spring 1813 French. I use a charismatic EDC to command my 5 units of required conscripts. Has worked pretty well. I disagree somewhat with what has been said about no real uses for skilled DCs. If I had my druthers, I'd run all skilled DCs. All of this is tough with your specific list and point total. Our group always runs 900 point lists. This seems to work best in bringing out the differences between the various lists. We also have banned the use of guard cavalry or shock cavalry. This has led both to more historically "average joe" kind of lists, but to much more interesting games as well. As someone said earlier in this thread, shock guard heavy cavalry with an officer and artillery attachment is well-nigh unstoppable no matter what you decide to do with it.
BrettPT
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Genral options

Post by BrettPT »

viperofmilan wrote:Charismatic is always worth the 10 points - if you have them. .....We also have banned the use of guard cavalry or shock cavalry.
Interesting approach Viper. In our group, while shock cavalry have not created any comments of being overpowered, Guard cavalry certainly have - Guard cavalry units (especially cheap av drilled Gd LC) being colloquially referred to as a 'units of cheese'. A 1813-4 Russian Reserve Cavalry Division is the ultimate fromage that a gentlemen would never field.
The amendments to rear support and testing to see routers for guard have helped a bit, but the main issue to my mind remains the Guard combat line - Gd generally drop 1 cohesion level when line troops would drop 2, and cannot be broken in combat if steady.
No issue with Gd infantry, it's just the cavalry which are overpowered IMO.

Re. charismatic, I have taken to rolling a different coloured extra dice (white, for his winning smile) for the 'charismaticness'.
In practise - and contrary to my expectations - I've found the results surprising. Often when the charismatic dice comes up a 5-6, so has one of the 'usual' dice - so being charismatic made no difference. Generally I have found that having a single charismatic general passes you a roll that you would otherwise have failed, maybe twice per game - so 10 points seems about right. They would be more effective in a conscript army and less effective in a veteran army. It's an interesting exercise and one that has led me to no longer automatically take as many charismatic generals as possible.

Cheers
Brett
pugsville
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:42 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Genral options

Post by pugsville »

Why always laying into the Russians for cheesiness? Late French with conscript guard cavalry is cheesier. The Russian Reserve Guard Corps dont have many great combinations, they cant have any other corps troops themselves (other than a regular cavalry division) so no infantry at all. And the other Russian Corps in 1813-14 have large maximums that restrict choice greatly.
hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Genral options

Post by hazelbark »

BrettPT wrote:
viperofmilan wrote:Charismatic is always worth the 10 points - if you have them.

In practise - and contrary to my expectations - I've found the results surprising. Often when the charismatic dice comes up a 5-6, so has one of the 'usual' dice - so being charismatic made no difference. Generally I have found that having a single charismatic general passes you a roll that you would otherwise have failed, maybe twice per game - so 10 points seems about right. They would be more effective in a conscript army and less effective in a veteran army. It's an interesting exercise and one that has led me to no longer automatically take as many charismatic generals as possible.
The odds effect when you add another dice are dramatic. Going from memory
needing 1@ 5+
2d6 =55%
3d6 =70%
4d6 =80%
hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Genral options

Post by hazelbark »

BrettPT wrote:
viperofmilan wrote:We also have banned the use of guard cavalry or shock cavalry.
Interesting approach Viper. In our group, while shock cavalry have not created any comments of being overpowered, Guard cavalry certainly have - Guard cavalry units (especially cheap av drilled Gd LC) being colloquially referred to as a 'units of cheese'. A 1813-4 Russian Reserve Cavalry Division is the ultimate fromage that a gentlemen would never field.
The amendments to rear support and testing to see routers for guard have helped a bit, but the main issue to my mind remains the Guard combat line - Gd generally drop 1 cohesion level when line troops would drop 2, and cannot be broken in combat if steady.
No issue with Gd infantry, it's just the cavalry which are overpowered IMO.
I was a proponent for non-scenarios for what Viper outlined.
If I show up w/2-4 cuirassier the entire game revolves around the delivery of them and the counter to them. It transforms the game to a sub-Corps game. And really has what amounts to 2 decisive turns. The cavalry either batters its way through or the force is mustered to repel the attack and then they likely don't even attack. It makes it a competition game and not Napoleonic's because the scale is gone. Its like judging Waterloo on one of Ney's cuirassier brigades. Its distorting.

Its also a preference for wanting a Corps sized action (we play at 900 usually) whereas 800 isn't a Corps. I think this was an error in game construction as much as I like the rules I wish the battles were more a standard Corps level. One 1000 point game is often better than two 800 point games.

Also many of our most enjoyable games have come from the infantry action with a little mounted support. You ramp up mounted too much in qty or power and they resolve the game.

Its a tough balance because the 3 arms were critical to warfare. But even one large light cavalry unit can force even good infantry to be honest. So we settled on restricting the arms race for cuirassier and guard. We loosen it up from time to time an for scenarios.
MDH
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: Genral options

Post by MDH »

hazelbark wrote:
BrettPT wrote:
viperofmilan wrote:We also have banned the use of guard cavalry or shock cavalry.
Interesting approach Viper. In our group, while shock cavalry have not created any comments of being overpowered, Guard cavalry certainly have - Guard cavalry units (especially cheap av drilled Gd LC) being colloquially referred to as a 'units of cheese'. A 1813-4 Russian Reserve Cavalry Division is the ultimate fromage that a gentlemen would never field.
The amendments to rear support and testing to see routers for guard have helped a bit, but the main issue to my mind remains the Guard combat line - Gd generally drop 1 cohesion level when line troops would drop 2, and cannot be broken in combat if steady.
No issue with Gd infantry, it's just the cavalry which are overpowered IMO.
I was a proponent for non-scenarios for what Viper outlined.
If I show up w/2-4 cuirassier the entire game revolves around the delivery of them and the counter to them. It transforms the game to a sub-Corps game. And really has what amounts to 2 decisive turns. The cavalry either batters its way through or the force is mustered to repel the attack and then they likely don't even attack. It makes it a competition game and not Napoleonic's because the scale is gone. Its like judging Waterloo on one of Ney's cuirassier brigades. Its distorting.

Its also a preference for wanting a Corps sized action (we play at 900 usually) whereas 800 isn't a Corps. I think this was an error in game construction as much as I like the rules I wish the battles were more a standard Corps level. One 1000 point game is often better than two 800 point games.

Also many of our most enjoyable games have come from the infantry action with a little mounted support. You ramp up mounted too much in qty or power and they resolve the game.

Its a tough balance because the 3 arms were critical to warfare. But even one large light cavalry unit can force even good infantry to be honest. So we settled on restricting the arms race for cuirassier and guard. We loosen it up from time to time an for scenarios.
I rather agree - it's a fine point about what ought to comprise a standard game and how that impacts the lists. As I have said elsewhere the minima did create some problems in draft in exceeding the standard points total and had to be adjusted downwards . One also had to consider the limited pockets of people new to the era or to the hobby - the bigger the minimum size of a game the more figures. Even then some have said it needs too many. But for myself the look and feel of miniatures justifies the numbers . It's like good roast beef - if you don't like it pink eat cheese :lol:

On the whole the maxima - if taken 100% in a list plus attachments - tend to far exceed the standard game . That said it is only the tournament world that really needs such a provision and it is well able to adjust that if players want that and if it works. The rest of us can please ourselves when it comes to sizing a game and the maxima and minima are then really about maintaining the proportions of various types ( in broad terms Line Inf, Light Inf, artillery etc conscrips) within a given list shape and ORBAT.

As you say there is a minimum size below which it is harder to get the feel of combined arms grand tactics and it is around the standard game but that is number not an absolute number for every list.

It is s comparatively rare to get a historic battle where each side had only about a single Corps so you have to see it as modelling one part of a larger battle field that is off the edges of the table. Historic Corps ( or equivalent "Wings" and Columns" ) did range in size over the era but I would not claim to have done a huge statistical exercise measuring the points values of as many historical Corps orders of battle as I could find - many hundreds of them . It would be rather " pointless" :lol: given the classifications we use for Elan and Training etc ,and the points we assign them, are an entirely artificial construct so the data would be a bit of a " so what?".

I regularly play now 1000-1200 points - but for games running for 5-6 hours. That works fine.
terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4226
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Genral options

Post by terrys »

Interesting approach Viper. In our group, while shock cavalry have not created any comments of being overpowered, Guard cavalry certainly have - Guard cavalry units (especially cheap av drilled Gd LC) being colloquially referred to as a 'units of cheese'. A 1813-4 Russian Reserve Cavalry Division is the ultimate fromage that a gentlemen would never field.
There are certainly questions about the relative effectiveness of a mix of shock cavalry/guard/artillery/officers.
Individually all are easy to solve, but keeping the balance right is a problem.
Certainly removing the re-roll for guards in combat would help (a little), but I don't want to remove it for cohesion tests.
(Since guards drop cohesion as easily as any other unit - they need to recover better).
Another option would be for guards to use the same "effect of combat hits" line as all other units but give them an "ignore the first hit in combat" bonus - but not an additional one if it is a large unit.

I'd be tempted to make all shock cavalry impetuous - but that would give us problems with British cavalry, some of which are already impetuous but are 1 pt cheaper.
Daemionhunter
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:41 am

Re: Genral options

Post by Daemionhunter »

Shock and Guard cavalry give you an advantage in a cavalry fight but cost more points. In a narrow space they'll beat a more numerous opposing cavalry force. However, in the same terrain some poor conscripts in square will block Superior Veteran Guard Shock Cavalry long enough to let the rest of your force overwhelm the other parts of the battlefield. In wide open space they are vulnerable to flank charges if out numbered.
Are the points balanced for the cheapest AD Guard LC? Small unit of Guard for 48 points gets 5 dice versus a large unit of standard LC who get 7 dice in deep. Both can on average only disorder the other so initial impetus goes to whoever charges.
Not too bad.
I'm not sure the points are too imbalanced.
MDH
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: Genral options

Post by MDH »

Daemionhunter wrote:Shock and Guard cavalry give you an advantage in a cavalry fight but cost more points. In a narrow space they'll beat a more numerous opposing cavalry force. However, in the same terrain some poor conscripts in square will block Superior Veteran Guard Shock Cavalry long enough to let the rest of your force overwhelm the other parts of the battlefield. In wide open space they are vulnerable to flank charges if out numbered.
Are the points balanced for the cheapest AD Guard LC? Small unit of Guard for 48 points gets 5 dice versus a large unit of standard LC who get 7 dice in deep. Both can on average only disorder the other so initial impetus goes to whoever charges.
Not too bad.
I'm not sure the points are too imbalanced.
The last game I did was using all the rebased 28mm 1806 Prussians that I had - two Corps at 2,350 points- versus equivalent Two Corps of French one with a Cuirassier Division and one with a Guard Division. On a 12x6 three players played over two days . Lots of Prussian and Saxon Shock Cavalry - all consistent with the minima and maxima by the way. We lost the initiative as the Prussians - well with a +2 versus a +6 what else can one expect :lol:

The French lost but not one of the Prussian and Saxon Shock Cavalry Units actually managed to contact anything - a lot of running about (" like a wet hen" on my part :oops: ) and getting shot at needlessly :oops: again and one large unit routed and then rallied but so was spent as were several Saxon light cavalry who got beat by the French "dittos" so spent although both rallied. Some Bavarian light cavalry and Dragoons were beaten by a large unit of Prussian Hussars .

Of the French Guard only the artillery on the French side actually came into action - to good effect although being Guard as such did not make as huge a difference as being veteran.

The main effect of the Prussian and Saxon Shock cavalry was to force the cautious French player into a defensive posture where his main attack was focused- though a bolder French player might have taken a different more aggressive approach . His cuirassier division took a devil of time to come on - we each had two Divs off table at the start. And he did not opt to outflank :shock:

So it was the actions of the "poor bloody infantry "and guns that won and lost the day thanks to the well executed manoeuvres of my co-commander . So all those points for shock cavalry and Guards were not made much direct use of. In general the Saxon Heavies were used to protect the infantry by keeping the French Infantry back a bit .

Instructive I felt! But if Boney had been there ( aka T Shaw) we would have been beat.
hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Genral options

Post by hazelbark »

terrys wrote:
I'd be tempted to make all shock cavalry impetuous - but that would give us problems with British cavalry, some of which are already impetuous but are 1 pt cheaper.
I think this is something to strongly consider. Having Cuirassier come up and loiter within 6 MU of enemy units and just wait, seems very un Napoleonic. I don't recall a battle where good order Cuirassier did that for an appreciable amount of time. Perhaps not impetuous if disordered or spent.

The cavalry arm of decision was sent forward to engage not to feint.
hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Genral options

Post by hazelbark »

Daemionhunter wrote: some poor conscripts in square will block Superior Veteran Guard Shock Cavalry long enough to let the rest of your force overwhelm the other parts of the battlefield.
Maybe...
First there better be something preventing the cavalry ride through. One of the odd effects of square is that an opponents cavalry that passes through is very dangerous.

Give that shock cavalry rear support and/or an artillery piece. It is going to reduce that square no later than the second charge. At best it may be spent. As for overwhelming other parts. I find it pretty easy to deny a portion of the field while my shock cavalry arrives at the point of decision.

If I have the initiative this fight is likely occurring on turn 3 or 4 with the defender out of position or still working to gain the initiative. My attack goes off and if it fails I am stalled and if it wins I start rolling up the enemy. The heads I win and tails we draw nature of this is another part why we don't allow these in very often.

Oh and who needs to be guard veteran? Average with and officer or artillery is good enough. Dont' forget my horse battery that is probably going to fire six dice at your square.
deadtorius
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4960
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Re: Genral options

Post by deadtorius »

Lately I have been constantly facing off French Cuirassier. I find them impossible to stand up against and extremely hard to manage to rout off, especially if you only have lights. I managed to do it once with 3 full units of light cavalry, 1 charged other came in for flank support and 1 out back for rear support, even then I barely managed to break them and they ran into Nappy, exceptional and charismatic so they were back in pretty quick and my cavalry is spent and I think it ended wavering so I had some dice rolling to do before he came back again.
Aside from our last game where I had FF's and a couple squares standing in behind the FF's that managed to keep the cuirassier honest, although as Hazelkbark said I had on unit standing just outside 2 Mu for about 4 turns while it shot at my square with its attached artillery to no effect.
My only answer is to put an order in for some Russian and Austrian Cuirassier so I can meet the Frogs on even terms...
Blathergut
Field Marshal - Elefant
Field Marshal - Elefant
Posts: 5875
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada

Re: Genral options

Post by Blathergut »

By then I'll only be using Italian Guard infantry. :P
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion”