Triumph of Nations Errata

[terrys]

Are you about to surprise your opponents with a Tyrolean army then Brett ?

I certainly agree that the terrain should be Southern Europe.

[BrettPT]

Haha
Pretty transparent!
Yes, I have just received a bunch of old glory tyroleans that are next on the paint block.

Quite nice figures - I just have to get used to paying 18 points a base for an unreformed LI (ouch!).
Not sure how to win a game with them, but steep hills will help

[KendallB]

Not really a surprise when he told us all about it last Sunday. I have already started making plans....

[MikeHorah]

I certainly agree that the terrain should be Southern Europe.

More than happy with that as I was really keen to give the Tyrolean revolt a good go. The trouble is I do a lot of 28mm as you know and so far only Eureka seem to do nice Tyroleans ( as opposed to Austrian Jaegers by lots of people) and they are a tad expensive when you need a lot of them!

[BrettPT]

A couple of errata needed for the French 1814 list in ToN:

(pg 113) - French Garde Nationale should have the min/max reversed to 12 & 16; and
(pg 114) - Garde de Honneur has a maximum of 8 bases, while together with the Eclaires, only 4 bases in total may be fielded. Presumably the total maximum of both units should read 8.

[Blathergut]

Any word on when the errata and buildings rewrite will be posted?

[Blathergut]

Wonders again amidst a host of pins dropping.

[Blathergut]

Sends out the search-hussars for Terry.

[hazelbark]

Hussars nothing. Scour the pubs with lancers.

[Blathergut]

Sends out a company of Godivas in case that works!

[Blathergut]

French Infantry Corps 1812:

1. Up to two mixed divisions are allowed (but only one French). Does this mean:

a) I can make a division consisting of Swiss/Croatian/Portuguese and have it as my second mixed division (since this would not be "French").
b) The second mixed division needs to come from the Allied Contingents list.

2. Mixed divisions are restricted to core cavalry only. But further on, Allied cavalry may be used in Allied mixed divisions. May I:

a) include core cavalry (hussars/chasseurs)(not identified specifically as French in the list) in an Allied mixed division?
b) have only Allied cavalry in an Allied mixed division?

[KeefM]

1. The way I have been interpreting it is that "French" in this case means only from the main French list. This squares up with other similar references in other lists. Thus the Swiss/Croatian/Portuguese are in the "French" list and count as a "French" division. So . . . my take on your two questions would be:

a) No.
b) Yes.

2. Following the above interpretation regarding "French" and "Allied", I would say the "French" cavalry come from the main list, and "Allied" only come those listed from the Allied list. It is worth also noting that cavalry from the Allied list can be used in Cavalry Divisions with cavalry from the French list (but not vice versa). So . . . on this basis, my take would be:

a) No.
b) Yes.


Both are interesting questions in the sense of what makes a "French" unit or division within this list. (For example, can the Swiss/etc be included in the compulsory "French Infantry Division" required by the list ?)

Overall, I guess there is an element of 'author's licence' here in as much as the lists are trying to portray a wide array of historic mix n match. From my reading, the Swiss regiments in Russia appeared in Corps and Division structures alongside (intermixed with) regular French army units (eg light infantry) even when brigaded together. On that basis, it doesn't seem unreasoanble to treat them as French as the lists have done. The Neapolitans were pretty much contained as their own ("mixed") division and under their own officers, as were many (but by no means all) of the "German" allied units. Having said that, I don't think the Allied list portrays some of the richness of other allied nations units (for example, Prussian and Austrian divisions) which were more numerous and featured far more prominently than the Neapolitans did in the 1812 campaign. And, yet, some of the other more numerous allied nations have their own lists (Italy and Polish for example).

However, as with ALL the lists, the lists are merely an attempt by the authors to reduce considerable historic diversity/complexity into a game-friendly format - and not based on specific battles nor on orders-of-battle at particular points in time - and,thus, some licence was always going to be required when creating generic lists to represent a nation's army !

To that end, the list doens't make a bad fist of things. For example, when I field any Allied Division, I still have to bring along at least 1 "French" Infantry Division and which must contain at least 1 small light infantry unit (cos no light infantry are available to be fielded in an Allied division) no matter what I have included within my Allied Division.

[Blathergut]

Makes sense. Thanks for the detailed thoughts.

[BrettPT]

One issue with all of the 1809 Austrian lists is that they include light dragoons, which ceased to exist in 1801, after which these regiments were split between Dragoons and Chevaulegers.

[MikeHorah]

One issue with all of the 1809 Austrian lists is that they include light dragoons, which ceased to exist in 1801, after which these regiments were split between Dragoons and Chevaulegers.

Yes I agree we get the nomenclature mixed up in 1809 but functionally Light Dragoons and Chevaulegers are the same on a battle field. They went from being light cavalry to dragoons and back again with the names changing. Given the short period when the Dragoons and Chavauleger all became light dragoons the uniforms were often hybrids of white or green with a casquet or shako and combinations and one wonders how far in practice their regulations and practice caught up with each other.

[BrettPT]

Yes. I have always ignored the name and just treated 'light drgoons' as Chevauleger. It's actually quite handy when putting together Austrian armies to have more Av Drilled LC available to field!

[SirGarnet]

Just checking - nothing official released yet? Should we be going with the catches and analysis in this thread for the now?

[BrettPT]

The French 1814 list needs a couple of items of errata.

The min/max for the conscripts is 16/12. Terry has confirmed this should read 12/16 but the change should be included in the next ToN errata.
One for you Mike

There is also an errata required with the Guard LC. The list says maximum 8 bases for Guarde d’honneur, however the combined Guarde d’Honneur and Eclaire total is 4 bases. I assume this combined total should be 8 bases.

As background, there were 4 regiments of GdH and 3 of Ec in the army. Each GdH had a paper starting strength in 1813 of 1,000 men, however by 1814 (at La Rotherie) the GdH were down to around 1,200 men for the 4 regiments (which were brigaded together) in total.

The 3 Ec regiments I believe were raised in December 1813 – just in time for the start of the 1814 campaign in Jan/Feb – and had a supposed paper strength of 1,000 men each. However looking at orders of battle it is pretty clear they never managed to put anything like this many chaps into saddles (maybe 4-600 men per regiment being more accurate).

My take is that the 1814 list should most accurately have a max of 6 bases of GdH (small unit, or a single large FoGN unit of all 4 regiments) and say up to 8 bases of Ec (probably small units), with say a 12 base max for both combined.

- However the simplest amendment to the published list would be to change the current max for both combined from 4 to 8.

Thoughts?
Cheers
Brett

[MikeHorah]

Sounds pretty sensible to me BrettPT thanks

[bahdahbum]

And let us not forget the crucial change ...the russian guard cossacks to average drilled lancers, guard as it was a regular regiment ! it has been discussed, agreed but never done

By the way , the french Garde d'Honneur were , folllowing certain witnesses, poor horsemen . Even when not in battle some would just fall of their horses ( from french sources )