FOGN 2nd Edition

[Blathergut]

2. Field Fortifications: for 3 points this means they will always be a defender choice. Dead.finally found out what it's like to try and take one out when held by artillery. He threw four units of Russian guard infantry plus artillery at it and was blown away over several turns. FF are too deadly with the dice firing out of them. To make it so cheap to get for the defender now seems to make it a sure thing in every game (esp. needing 4+).



Cant claim to have much experience with these. Have rolled for them a couple of times in playtests but haven't got one yet. Aren't they only worth 20 in the points system? If they are that awesome why haven't people being taking them in the lists that have them already?

They are only available in a couple lists. I'd much rather see defender able to place/move a building to a spot he prefers. Keeps artillery out of it as well.

[Blathergut]

Perhaps both sides should have the same amount of points to spend and not tie it to initiative in the same way as now? Attacker gets a set of choices as does defender. Use initiative to determine attacker. Give the defender some options to speed himself up or slow down the attacker. Example: 2pts for a chance to have one attacking division need cmt's to move their first moves. Or 2pts for a defending division to be able to move on the first turn.

What sort of options do players think would improve the early part of the game?

[marty]

I dont suppose it has to be tied to initiative results although I think there still be some random element in the number of points you get to prevent it becoming predictable.

Aren't artillery in a field fortification fighting with the same number of dice as a normal unit requiring 6's to hit? Sure it's not easy to close with artillery but I would have thought once you did you would eventually break through? Could take a while though.

Martin

[BrettPT]

For what it's worth:

1. I too am a serial Austrian player. Sure we'll be defending most of the time, but you can easily get +4 or +5 on the dice (Agg 1 or 2 and a skilled CC and a skilled DC) with most lists if you want it. Take Charles and you're up to +6. Sure an aggression 3 army with a exceptional CC will usually attack, but they do so at the moment anyway. I don't see an issue here. If you want to be the attacker, chose a high aggression army and pay for good generals.

2. I agree that the 3 point defender's fortification should be dropped (and am told that Terry may have decided this also)

A couple of other thoughts but before I address them here, are we supposed to be posting on the proposed amendments on this site Terry?

Cheers
BPT

[Blathergut]

Can we discuss the beta changes/suggestions here?

Or is a beta forum coming?

Or would you prefer we just individually email comments to you?

Same question before.

[ClintR]

Terry,

I am one of a group of 8 active players in Brisbane, Australia. We would like to participate in the Beta testing if you need more testers.

Tournament play usually tests the balance of rule sets. Our observations are that the current rules / points systems favours cheap generals, large cheap units, artillery and cavalry attachments. Brittish are not well served.

Fixing the current presentation is a must. A lot of other rules changes will present more balance issues that will require careful testing or else there will be a whole set of new issues that we will be looking for a version 3 to fix.

For me personally I would like to see a section covering SYW with any necessary adaptions which could possibly then allow for a future army list book covering this period.

Clint

[martymagnificent]

artillery and cavalry attachments

Haven't found cav attachments all that bothersome. I tend to agree that artillery attachment have become a bit over-represented and are a very good buy for the points. Terry has already suggested that availability may be an issue, but as some armies should have a lot of them and there are unlikely to be points changes some possibilities include:

1) A unit that makes an outcome move loses its artillery attachment.
2) If you fire an artillery attachment in the shooting phase you require a CMT to move.
3) Units that have fired an artillery attachment move slower.

One or more of the above should bring them more in line with the effectiveness of other attachments and probably make sense historically as well, after all the guns in attachments are the same as the ones in units and they sure cant move 6" every turn while firing.

Martin

[MDH]

Terry,

I am one of a group of 8 active players in Brisbane, Australia. We would like to participate in the Beta testing if you need more testers.

Tournament play usually tests the balance of rule sets. Our observations are that the current rules / points systems favours cheap generals, large cheap units, artillery and cavalry attachments. Brittish are not well served.

Fixing the current presentation is a must. A lot of other rules changes will present more balance issues that will require careful testing or else there will be a whole set of new issues that we will be looking for a version 3 to fix.

For me personally I would like to see a section covering SYW with any necessary adaptions which could possibly then allow for a future army list book covering this period.

Clint

Re 7YW we have been working on a set for sometime but is it likely to an be 18th century set overall and not as such an adaptation of FOG(N) . So it will cover 1700-1782. It will have significant differences for example in set up and in unit sizes and in organisational structure ( no divisions or Corps as such for example.

[MDH]

artillery and cavalry attachments

One or more of the above should bring them more in line with the effectiveness of other attachments and probably make sense historically as well, after all the guns in attachments are the same as the ones in units and they sure cant move 6" every turn while firing.

Martin

Actually they are not "unit" guns if by that you mean regimental guns. We do not model those as such.

They are the way we have modelled artillery in the support function which was by half or whole batteries of regular field and horse artillery deployed either in defensive positions with the infantry or going forward with them and the cavalry , as opposed to position artillery (in the main FoG(N) units which were at a higher level of command and did not ted to move about the battlefield quite so much (there is case for not allowing those to prolong if they a field arty). The support artillery were able to keep up with the infantry but obviously with a slower rate of fire .

My own view is if we were diminish their role as attachments then I would want to review the whole of our treatment of artillery which is not totally satisfactory from my perspective given the rate of casualties between artillery and small arms was about 7:3). I would probably want to consider reverting to one base = one battery of 6/8 guns and you deploy them as separate units ( which is the more common approach in many rules eg Fire and Fury.) But that is going beyond the scope we have set ourselves for a 2nd edition.

[marty]

by "unit" guns I meant actual units of artillery.

Martin

[bahdahbum]

I would suggest any comment or proposal about a 18 century rule adaptation be discussed in another forum. it is not that I do not whish to discuss it, but I would like to separate the topics so as not to mix proposals and comments .

[shadowdragon]

Tournament play usually tests the balance of rule sets. Our observations are that the current rules / points systems favours cheap generals, large cheap units, artillery and cavalry attachments.

Hi Clint,

The thing I like about FoGN is that, in scenario play, it does a reasonable job of representing corps commander decision-making with respect to corps assets (i.e., artillery and cavalry). When I'm designing a scenario game (i.e., one based on orders of battle and not on equal points tournament play) the corps player gets so many artillery and cavalry bases which get to be used either as attachments or kept in reserve / positional units (i.e., FoGN units). For example, if a player's corps has 4 infantry divisions, 4 medium batteries (bases) and 6 cavalry bases the commander might get to keep all the artillery in 2 small units, assign all of them as attachments or something in between. Similarly for the cavalry the commander would have the option of a large cavalry unit or a small cavalry unit with 2 attachments. Designing a tournament army is certainly fun but it's not really a corps commander's decision. The corps gets what ever the war department decided, which is never enough to satisfy a commander.

One way to represent this is that, with some exceptions, bases used for artillery and cavalry attachments reduce core artillery and cavalry minima and maxima. I believe Terry is considering this.

[hazelbark]

One way to represent this is that, with some exceptions, bases used for artillery and cavalry attachments reduce core artillery and cavalry minima and maxima. I believe Terry is considering this.

For artillery isn't this the case in the errata for peninsular lists already.

Not sure it is as applicable historically to cavalry attachments. I am not sure I am keen on the historical game function basis of these attachments. While skirmishers avoided mounted. I am not sure mounted loitered so close to infantry on a battlefield. There are exceptions the exhausted Cuirassier late at waterloo sat unable to charge further and unwilling to retire least the army panic. But they weren't being shot at as the squares were low on ammo and holding fire least they get charged.

2-3 squadrons didn't seem to really patrol in between where masses of infantry were approaching each other.

[hazelbark]

1) A unit that makes an outcome move loses its artillery attachment.

Far too extreme. A gamey effort to outcome enemy units with attachments ensues

2) If you fire an artillery attachment in the shooting phase you require a CMT to move.

Interesting. requires memory which is generally eschewed. Might make it a 3+ CMT. Would drive better commanders. Optionally shift the attachment to the 2nd rank of the unit so it cannot fire next turn if it fails. Not sure this adds enough to be honest and we are usually talking +1 to +2 dice. BFD for a lot of mechanism slowing time down.

3) Units that have fired an artillery attachment move slower.

Simplest but some of the above problems and unreformed are now immobile.

One or more of the above should bring them more in line with the effectiveness of other attachments and probably make sense historically as well, after all the guns in attachments are the same as the ones in units and they sure cant move 6" every turn while firing.

I guess I just don't see artillery attachments as broken in the least and this is a lot of worry about any area that is well within tolerance level.

[shadowdragon]

One way to represent this is that, with some exceptions, bases used for artillery and cavalry attachments reduce core artillery and cavalry minima and maxima. I believe Terry is considering this.

For artillery isn't this the case in the errata for peninsular lists already.

Not sure it is as applicable historically to cavalry attachments. I am not sure I am keen on the historical game function basis of these attachments. While skirmishers avoided mounted. I am not sure mounted loitered so close to infantry on a battlefield. There are exceptions the exhausted Cuirassier late at waterloo sat unable to charge further and unwilling to retire least the army panic. But they weren't being shot at as the squares were low on ammo and holding fire least they get charged.

2-3 squadrons didn't seem to really patrol in between where masses of infantry were approaching each other.

On the contrary, it's fairly common that late Prussian infantry brigades have 1 or 2 cavalry squadrons attached to them. The same is true for some of the allied columns at Austerlitz. At least that's what the orbats show. Doesn't mean it didn't happen in other circumstances either. It's just not shown in the orbat, which just may mean the commander had the option. Some of the descriptions of French cavalry action at Quatre Bras seems like that of individual squadrons and not entire regiments, but I'm just guessing here.

[deadtorius]

One or more of the above should bring them more in line with the effectiveness of other attachments and probably make sense historically as well, after all the guns in attachments are the same as the ones in units and they sure cant move 6" every turn while firing.

I guess I just don't see artillery attachments as broken in the least and this is a lot of worry about any area that is well within tolerance level.

I agree with all your points on artillery attachments. I don't see a problem with artillery attachments as is at present. Making their availability within actual artillery units might help but I don't see any problems so far with them at all as is. My Austrians will always take an attachment or I have to stand their like a white coated target getting shot up without any ability to shoot back. Large units helps but I have gone without attachments before and large units does not help much when you get 2 or 3 French units shooting at you at 6 MU. You drop cohesion and make an outcome move without any chance to shoot back. Unless its some kind of army specific thing where it seems there are to many guns on the table for specific armies, can't be referring to Russians as they should have guns galore.

[Sarmaticus]

Though numbers of batteries can be deceptive for Prussian and iirc Russians as they replaced batteries when they ran out of ammunition rather than sending caissons back and forth in the french fashion,

[Jilu]

problems i feel in the game:
artillery :

prolong move, i do not think it is very realistic it is okay in a tactical game or skirmish, not for the scale of FogN : distance moved is to big, and i have serious doubts about that move on the battlefield.
Are there examples of prolong moves other than ancedotes?
Prolong favors the " steamroller" tactic that is totaly unhistorical : make a grand battery and push the guns forward ...destroy everything in front of you.

Large units : okay there were bigger and smaller batteries : but a large art unit becomes a wall of fire, almost impossible to stop as counter battery is innefective, closing the battery with infantry is hard to do and the effect of infantry fire is non effective compared to the artillery effect.

guns have not enough range. there should be an extreme range : 24 MU maybe with 1 dice less

[Jilu]

Lancers:

why do lancers only have a bonus against infantry ?

clearly there is a reason the lance was used, ..it does give a greater reach in impact.

the lance was abandonned in renaissance because of a change in tactics because of the use of pistols. They come back in Napoleonic times because shock becomes important again, and because it is easier to use, and gives more confidence to conscript units that do not have the experience of sabre use.

for me a lance unit should get a bonus against a other cavalery unit of the same type (lights vs lights)

[Jilu]

Austrian

Mass battalions :

that formation had a special effect against Cavalry could we not make that formation type into account for the game,

Squares

a square was used to defend against cavalery into the open, yet it was also used in other circumstances like the attack of the middle guard at Waterloo, apparently they moved faster than the 1 MU we have now

Overhead shooting

would be good to introduce it as it did happen, mainly with terrain allowing it. (like artillery being higher than troops below a hill.


Quality of generals

what about incompetent generals? there is nothing about that, i would introduce it, they would need a confirmation for a CMT test
some generals were very very very incompetent. Ok some would say, yes but nobody would use them, ...okay..yes unless...you do not play a competition game; as in historical battles you would need those incompetent generals to play the battle