FOGN 2nd Edition

[bahdahbum]

Hy ,

This WE we played Waterloo ( afirst test ) and having had to read a lot about Waterloo here are some ideas that might interest you or be rejected as useless :

- Overhead artillery fire : The famous "grand battery" started shelling allied positions around 1 PM and shot over the ridge , "aiming" at the invisible ennemy behing . Soft ground, slope and the target being "invisible" did not help . Sp the exact result is still very controvertial . The important thing is : it was done and at a range of +/- 20 MU . More, the firing stopped while the frencjh Ist corps went trough the artillery but fire was renewed overhead till the friendlies were "too close" . So overhead firing is possible BUT :
The firing units were "uphill", also the "target" . How to do it : firts for invisible units, we decided that firing would be possible but with loss of 1 die/firer. Overhead firing would be possible from elevated position to any ennemy in range and over the head of friendlies while the friendlies were closer to the firer than the target ( the ridge in cas of invisible target /Waterloo case ).

- Prolonge : neither the french, nor the allied did sent their artillery forward by prolonge. Might it be because there is a slope down ! So we prohibited prolonge and here is the idea : forbid prolonge if up or downslope + prolonge trough rough or difficult terrain .

Only Ideas that might be discussed for V2

[bahdahbum]

Another question/problem for big games : The battlefield was crowded . Many large units had some difficulty to find some space to charge . Would it not be possible to allow large units to contract " en ordre profond" in order to enable them to charge if, and only if, the way is bloqued by either a unit not of the same division or cavalry unit in the way, or an obstacle ?

Your input ?

[MDH]

Hy ,

This WE we played Waterloo ( afirst test ) and having had to read a lot about Waterloo here are some ideas that might interest you or be rejected as useless :

- Overhead artillery fire : The famous "grand battery" started shelling allied positions around 1 PM and shot over the ridge , "aiming" at the invisible ennemy behing . Soft ground, slope and the target being "invisible" did not help . Sp the exact result is still very controvertial . The important thing is : it was done and at a range of +/- 20 MU . More, the firing stopped while the frencjh Ist corps went trough the artillery but fire was renewed overhead till the friendlies were "too close" . So overhead firing is possible BUT :
The firing units were "uphill", also the "target" . How to do it : firts for invisible units, we decided that firing would be possible but with loss of 1 die/firer. Overhead firing would be possible from elevated position to any ennemy in range and over the head of friendlies while the friendlies were closer to the firer than the target ( the ridge in cas of invisible target /Waterloo case ).

- Prolonge : neither the french, nor the allied did sent their artillery forward by prolonge. Might it be because there is a slope down ! So we prohibited prolonge and here is the idea : forbid prolonge if up or downslope + prolonge trough rough or difficult terrain .



Only Ideas that might be discussed for V2

Still very sceptical indeed about indirect fire in this period by field artillery( and indeed much later in the in19th century ) . I suppose a very wide deployed battery of 80 guns might consider firing at targets they could not see over the other side of a ridge but which they really knew were there - might be plausible, but there is no opportunity to correct fire for range and angle. Have you trod the ground there to see what can be visible from the grand battery position? Maybe it was not quite as clear cut as not visible along the whole width?

On the day in question ball would have had less bounce - hill and soft ground and bouncing uphill would risk a lot of duds just ploughing into the ground. That the firing could be treated numismatically I have no doubt ie without effect or hits on 6's only!

As to firing over head of friendly troops I recall I have already suggested that such fire might be allowed but with a negative cohesion effect on the friends so put at risk/fear.

Before going along with indirect fire I would want to see what writers who know a good deal about artillery say on the subject and what is says/said in manuals about it.

Re up and downhill prolongs that's a matter of steepness of angle I guess and state of ground ( limbered artillery would also have issues I suggest) and we don't treat terrain other than very simplistically in the general rules ( like most wargames rules) , but there is nothing stopping a refight making adjustments .

[MDH]

Another question/problem for big games : The battlefield was crowded . Many large units had some difficulty to find some space to charge . Would it not be possible to allow large units to contract " en ordre profond" in order to enable them to charge if, and only if, the way is bloqued by either a unit not of the same division or cavalry unit in the way, or an obstacle ?

Your input ?

I assume you mean large units that are in the first instance 3 bases wide so its like a kind of slide ?

[hazelbark]

Another question/problem for big games : The battlefield was crowded . Many large units had some difficulty to find some space to charge . Would it not be possible to allow large units to contract " en ordre profond" in order to enable them to charge if, and only if, the way is bloqued by either a unit not of the same division or cavalry unit in the way, or an obstacle ?

Your input ?

I assume you mean large units that are in the first instance 3 bases wide so its like a kind of slide ?

Considering the large unit is made up of constituent formations, there is a good real world argument to permit this.

The game effect to then still gather the large unit benefits must be thought through.

Personally I think the game effect of large units isn't quite right. More battalions and squadrons = more resilience to firepower doesn't mesh.
I suppose you can argue that they are better officered to allow them to operate in grander tactical maneuver units. This would explain why 1806 Prussians have no large infantry, but then the large Austrian units are large based on their large regiments size. I think you get into a bunch of weird arguments.

[MDH]

Another question/problem for big games : The battlefield was crowded . Many large units had some difficulty to find some space to charge . Would it not be possible to allow large units to contract " en ordre profond" in order to enable them to charge if, and only if, the way is bloqued by either a unit not of the same division or cavalry unit in the way, or an obstacle ?

Your input ?

I assume you mean large units that are in the first instance 3 bases wide so its like a kind of slide ?

Considering the large unit is made up of constituent formations, there is a good real world argument to permit this.

The game effect to then still gather the large unit benefits must be thought through.

Personally I think the game effect of large units isn't quite right. More battalions and squadrons = more resilience to firepower doesn't mesh.
I suppose you can argue that they are better officered to allow them to operate in grander tactical maneuver units. This would explain why 1806 Prussians have no large infantry, but then the large Austrian units are large based on their large regiments size. I think you get into a bunch of weird arguments.

Terry may be better to placed to answer this as it moved from counting bases in the early stages of the design to units but I am not sure if I even recall the discussion as I may not have been involved at that point in the evolution . But if you look at rules that consider casualty/hit rate eg 1 hit per 3 bases and 1 per 2 bases as in FOG(AM), or 10% etc in others, than this was maybe the mechanism to get some element of that and rather more simply. I find the file on file calculations of FoG(AM) and base counting a bit tedious I have to say as is the bas by base arc for firing , although less tedious than the figure counting and recording of earlier WRG! But there are no standard units in FOG(AM) - anything from 2-12.

Resilience is in terms I guess of ability to absorb casualties without losing effectiveness and shrug off some fire, and the general principle that a good big 'un should beat a good little 'un . I would not have argued for better implicit leadership as such but is a way of reflecting those 3 Btn regts that were around especially the 1790's demi brigades, and which where they practiced regimental manoeuvres , would have been more effective than a 2 Btn equivalent. The 1806 Prussian list is based on looking at strengths and no's of Btns per regiment which were still very 7YW.

Maybe where it falls down a bit is with cavalry? The only alterative would be making it harder for them to become spent perhaps, although the ignore one hit does help a bit with that of course. You do get ORBATS where in small divisions like Advance Guards this is about the best way to represent the cavalry in a simple way

I suppose we could set a limit on the number of large units permitted say no more than one per Division unless a list says otherwise-/or we list the exceptions eg 1792-95 French .

[hazelbark]

Maybe where it falls down a bit is with cavalry? The only alterative would be making it harder for them to become spent perhaps, although the ignore one hit does help a bit with that of course. You do get ORBATS where in small divisions like Advance Guards this is about the best way to represent the cavalry in a simple way

I suppose we could set a limit on the number of large units permitted say no more than one per Division unless a list says otherwise-/or we list the exceptions eg 1792-95 French .

I'd also be conscious that we aren't rebuilding the system. And a strict adherence to OB's would not solve the points issues. I would look for simpler solutions to decreasing the power of large units...most particularly to limit there absorbing fire/hits.
random ideas:
1) Don't make large units 3 points for demoralization. This would significantly dis-incentize designing too many large units in game. Perhaps too radical.
2) Don't ignore the first hit on large units.
3) Only ignore the 3rd hit of firing on large units.
4) Make the fire outcome table slightly different for large units.

[BrettPT]

I'm not sure much change here is required, remember that a large unit costs 50% more than a small unit. If small unreformed units in extended line were allowed to ignore the first hit as well, this would help small unreformed units a bit.

I do think that the ''ignore one hit unless wavering' ' rule should apply in melee as well as for shooting, for consistency (at the moment wavering large units in combat still get to ignore their first hit).

Another option could be to require large units to use 2 CPs to attempt a CMT, unless they are led by a commander. This would reflect large units being more cumbersome and also bring the total CMTs per unit into balance across an army, whether it uses large units or small.

- ie an army of 10 large units, with a Skilled CC and 3 Competent DCs gets to attempt a CMT with 8 units at the moment - 80% of the army. The same army with 15 small units can also CMT 8 units, however this is only 53% of the army. If it cost 2CP for a large unit to attempt a CMT, then that large unit army could attempt 5 CMTs a turn (50% of the total force).

The ratios change a bit, as a DC can be used more than once in a turn (ie once in each phase) but I think something like this may be a better way to go than playing with the combat effects of large units.

[KitG]

Just don't give us a situation where: The rules(often poorly written and explained after lengthy argument by way of internet forum) always beats the man.

I agree with this, well said.

I have to say had I not become an author and therefore with a role of listening and responding on FOG(N) I should have found the constant rules discussion on FOG rules generally , some of it a tad nit-picky as I see it , a little off-putting. Lists are slightly different, perhaps ?

But the kind of fiddly- basey-movey-whiggly -gamey stuff you sometimes get has never been much interest to me even if some tournament cogniscenti seem to find it irresistible .The main thing I observe about such things is it is an attempt to deal with some of the inherent weakness of miniatures games such as the excessively deep bases we have to use to accommodate figures compared with their widths and a certain type of casual sloppiness that gamers might adopt without some kind of rules of play for ungridded table tops where precision would of course be mush easier to have in board games. As to not letting the rules beat the man I am not entirely sure I would recognise that if I saw it unless is the fiddly-basey etc thing. But maybe I just don't get the metaphor .

Setting out to square historical interpretation with gameplay 100% is probably a fools errand.

As a FOG(AM) user I rarely find rules discussions on those threads affect my views on or use of the rules which I happily modify to suit myself as I used to with WRG ( pre DBA/M). And to be brutally frank I hardly ever used FOG(N) myself before 2014. They were a neglected child for reasons that had nothing to do with them as such.


For me lists are more like guidelines ( cf the Pirate Code to enliven and enrich and create and foster interest in the period and I find the idea of mine being
" official" slightly embarrassing at times. Certainly one did not always get them right even in our own terms but I had rather have aimed for 140 some of which were not right or had errors and omissions than lower my sights and aim for a mere 30 that were and did not.

Well, MDH - look at issues that occurred around units charging when out of command range - poorly expressed rule and a contradictory quick reference sheet in the book.

Look at the issue of firing from buildings - clear statement in the book - unit in building fires at any unit outside of the building capable of firing at it - now totally contradicted by this forum.

Look at the issue of turning to face a recovered unit - face anywhere according to the rule book - now out of existence by way of errata. A bad decision.

Look at the issue of counter charging and intercept charging - does the intercept cancel the counter charge? Book is unclear and the forum has not provided an answer.

Nit picking? Hardly - one of these above examples will come up almost every game.

If you didn't get the last metaphor, then I will give you a simile:

"Playing a game of FOG (N) without recourse to the rule book, errata, or this forum is like successfully clearing the ball from a scrum - it can happen, but it requires expert timing and a fast and loose interpretation of the rules."

Like Rugby Union FOG (N) is quickly becoming an ultra niche game, overly complex,filled with different rules interpretations and has come to include far too many rules that frustrate the basic principles of the game.

Bendy Bullets, anyone?

[MDH]

Well, MDH - look at issues that occurred around units charging when out of command range - poorly expressed rule and a contradictory quick reference sheet in the book.

Look at the issue of firing from buildings - clear statement in the book - unit in building fires at any unit outside of the building capable of firing at it - now totally contradicted by this forum.

Look at the issue of turning to face a recovered unit - face anywhere according to the rule book - now out of existence by way of errata. A bad decision.

Look at the issue of counter charging and intercept charging - does the intercept cancel the counter charge? Book is unclear and the forum has not provided an answer.

Nit picking? Hardly - one of these above examples will come up almost every game.

If you didn't get the last metaphor, then I will give you a simile:

"Playing a game of FOG (N) without recourse to the rule book, errata, or this forum is like successfully clearing the ball from a scrum - it can happen, but it requires expert timing and a fast and loose interpretation of the rules."

Like Rugby Union FOG (N) is quickly becoming an ultra niche game, overly complex,filled with different rules interpretations and has come to include far too many rules that frustrate the basic principles of the game.

Bendy Bullets, anyone?[/quote]

Seems as much an argument for not taking part in such things as on-line forums as anything else-. Is it publish and be damned and then move on leaving one's brainchild to make its own way in the world un-amended and un-moderated as indeed most seem to do in this field ? From an occasional author point of view why would you want to do it? What's in it for me other than an e-correspondence relationship and discourse at a distance with some, mostly, very congenial and collegiate gamers (and the odd grumpy one - only if the cap fits wear it KitG ), few of whom, if any, one will ever meet ? It's not like its a living. It is just a pastime.

Had it not been already there and part of the Slitherine " offer" to its followers why indeed ( and how) would one have set it up ? It is, for me, purely a matter of goodwill , and good manners, to take part . Still if enough regular members of this forum would prefer this author, in particular, to sign off permanently leaving FOG(N) to others to bustle in I will do so and sail into the West .Sorry to mix my metaphorical literary quotes, old habits die hard.

I guess that might have your vote Any who share that view just post " Go West " )

I must perforce , however disagree with your penultimate statement about rugby union. FoG(N) is an utterly trivial matter by comparison and hardly merits mentioning in the same post . But that is for a quite different forum, probably in the below the line "comment is free" pages of the Guardian sports section, but "cif" in general is infested with trolls, and so quite unlike this kinder, gentler forum. To there I certainly do not go.

[hazelbark]

Ignore the ravings.

If you are thinking of going west, I would recommend you listen to the groucho marx song go west. "Everyone there has nuts if you got here you will go nuts" IIRC it will also put hair on your chest if you go there.

[bahdahbum]

About the artillery firing overhead : I live near Waterloo so yes I know the ground

From the fench position, high grouns, you cannot see what's behind the ridge on the other high ground in front of the battery The only target the fench had were the allied batteries .Most of the shots fell short but still over the marching infantry ( while still near their own guns ) . The overhead firing in this instance is well documented and the limit is : the firing guns are uphill, the target ALSO . By the way, some of the guns and the most efficient in this case were the howitzers, attached to the batteries ( 2 to each battery )

The field the french had to cross was a kind of valley .

Uphill and Downhill prolonge : The "flay" terrain we have in FOGN is not that flat . So when i refer to up and downhill it is from the terrain feature "hill" .Not the "flat" terrain .

Such rules can also be implemented only in specific scenarios

But There is no need to change all the rules . I think we must clear some cases , modify here and there a few things but not rewrite it all

Hope it helps .

[Belisarivs]

I don't think I want to lay out for a book 2 as there is only one competition per year

[hazelbark]

I don't think I want to lay out for a book 2 as there is only one competition per year

I presume part of the idea is a better drafted book would re-ignite interest and players. There are also a number of players who don't play comps.

[Blathergut]

Have been playing since the rules came out and have never been to a competition.

[BrettPT]

One part of the rules that I think needs to be clarified and simplified are those surrounding obstacles.
The definition of obstacle in the rules includes rivers, buildings & fortifications. A start point would be separating these away from the definition and then dealing with each separately.

[BrettPT]

Buildings.

I think the rules would be enhanced by removing the option to go straight from touching a building, to defending it.
What do people think about the following:

1. Units can be deployed at the start of the game 'Occupying' or 'Defending' buildings in their deployment zone.
2. Unless in march column along a road, or if assaulting, to enter a building a unit must start touching it.
3. The unit always 'Occupies' a building when first entering it. No CMT is required for this.
4. An 'Occupying' unit may change to 'Defending' the building in any movement phase. A CMT is required for this.
5. Units leaving a town (other than if in march column along a road) require a CMT to leave.
6. 'Defending' units can only be forced to retire from a town as a 'Broken' Combat result, or if failing a CT while wavering.

Reasoning
We don't often see the too-and-fro in town fighting that was typical of the era. It was common for towns to change hands multiple times during a battle. If units entering a building had to Occupy it at first, there would be an incentive for opponents to assault it before the units could change to Defend. If the assault is successful in clearing the town, the victorious unit would be Occupying it, and a target for a counter-assault the following turn.

Hougomont etc are adequately represented in that units could start the game Defending them. If the town was not pre-prepared for defence before the battle, a successful CMT for an Occupying unit to Defend (possibly taken as a 2nd move if no enemy within 6MU) represents a rapid looping-holing of walls, preparing barricades, etc.

Under the rules as currently written in the book, the 'don't leave unless broken' appears to only apply to retirements caused in Combat. You can still force a defending unit to retire by shooting at it (true, see page 55: a unit that becomes broken due to fire immediately retreats as per the Outcome Moves table". p.60 Troops defending a building from an assault will retire only if broken (underlines added) & p.77 Units defending a building will only leave it from an outcome move if they are Broken - note this last one is under the 'General Rules for Combat against Defended Buildings' heading, which deals with assaults and combat in buildings. No similar rule is included in the 'Firing To or From Buildings' section.
- The Building FAQ contradicts the book in that is says that it states "A unit defending a building will not retire as an outcome move unless it is broken" - which is how we all play.

I'm not aware of instances historically where defenders were evicted from a town by enemy simply sitting outside and shooting it. They were driven out by an assault.

Lastly, no CMT to enter the town could represent an apparent enthusiasm to get into cover and shelter. It would also avoid that strange situation where 2 opposing units are touching a town, both trying to pass a CMT to be the first one into it. The CMT to leave represents the command difficulty of reforming in the open after being dispersed in buildings or strung out along streets.

Thoughts anyone?

Cheers
Brett

[deadtorius]

Sounds good Brett

[hazelbark]

I think to add to your comment some greater elucidation of these would be helpful. Right now they are "buildings" not a town. Are they really a small village? Maybe they are Plancenoit but Ligny appears to be multiple.
A town could very well be multiple buildings within say 2 MU of each other. Which you almost never see in the set up rules, but are more common in scenarios and history.

Same goes for more significant positions as you mention Hougmont, but also the Granary at Essling, Solokonitz, etc .

Personally I would like to see probably about 3 gradations of structures.
1) That is something less than we have now. Remove CMT, easier to shell, requires bayonets and hard on mounted.
2) what we have now.
3) a more serious structure

additionally in the central europe, france and maybe southern Europe options allow not require the defender to make the required Building a 2 or 3 building grouping.

[Russ1664]

Brett

yes I think a very good summary of how we should approach occupation of buildings (villages). One of the very good features of FOGN is villages changing hands several times in a game as happened in history.
There may be a place for a more significant building, but I feel that three classes is too many. There are only few significant buildings in battles when compared to fights for villages. For simplicity perhaps the attributes of a significant building might be made the same as a field fortification? (apart from being occupied by an arty unit and the rear face!)

Now could you produce a similar simplification of the shooting into and out of buildings please?