leagueofancients.org.au Forum Index leagueofancients.org.au
League of Ancients
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FOG N Version 2
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    leagueofancients.org.au Forum Index -> Napoleonics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Richard Gordon



Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Posts: 554

PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 5:03 am    Post subject: FOG N Version 2 Reply with quote

Hi all,

As many of you are aware, Brett Preston-Thomas in NZ and I are working with Terry Shaw (the original author of FOG N) on a Version 2.

Things have been progressing slower than we would have liked due to inter-continental communication challenges (even in this day and age), and Terry seems quite busy so is sometimes slow to respond. Nevertheless, we think we are making good progress and are quite excited by the shape v2 is taking.

One of the challenges we are facing is getting Terry to get the Slitherine forum discussion back on line and we do need his go ahead to open the discussion there. However, as we are deep into the changes and play-testing and open discussion from the FOG N community is vital, we have decided to open up the discussion for everyone on the League of Ancients forum to all FOG N players.

I have emailed a summary of the draft changes to my FOG N mailing list. If you haven't received it, send me your details and I'll send you the changes. These are not written in “rule language” so will need word-smithing but hopefully everyone can follow the intent of the explanation.

Please jump onto the forum and let us know what you think of the changes so far and anything we may have missed. While we welcome everyone's input, we obviously cannot agree with everyone so please don't be hurt if we don't always adopt your suggestion.

Cheers
Richard & Brett
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
martymagnificent



Joined: 13 Apr 2016
Posts: 51
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the majority of this. A couple of thoughts (I will only comment on things I am unsure about, everything else I am in favour of)



Quote:
Irreg Infantry
• Irreg Inf move, shoot and fight as follows:
o They can make up to a full move backwards without a CMT (they only take a CT if enemy within 2MU)
o They cannot form square nor evade (so are still very vulnerable to cav and inf if they don’t stay out of charge range)
o They fight using other factors and re-roll 6’s when shooting


What does "other factors" mean in this context? I think I would allow them to move back even when within 2" (surely that is when they would be most likely to get the hell out). As discussed elsewhere I assume this all only applies to irregular "light" infantry?

o
Quote:
Guard infantry cost 2 points less
o Guard cav cost 2 points more


Given the other changes been implemented to guard I'm not sure the cav needs to cost more as well. I would not change the price of guard infantry. I use them a fair bit and think they are fine as is.


Quote:
• Disordered troops do not need a CMT to charge


I think they should have to roll, it just makes sense. I would also avoid devaluing command PIPs. Most players are already reluctant to buy good generals (with the exception of corps commanders and that generally has nothing to do with PIPs)

Shifting. Are you still allowed a shift when outside of 6" for no reason or only if one of the listed cases applies?

Quote:
o Large & Small units are worth the same ACV (i.e. 2 if lost, ˝ if spent)


Why? Doesn't this ie make large unit even better? Is that something we want to do?

In terms of points changes I feel that the cost of superiority needs a look. It is fine on cavalry but is too expensive on infantry and artillery. I would make it 2 points for unreformed and 3 for reformed/lights/artillery. Artillery attachments are too much of a no-brainer at the moment and need to go up (to at least 14/15 or so)

Some great ideas here

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick.G



Joined: 25 Jul 2013
Posts: 133
Location: Broadmeadows

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Will there be any tweaks given to to the common situation where Unreformed Infantry (without attachments) face Reformed Infantry but can never quite get into musket (close) range?

The Reformed Infantry simply need one hit each round of firing to cause a CMT to advance on the Unreformed Infantry. It seems like most of my Unreformed Infantry never make it to musket range. Is this historically accurate?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
martymagnificent



Joined: 13 Apr 2016
Posts: 51
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a bit of a mixed bag for unreformed

On the positive side: They dont lose a dice in line, They move 6 when outside 6, they only turn around from an outcome move when they go at least 6.

If, however, cavalry only take one dice off skirmishers this makes reformed relatively better and impacts one of the ways unreformed troops protect themselves from medium range fire.

Probably leaves them about the same level of utility as before albeit slightly different. As for closing to 2" it would be no easier or harder than before although if artillery attachments become rarer (as a result of an increased price) it might become more possible to risk closing in and giving the other side the first shot.

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick.G



Joined: 25 Jul 2013
Posts: 133
Location: Broadmeadows

PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marty, I believe you play Unreformed often correct? Is it your experience to have your infantry reliably "close in"? My experience is that I usually fail the CMT to advance after my Reformed opponent fires at medium range. On some occasions when I have passed the CMT to advance, my opponent has retreated back to medium range and the process starts again - very frustrating!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Gordon



Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Posts: 554

PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick, in v2 they won't be able to fall back as easily as any move to the rear within 6MU will require a cohesion test (in addition to the CMT). We've seen people scuttling back less often in play-testing this.

In a straight fight, unreformed infantry will always be at a disadvantage to reformed, but that's why they're cheaper. So trying to beat them one on one is not the answer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
martymagnificent



Joined: 13 Apr 2016
Posts: 51
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick it is often difficult/risky to close to 2" but you should pass any CMT required more often than not (especially if you attach a general or are veteran). It is generally only worth attempting if you have some sort of significant local advantage or are approaching from outside the enemies line of fire, in either of these cases you probably wont require a CMT anyway.

In general I am often happy enough to sit outside of 2" ,if it is unit on unit, because the reformed will generally not have any great effect on you anyway unless they manage to gang up more than one unit per target or there is no cavalry around. It is generally just as hard for them to cloe to 2" and finish you off.

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cawdorthane



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 929

PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Richard,

What these rules really need is a clear language rewrite and an edit by a professional editor, plus a detailed intuitive index. This is a good rules set let badly down by language worse than Barkerise at its most Byzantine and a layout designed by Nostradamus (or possibly his less than bright guinea pig, Bill). If you merely tinker with the rules, and most of your suggested changes sound good, then you are not addressing the real issue that makes it hard to pick up FoGN, which as it stands is an impossible read.

I would then ditch the lists and simply set minimum percentages of Line Infantry in an Infantry Corps (with only Line Light Cavalry or Line Dragoon units) and minimum percentages of Line Lights/Dragoons in a Cavalry Corps - say 50-60% of points minimum spent on such. Guard Corps, Advance Corps, Tyroleans, Shock Cavalry Divisions or other anomalous forces should be left for scenario games only. Abolish all average or poor troops rated as guards, and rate them as either superior or veteran line as best matches their historical performance. That way you guarantee historical type forces which always give the best feel for the marvellous Napoleonic period.

cheers
Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Green



Joined: 22 May 2012
Posts: 189
Location: Woodend

PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like pretty much all of the proposed changes - similar to Marty, if I don't mention it, I'm in agreement.
Also, I would definitely second Mark's suggestion for plain, clear and concise writing with a proper index.

SUGGESTIONS

Light infantry - is there any thought of dropping the number of medium range shooting dice from 5 to 4? I think this should be considered.

Commander Casualties - No auto death for brigade Commander Attachments if a unit breaks, they die on a 4+ on one die

Firing - allow unreformed some kind of return fire (ie can only shoot at units that can shoot at them) against reformed at medium range - maybe 2 dice hitting on 6 (for shooting at skirmishers)? If the nominal musket range in the rules is 2MU - close range - then the reformed unit's skirmishers must be at that range. I don't know how historical volley fire at skirmishers is, but the chance to see your opponents face when that hail Mary double six comes up to take off a cohesion level would be priceless!

CLARIFICATIONS

Shifting - Allowed in Movement, Charges and Pursuits - but not Outcomes?

Defensive Fire - Target of the assault still hits on 4+ as per the current rules?

Other Effects of Terrain - Outcome and Pursuit moves halved in difficult terrain, no change for rough?

Also, I saw on the Slitherine forum a request for a bit of an update as to progress on this - maybe let them know that things are at playtest stage?
I know hoe frustrated I was until I found out about the good work you guys have done. Smile
_________________
The Dead Cost Nothing!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
martymagnificent



Joined: 13 Apr 2016
Posts: 51
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have had a look at the newer version you sent around Richard.

I find the idea of removing some guard re-rolls intriguing. I wonder if it would be best that guard simply gave no re-rolls at all. Would be a simplification and would make sense given the way guard status sort of acts separately to the rest of the rating system. Guard would still be steadier under fire and more resilient in combat. It would then be OK to drop guard infantry (and artillery?) to 2 points and you could probably keep the cavalry at 4.

I don't think you can have unreformed infantry pay the same for superior as reformed. It is disproportionate and means that it would still be cheaper for unreformed to become veteran than it is for them to become superior, which does not reflect the relative value of the upgrades.

Quote:
All extended lines need a 6+ to pass their CT when charged by cavalry, whether they stand and shoot or form square.


Don't like this. Seems to be giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Maybe just say they cant form square at all.

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Suvorov



Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

. I like the changes to light infantry. However, the proposal doesn’t address the points level. At 48 points for 5 shots they are still faster and have another shot over a similar unit with a skirmish attachment and remain great value for the points. How about a unit of light infantry is 50 or 52 points with muskets and 52 or 56 points with rifles. They’re not worth another full 8 points over the 48 as they no more resilient than line. Keep the 5 dice for shooting, with only one unit per division. This allows for some differentiation and concentration of force/firepower.
3. Nice movement change for Dragoons, suggested as much to Brett a few months ago. Brett did note then that all cavalry tended to move at the same speed on the battlefield but some had bigger horses and bigger men and hence were more effective in combat and more expensive to maintain!
4. I like the rerolls for Guard for CTs and CMTs and in general they are ok for the points. It adds some flavour we should keep. There are other ways to address the points issues with guard infantry. Leave the “guard” cost the same and lower the superior cost. Reassess what is guard and dump most/all the average drilled stuff or raise their points a little and lower the points for the superior drilled and/or superior veteran ones? Perhaps different points additions for guardness and supieror guardness for guard cavalry.
5. On the matter of CMTs I like the start or end within 6” of Justice Goldsbury the enemy it would also be good to use the example of a test to charge with a spent unit as well as the impetuous cavalry one. This will undoubtedly be the key question. Veteran artillery will have fun prolonging with this rule, but not a big deal.
6. I still argue that cavalry shouldn’t be able to get out of being shot if their charge move passes through a close range fire arc even if they are counter charged. Yes a little complexity but it’ll look very silly on occasion and allow a desperate general to get out of clumsy manourvering. No big deal to resolve. Cavalry just fail to charge and move back to 2 or 3 of the shooters as the case may be. Surely most of us are smart enough to figure that out.
7. In regards to “Firing and combat”. If I have three units charge an extended line and only one gets in. The other two don’t get to shoot!
8. Why do light infantry in tactical formation, now there only choice, provide and receive no flank and rear support? I think they are pretty much the same as other infantry in most respects except for being better at skirmishing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Gordon



Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Posts: 554

PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for all the comments. We'll take the feedback on board.

Our number one priority for v2 is a re-write to make the rules easier to follow and to remove duplication and conflicting rules. I have already completed a draft of this.

In terms of the lists, we are considering a version within the rules that does set min and max guidelines for broad periods and nations (as Blucher does it), but I personally still like the colour of specific lists for specific campaigns so we do plan new separate lists as well (possibly in a new campaign specific format). If anyone has a pet army that they feel they could do a much better version of than the current one, feel free to email it through. Credit will be given to all contributors.

Light infantry remain (too) good value for their effect vs line infantry. Something we will look at.

Clearly some split opinions on how to resolve the effectiveness of Guard which we're working through. Definitely the new lists won't allow the cheesy Guard units of v1. The label of Guard doth not a Guardsman make...

On some of the specific queries:

Quote:
Shifting - Allowed in Movement, Charges and Pursuits - but not Outcomes?

Defensive Fire - Target of the assault still hits on 4+ as per the current rules?

Other Effects of Terrain - Outcome and Pursuit moves halved in difficult terrain, no change for rough?


Shifting is allowed in outcome moves - no change from v1
Defensive fire from target of assault hits on same factors as v1
No change to outcome moves in rough. Change for difficult is only to remove an anomaly.

Quote:
I still argue that cavalry shouldn’t be able to get out of being shot if their charge move passes through a close range fire arc even if they are counter charged.

I think we'll go with you on this one. If you resolve defensive fire before anything moves, then the counter-charge is cancelled if the charge never goes in.

Quote:
I still argue that cavalry shouldn’t be able to get out of being shot if their charge move passes through a close range fire arc even if they are counter charged.

Is this a common occurrence?

Quote:
Why do light infantry in tactical formation, now there only choice, provide and receive no flank and rear support? I think they are pretty much the same as other infantry in most respects except for being better at skirmishing.

Only irregular lights don't give or receive support.

Quote:
Firing - allow unreformed some kind of return fire (ie can only shoot at units that can shoot at them) against reformed at medium range - maybe 2 dice hitting on 6 (for shooting at skirmishers)?

Makes sense logically but will slow the game down to resolve something that's unlikely to have much effect.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cawdorthane



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 929

PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Richard, that all sounds very promising.

cheers
Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Green



Joined: 22 May 2012
Posts: 189
Location: Woodend

PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Concerning my suggestion about unreformed being given return fire at medium range - while I realise a cohesion drop is very unlikely (and would really just be the icing on the cake), a single result of 6 will still cause a test to advance and this would be the result you would be hoping for. And I don't think this would really slow things down that much - how long does it take to make a dice roll?
_________________
The Dead Cost Nothing!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
martymagnificent



Joined: 13 Apr 2016
Posts: 51
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Clearly some split opinions on how to resolve the effectiveness of Guard which we're working through. Definitely the new lists won't allow the cheesy Guard units of v1. The label of Guard doth not a Guardsman make...


I sometimes wonder if guard classification is required at all? The game already has 4 discipline and 3 morale categories.

Would remove quite a few rules, exceptions, etc.

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    leagueofancients.org.au Forum Index -> Napoleonics All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group