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 Previous  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: 563

PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Suvurov for this summary. Glad you're finding the changes positive.

We've taken your feedback on board and cav who charge cav are subject to defensive fire.

We are adjusting down the points for Guard and Superior artillery.

Point taken on attrition but we feel it is too big a change to the game mechanics and so out of scope of what we're trying to achieve in v2.

Large infantry units are pretty powerful as it is so while I agree that forming extended line is challenging for a large unit, we don't want to make it easier for them and so make them even more powerful.

Avg drilled Light infantry at 14 points each or 56 points for a small unit put out 5 shooting dice vs avg drilled line with skirmish attachment putting out 4 dice. So you're paying 8 extra points for an extra dice and the ability to move better in rough and difficult. This is comparable for the premium heavy artillery pay for the extra dice and effectiveness vs buildings so feels about right I think.

With the removal of Guard rerolls we're proposing not to change Guard cav points so your point is taken. However, we are still keen to remove the reroll. They remain very powerful with the higher hits to break them and the inability to drop more than one level a phase so we think they feel right now and are differentiated enough.

Hopefully with Guard infantry and superior troops being more affordable and veterans a bit more expensive we'll see more armies of troops keen to charge in and fewer shooting matches between veterans, which talks to an earlier thread that we don't see enough infantry on infantry charges.

The dragoon changes are working well and I think we'll see more of the green clad fellows. However, subjectively I wasn't happy when Dave Inglis' dragoon unit wiped out two of my infantry units benefiting from the extra dice and also killed my CinC and a Divisional General, benefiting from the easier kill rules on generals.

We'll have a look at the cost of British infantry. In v2 Avg Drilled British drop a point to 9 points. Reformed Avg Veteran in v1 cost 13 and in v2 will cost 14. So should Veteran Brits be 12 or 13 points? [/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David Inglis



Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Posts: 163
Location: The Bunker

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Played Alex a couple time stehother day, in general the changes worked and the game flowed pretty quick, the first game so quick we played another. Mind you I was on the bad side of a couple of beatings, so v2 plays much the same as version 1 in the respect.

I'd remove all superior artillery as average , seems very little gain for the points, and super /guard artillery (which seems the only real superior artillery out there ) is just not any real value and just makes fielding some devisors too expensive.

I would reduce reduce the minimums for artillery to 1 small units in all lists (so use the same list but the only required artillery would 1 small unit regardless what the list says) in line with the reduction of maximums of allowed artillery. Would free up a bit more flexibility in lists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Richard Gordon



Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Posts: 563

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good to hear the changes are working for you Dave. I agree on the point about no superior for artillery. Not sure what you mean in the last
Paragraph. I still don't entirely understand "Puglish". Smile

We've now received the go ahead from Slitherine to push ahead with v2 independently of Terry Shaw who is busy on other projects so that's good news and will free us up to move a bit faster on this. Look out for news on the Slitherine forum and also a final draft which we'll stress test between now and the July comp.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David Inglis



Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Posts: 163
Location: The Bunker

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The point I was trying to make so badly was that inf FOGN v2 is reduces artillery there should be a list adjustment. And i was suggesting a fairly simple rule all list minimum required artillery no more than 2 bases.

A lot of lists have quite a lot of Artillery in their minimums in line with the overall less artillery approach of this v2 development it makes more sense to me to universally lower the minimums in all lists to 2 bases. (regardless of what the list say players choice rather than rewriting all the lists) and none when you are getting a division form another corps.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Richard Gordon



Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Posts: 563

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah yes, that now makes sense. Yes, we would need to adjust the lists to reflect this.

It is in scope to update the lists as part of this project, possibly in the short term with generic lists (Blucher style) in the body of the rules and then full updates to follow maybe in the form of campaign books.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BPT



Joined: 07 Nov 2016
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As an interim measure until new lists are done, the simplest approach may be to reduce the minimums for all artillery units, in all lists, to 0.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cawdorthane



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 948

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry chaps, but Napoleonic wargames on a corps level without a reasonable amount of field artillery is essentially fantasy wargames. It may be great fun but it does not reflect historical organisation or the key tactical juggling act of the period between horse/foot/guns - indeed the art of Napoleonic wargaming lies in mastering that juggling act of the three arms at the point of decision or Schwerpunct. The unlamented "Napoleons Battles" went down a similar path of reducing field artillery in the game for "game purposes" and deservedly died accordingly.

French divisions almost always had at least one or two batteries of field guns (in addition to any regimental guns) integral to their organisation. British and Russian divisions were similar, although rarely having more than one battery of field guns in the Brits. Austrians and Prussians were slower in assuming divisional structures but rarely had significantly lower ratios of field batteries than their French opponents. If sources are needed I can provide a deluge... but surely that is not necessary?

So if a FoGN force represents a corps of at least three divisions, depending on the period, it would be exceedingly rare to see less than 3 or 4 field batteries (allowing for a corps reserve battery).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BPT



Joined: 07 Nov 2016
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't forget about artillery attachments, each of which represents a battery and are the chief mechanism in the rules to represent divisional artillery.

Regimental guns are not represented in FoGN as being too low level.

Artillery 'units' are 12-30 guns - effectively a massed battery containing the Corps artillery reserve. Current planning is to allow 1 artillery unit (at 800 points) for armies up to 1806 (and all peninsula armies) and 2 artillery units for 1807+ armies.

All artillery units must be in the same division (ie massed).
One reason for this is game play. The presence of enemy artillery makes attacking more difficult. Encouraging all artillery units to be located in a similar area of the table may free up other parts of the table that opponents can target, facilitating movement.

Also, as artillery units represent a smallish scale 'grand battery', it is reasonable to expect a grand battery to be in one place, rather than having 2 (or 3) grand batteries spread across the table in a Corps sized engagement.

So early armies would have most of their artillery as attachments but retain an option to field a single massed battery (unit) if they so chose.

1807+ armies can mass up to 60 guns as (2) units if desired - on top of perhaps 3-6 artillery attachments - which is a scaled 9+ batteries of artillery per Corps.

Nothing set in tone here though. The proposal of making artillery minimums '0' is an interim measure to facilitate list building for now. It is anticipated that minimums will be looked at army by army in the lists at a later date.

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



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 948

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BPT

Napoleons Battles used similar "scaling" justifications, which do ring rather hollow with respect, and frankly a scale of 12-30 guns for an artillery "unit" seems way too wide any way to me. The use of double batteries was not unusual, particularly later in the period when most French and Allied division equivalents had two or more field batteries each, and it is best not to confuse them with Grand Batteries, which I agree were a more bespoke concept.

I guess that by FoGN avoiding use of proper terms for table-top formations, be they brigades, demi-brigades, batteries etc, one can justify just about anything on table. But even so none of this addresses my observation, that if you reduce the active artillery "element" on the table at a tactical level, then you become to look a lot like a set of 7 Years War rules without the tricorns, and you deprive the Napoleonics wargame of the elegance and essential tactical dilemma that was the hallmark of the period being the interface between the three field arms.

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



Joined: 13 Apr 2016
Posts: 56
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bit of a non-issue really. Most players tend to use quite a lot of artillery (attachments especially but usually at least 2 units as well). I cant imagine anyone has ever looked at a FOG N comp and thought it was short on guns!

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



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 948

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin we are discussing the new suggested limits to artillery units not the FoGN rules as is.... Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
martymagnificent



Joined: 13 Apr 2016
Posts: 56
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh I understood that. I was simply pointing out that the proposals and, by extension, the objections to them, seemed like a discussion about a non-existent problem to me.

Both the rules as they are, and as they are proposed to be, reward players for using considerable amounts of artillery. I don't think I have ever written a FOGN list and been troubled by a "too high" artillery minimum.

Which lists do players feel have a problem? I know 1815 Prussian used to but I believe that was fixed. Some Russian lists have to have a fair bit but that would seem entirely appropriate.

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



Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Posts: 563

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good discussion as always. As Brett (BPT) says, we will play-test this and check it gives the right balance and doesn't lose the critical Napoleonic challenge of using the 3 arms in conjunction. So far, it hasn't felt that way and artillery remains a powerful force on the table. These changes simply mean you don't have a 30 gun battery with virtually every division.

On an administrative note, Brett and I have now been given control of all changes to the rules by Slitherine which is good news as we will be able to move things along a little faster now. The plan is to put out a ""Final Draft" in the next month or so which will be the version we will play at the League's Napoleonic tournament in July. This will allow a good proof reading of the draft, give some certainty to what rules will be used, and get in some good play-testing.

Because of the Slitherine go ahead, we will also now move this discussion onto the Slitherine forum so please follow the thread here.
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=75491
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Green



Joined: 22 May 2012
Posts: 197
Location: Woodend

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had a question that arose from the Eylau re-fight last weekend, which I think might have been valid for the V.1 as well as V.2.
An infantry unit is charged by both an infantry and a cavalry unit, and is broken. What outcome move is applied to the broken unit?
Infantry defeat infantry results in a retreat.
Cavalry defeat infantry means the infantry are destroyed on the spot.
Which takes precedence? My thinking is the worst result, so destroyed in place. This would mean that any unit behind the broken unit would not have to test for being burst through, quite important given the new pursuit rules.
I'm not suggesting that this would have saved my bacon in last weeks game, though it may have meant the second unit was contacted in the pursuit as disordered rather than wavering, as it was.
_________________
The Dead Cost Nothing!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Suvorov



Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My understanding is that in Version 2 the infantry rout and burst through those behind them with cavalry and infantry in hot pursuit.
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 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