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 v2 updated army lists
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  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: 564

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mick, you will only be allowed to take a max of 2 units of artillery for this army. You could make them large if you liked. And they'd have to both be in the same division.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick.G



Joined: 25 Jul 2013
Posts: 135
Location: Broadmeadows

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:34 am    Post subject: Combat resolution table Reply with quote

Thanks Richard.

The V1 combat resolution table allowed the active player to recover a broken unit to wavering if the enemy unit retires. In V2 this appears to have changed and in the above situation the active player's broken unit stays broken - is this correct?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Gordon



Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Posts: 564

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, routers can no longer rally. They are removed at the end of the phase in which they rout.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jonathanmoore



Joined: 06 Oct 2011
Posts: 259

PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Each Austrian division in the 1809 campaign had two regiments of cavalry attached in a brigade- either dragoons or chevalauger. that is a glaring mistake in current list.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Bornstein



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 817

PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not actually correct my good man.

The "light division" within each corps had two light cavalry regiments.

The corps in Poland had two kurrassier and two hussars regiments in the "light" division.

Cheers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Michael Bornstein



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 817

PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 2:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The other issue with Austrian OB's is their habit of making detachments from existing corps. Then transferring them to other corps as well or forgetting that they had been detached and reattached in the first place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jonathanmoore



Joined: 06 Oct 2011
Posts: 259

PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh of course, my mistake- I'm thinking Bavarian divisions.-Each of the three deployed had an organic cav brigade.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cawdorthane



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 949

PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The deeper problem is that any set of detailed lists is at its best, simply an exercise in well intended fiction. Whilst we have fairly detailed information on British and French OB's (still far from perfect), the quality and accuracy of available information increasingly tapers off as we go through the Prussians, Austrians, Russians and various minor states. Even where we have detailed OB's, the accuracy of such is often deeply suspect, as they often reflect ideal or theoretical rather than actual composition, or a snap shot of one particular force on one particular day (in no sensible way being comprehensively representative in a meaningful manner), and more often than not they simply reflect what the composition of a force was thought to be at the start of a campaign with no allowance for the attrition and fatigue of several months of action/forced marching before the real fighting started.

FoGN is essentially a corps level game. Accordingly, other than big set-piece scenario battles where the printed lists should best be filed in the round filing receptacle any way, the lists should enable and promote a plausible corps level action between sensibly composed infantry corps (where at least half of each corps consists of Line infantry). Shock cavalry units of any description, guard corps/divisions, Cavalry corps and other bespoke big-battle only troop formations, should be purely there for use in set-piece scenario battles and not a standard FoGN level game. 90% of the problems with FoGN v1 were the lists which discouraged players from historical composition, which then caused the games to break down.

There is more than enough diversity within sensibly composed infantry corps of 2-3 line infantry divisions, with at most a single division of light cavalry or, even more rarely, in lieu thereof a division of dragoons. Where, as was the case almost universally by 1812, infantry divisions field two or more batteries of field guns a piece, then each such division should have the option of fielding a standard sized artillery unit. That way you will see fun, interesting and plausible FoGN Napoleonic corps level actions, where the horse/foot/guns rock/paper/scissors tactical challenge plays out. The FoGN rules have always worked pretty well when sensible historical forces were fielded, but if the approach to "the lists" is not fundamentally changed, then no amount of minor but good rule changes will make a true difference.

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



Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 1052
Location: Elsternwick

PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 6:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with much of this .

FoG N represents a battle between Corps size forces . In my opinion , it should only be infantry corps
Allies , Guard and Heavy cavalry should only be available as Divisions
Simply because they were . At no time did a Corps of shock heavy cavalry operate on its own as an independent force , same with Guard ( the French desperate choices of 1814 notwithstanding)

The predominant weapon was an infantry corps , for all sorts of logistical and resource reasons , to allow anything else is fantasy .

This is why the rules , which are based in reality , break down when the force isn't .
It is not the rules that are at fault and tinkering to stop one dimensional ahistorical lists being dominant ruins the game, in my opinion

By the way , the work of the v2 rules has made them much faster and more readable/playable . They deliver a good game while keeping the "vibe"of V1

Its also worth remembering that the list books are out of print so new lists will be needed for new players . Its an opportunity to re-set the game in my opinion .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cawdorthane



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 949

PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 3:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good points Richard.

For most of the Empire period the French Army [excluding the Garde] had:
133-156 Régiments de Ligne
36 Régiments de Légère
2 Régiments de Carabiniers-à-Cheval
12-15 Régiments de Cuirassiers
25-30 Régiments de Dragons
10-11 Régiments de Hussards
33 Régiments de Chasseurs-à-Cheval
9 Régiments de Lanciers (mostly later during the period)

Putting this in real terms:

At least 50-66% of a historical French force should be Infanterie de Ligne of which no more than 15-20% should be Légère

Carabiniers-à-Cheval and Cuirassiers were almost never assigned to Infantry Corps during a campaign (I do not know of a single exception) and were typically reserved as the ‘instrument de decision’ at the decisive moment of a big battle. Thus other than a well researched scenario game, no Carabiniers-à-Cheval and Cuirassiers should ever be fielded in a FoGN Infantry Corps. Never.

Also other than 1814 (maybe) there should be no Guard Divisions in a Line Infantry Corps, i.e. none. nil, zilch, nada.

Thus, Chasseurs-à-Cheval ought to be the most common French cavalry fielded in a FoGN Infantry Corps. Hussards and Lanciers more rarely. Dragon (Dragoons) brigades were occasionally split off to support Infantry Corps, particularly in 1812, but as a rough sensible rule of thumb, for every unit of Dragoons fielded in a historical French force, there should be 1-2 units of Chasseurs-à-Cheval or Hussards and maybe, 1 at most Lanciers.

Allied armies almost always had much higher percentages of ‘garbage’ troops than those of the French Empire, often including high proportions of Landwehr or Militia depending on the year, and so should have even higher proportions of Line Infantry or Light Cavalry and lower proportions of Light Foot (other than Irregular Grenzers etc) or Dragoons. Allied Shock Cavalry were also almost always reserved for use in major battles and should not be fielded with infantry corps other than in scenario games.

So what is needed IMHO are lists that provide for sensible minimums to represent the true core troops of 99% of Napoleonic Corps during the period, and which exclude big Battle Only troops/formations other than for scenario games. Let's try to avoid the arms race-shopping list approach, or lists based on what Grand Duke von Klutz claims he did on April Fools Day 1804
Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

cheers
Mark Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Gordon



Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Posts: 564

PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mark, no doubt you are right from a purist point of view. But while I agree we want to avoid "power-gamer" style armies (which we do need to do a bit of work on), I'd also hate to play a period where every army was made up mostly of line infantry and line cavalry and maybe one or two "special" units like lancers or such like. The ability to field the colourful units of the period is half the attraction of Napoleonics for me, and if it means my army is historically not exactly a defined corps as set out in the orbats then I'd prefer that than the alternative. While it is a corps level game, maybe one can imagine it as a slice of a larger battle, where you happen to be in that part of the field where there is a Guard division or a Heavy Cav division. FOG N plays fine with the current army lists and while purists may shudder at the combinations allowed In the lists, this has not to date detracted from it giving a really good game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jonathanmoore



Joined: 06 Oct 2011
Posts: 259

PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree- reading about the 1813 campaign was intrigued to read of a clash in Napoleon's rear while he was concentrating at Leipzig. A flying column made up of Cossacks combined with Russian and Prussian hussars overwhelmed the 2nd guards Cavalry division and made off with the Imperial Paychest- A great scenario with no infantry in sight!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cawdorthane



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 949

PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I too love colour in my wargames, but if you mix in too much colour you wind up with black.... Wink

And wargamers being wargamers will push the envelope in any lists - e.g. I do not think I had ever heard of a Tyrolean Revolt army ever being fielded in a competition under any Napoleonic system ever let alone on multiple occasions under FoGNv1.

You can still have colour whilst encouraging faintly historical type forces. At very least, another sensible approach would be reducing the points cost of Average Line Infantry/Lt Cavalry/Hvy Cavalry. Rewarding good historical design and making the points differential starker for the more rare "super" units can only make for a better game. Unless you increase the points of Shock Cavalry, many people will continue to ignore the far more historically common Dragoons. Indeed, by nerfing the permitted artillery units as is proposed, and I remain truly perplexed as to why you cannot field one artillery unit per Infantry Division at least, there will be even less deterrent for Shock Cavalry under V2.

My reality is that I doubt I will ever play in a FoGN tournament. But I really liked FoGN as a system before the metagamed lists became common so that even a friendly pick-up game became an arms race. There swiftly became little point me fielding a historically composed and researched force. That was despite John Shaw's lovely spreadsheet which enabled me to include pickies of my generals and all [sigh].

Able was I ere I saw Elba.... [muttering as the Grognard retreats back to the man cave, where is Marie Walewska when you need her...?]

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



Joined: 22 May 2012
Posts: 198
Location: Woodend

PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've got an idea, but you may not like it..... Confused
This comes partly as a possible remedy to competition lists (or any others, for that matter!) that are designed with historical accuracy as somewhat less of a priority.
I have heard of rules where army lists are fixed, with no choice available to the player at all. This solves the problem of dodgy list design, but seems a little draconian.

My suggestion is:
For points based/competition play, each nation has a single list for each time period. The list would be that for the basic infantry corps for the given period eg French Infantry Corps 1805-7, or Russian Infantry Corps 1812 Etc.
These should have the list of available allies/other divisions seriously curtailed.
The outcome of this (hopefully) would be armies that still have reasonable variation, but few of the "killer" units.
This would then (again, hopefully!!) result in games where generalship plays a more important role.

Over time, other lists can be produced that are for historical games. These could be less constrained by the strictures of points. After all, there is nothing that says you have to have two armies of equal points start a battle - that's why there are scenarios, victory conditions and so on, all of which can be adjusted. That way you could have Massena's 4th French Corps fighting Bellegarde's 1st Austrian Corps in 1809 in just a friendly game, and it could be the fighting around Aspern, ........

So, there it is.
Two sets of lists - one for competition play, one for historical formations.
Maybe not practical, just thought I'd mention it Very Happy
_________________
The Dead Cost Nothing!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Gordon



Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Posts: 564

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2017 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting idea Steve. But I do agree with your first sentence. Wink
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  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
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