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 Tournament Auckland Armies Used

 
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: Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:00 pm    Post subject: FOG N Tournament Auckland Armies Used Reply with quote

Richard Stubbs and I went across to Auckland last weekend to play in the North Island Convention FOG N event.

The Convention was well attended with Flames and Games tournaments happening in addition to FOG N. The FOG N event had 12 players, including the 2 of us and Geoff from Sydney. It was good to meet up with some of the NZ players who haven't been able to make it over to Melbourne for their annual pilgrimage to our event. This included Andrew Duncan who is their top ranked player (who beat Richard S in his 1st game and thumped me in my only loss Crying or Very sad )

While we didn't bring back any silverware (I got an honourable mention in 4th place) it was great to play our 1st tournament using the v2 changes and of course to play new players in a new town. The NZ guy were great hosts, lifting me to and from the airport and offering to put me up in a spare room to keep costs down.

Armies used were as follows:
1st Place - Anglo Netherlands in Belgium 1815
2nd - Ottomans in the Balkans 1805-8
3rd - Russian Infantry Corps 1813-4
4th - Russian Infantry Corps 1805

And then in no particular order (as I don't know it)...
Allied Army in Spain and France 1812-4
Austrian Army of Italy 1805
A 2nd Russian Infantry Corps 1805
Russian Infantry Corps, Army of the West 1812
French Army of the Orient 1798-1801
Swedish Army of the North 1813-14
French Infantry Corps 1814
Saxon Army of 1809

So a good mix of Reformed (5) and Unreformed (7), showing that the improvements to Unreformed in v2 have helped keep all the armies relevant.

The consensus was that v2 changes are working well and there were only a few tweaks made to the draft we were using, almost all to do with clarifications. I will be sending out a final version with these changes in the next day or two and this will be the version used at our tournament in July.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick.G



Joined: 25 Jul 2013
Posts: 134
Location: Broadmeadows

PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2017 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well done to both Richards for their sterling efforts in NZ.

Interesting that there were not many French lists and so many unreformed. It appears that the hard work put in by all those involved in the rules redraft have nailed it, well done to those men!

Looking forward to our tournament in July. No prizes for guessing my list, Unreformed Austrians.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BPT



Joined: 07 Nov 2016
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also of interest was that the majority of the unreformed infantry units fielded were small units.

Richard's amendment to ACV levels (ie large units now count as 2, same as small) may have achieved the desired aim.

Fielding front-line, continental unreformed infantry as large units appears to no longer be the virtual auto-choice it used to be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard



Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 1047
Location: Elsternwick

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like that its not that simple though . The right large unit can be really effective.

This makes you have to weigh the pros and cons carefully and think about the units role in the game plan .

I like that ,it make for interest , so still a viable choice just not a default one .

Good rule balance I say
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
martymagnificent



Joined: 13 Apr 2016
Posts: 56
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Without wanting to be a naysayer I would point out that no unreformed infantry army (I don't count the Ottomans) made the top 3. Plenty of people may be willing to give them a crack, but they didn't actually do all that well.

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



Joined: 07 Nov 2016
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While a true unreformed army didn't make the top 3 (leaving aside the Brits, who won), I don't think this is necessarily a reflection on the troop type, but more the ability of the players.

The guy who won (Kit) was the reigning NZ champion (god knows how he managed that, but anyway...). Mike came 2nd - he usually places in the top 3 of NZ tournaments, and Andy came 3rd (most NZ players - except no doubt Kit - would probably, grudgingly, agree Andy is the best player in the country).

Maybe it's telling that the top 3 players didn't chose unreformed armies. But Kit used his Brits because that's his only army, Mike used Ottomans because he wanted to see if the v2 treatment of irregulars felt about right, and Andy chose late Russians because his usual 1813 mixed nationality army of cheese was banned!

I was happy with how my humble Austrians went, in small units for once.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
martymagnificent



Joined: 13 Apr 2016
Posts: 56
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Maybe it's telling that the top 3 players didn't chose unreformed armies


I think it probably is. I feel if you want to give yourself the best chance of getting to the top you will still tend to avoid unreformed infantry armies

I feel unreformed are probably about the same level of usefulness as before ie not terrible but probably not the best available option.

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



Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Posts: 563

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marty because Brits move as unreformed I think they are thoroughly in the camp if being unreformed. Brett has won the Melbourne comp with Austrians and you've done pretty well yourself with them. I used 1805 Russians in Auckland and although I only came 4th, the gap between 2nd to 4th in points was very narrow (we all won 3 out of 4 games).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick.G



Joined: 25 Jul 2013
Posts: 134
Location: Broadmeadows

PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Richard, may I ask what do you do with your unreformed infantry units that have no attachments. Do you leave them at medium range and shout harsh comments at the enemy, or do you close to short range? Or, do you leave them out of the battle line altogether and give them a supporting role?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Gordon



Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Posts: 563

PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mick, I can't claim to be a tactical genius so take my advice with caution. Unreformed troops without atttachments becomes a numbers game. You are 30% cheaper than reformed so you have points for more stuff than the reformed armies. More stuff can be in the form of more infantry units or more cavalry units.

If it's more infantry, then it's about squeezing the enemy. You should have an army with at least 16 units. Use your numbers to push him from all directions. Certainly one on one unreformed vs reformed is a mismatch, hence the points disparity. But you there will inevitably be places on the battlefield where you have two vs one or large vs small. You need to push here while delaying and looking threatening where numbers are more even. Try and go wide to pull his army wide and create space for your numbers.

If you've used your 30% more points for more cavalry, then the cavalry need to be the ones looking threatening, forcing the reformed infantry into square and that's the time for the unreformed infantry to move in. This is traditional Napoleonic combined arms tactics. Here your army may only have 12-13 units, but a reformed army couldn't afford even that if they had tooled up cavalry.

So don't look at it at the tactical level of one unit vs one unit. Look at the whole battlefield and how you can use your troops in combination. There will be places where you feel outgunned. That's fine, because you will have the numbers to soak up some losses. But while you're losing there, make sure he's taking lossses elsewhere that he can afford less.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard



Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 1047
Location: Elsternwick

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is all good advice ,to which Id add my thought that these rules repay attacking in one sector and holding/avoiding in others

I won a game the other day purely because he allowed other sectors to get into action so I could recover my crap position/fighting by winning points elsewhere Smile

Pick the point and hit it , the others serve even if they never roll a dice in anger Smile
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
Page 1 of 1

 
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