Colonial Portuguese – who made this list???

[pippohispano]

Sure, but not for Portuguese Colonials. In the colonies they would be more lightly armed, and with no lance but rather a sword and arquebus.

On the other hand, these figures would be great to represent the Portuguese cavalrymen in Morocco, as these used light armour, shield (mostly the Moroccan adarga) and, of course, a lance.

BTW, by late Summer in intend to post my version of the Portuguese Colonial list - which, by the way, has been approved as the official list in Portugal - so stay tuned.

[pippohispano]

Ladies and gents,

One of this Forum's participants as asked me if I could send him my experimental list for testing and so on. Obviously I gave him a positive reply.

If any one of you wish to see the experimental list in it's current form (with some corrections by RBS, btw), please send me a private message. Don't forget to include your email.

Pippo

[Scrumpy]

I fought that list over here in the US today.

The Tupi option of front rank Bow* and rear rank arquebus is wrong, very, very wrong. Makes them far too powerful as they can claim the majority of shooting dice are gunpowder and not have a -2 on death rolls. They should be either all bow* or arquebus*.

As for the militia cavalry, what justification is there for saying they are not Poor against every other cavalry type in the world, which in open play is what you are judging them against.

OK, so they did fine against the Dutch they faced in Brazil, but how would they have stacked up in open play against Polish Winged Hussars, Gendarmes or other types they will face in tournament play ?

I thought it was a fair list, but it needs some tweaking imo.

[waldo]

I fought that list over here in the US today.

The Tupi option of front rank Bow* and rear rank arquebus is wrong, very, very wrong. Makes them far too powerful as they can claim the majority of shooting dice are gunpowder and not have a -2 on death rolls. They should be either all bow* or arquebus*.

As for the militia cavalry, what justification is there for saying they are not Poor against every other cavalry type in the world, which in open play is what you are judging them against.

OK, so they did fine against the Dutch they faced in Brazil, but how would they have stacked up in open play against Polish Winged Hussars, Gendarmes or other types they will face in tournament play ?

I thought it was a fair list, but it needs some tweaking imo.

So they get the benefits of better POAs to hit with the bow and don't lose the minus two on death rolls because the rear rank get full effect with arquebus? Sounds like having your cake and eating it too. How many other lists have mixed missile weapons in the same battle group?

Do some of the foot ever reach the dizzy heights of superior musket (or arquebus), impact foot, swordsmen, or has some sense come into it?

Walter

[Scrumpy]

My opponent fielded 2 bg of superior Warriors armed with musket, impact foot & swords, who also had a regimental gun attached for good measure at 100 pts a bg !

[waldo]

My opponent fielded 2 bg of superior Warriors armed with musket, impact foot & swords, who also had a regimental gun attached for good measure at 100 pts a bg !

So the Portuguese colonial troops are like French but move faster, shoot better and fight better? If they move up to a pike/shot unit they will have more dice shooting, be on a +POA at impact and if they manage to disrupt their opponent by either their shooting or the impact they will be + POA in the melee as well. Not bad for troops who couldn't make any conquests in Europe.

Whilst I feel sorry for pippohispano or any other would be Colonial Portuguese players using the list as written I'm not sure this is the answer.

The problem is the over-generous classification of non-Europeans vis-a-vis their conquerors. The Aztecs tried and failed to conquer the Tlaxcalans. The Tlaxcalans tried and failed to defeat several hundred Spanish and then threw their lot in with them. The Spanish and their allies then proceeded to conquer the Aztecs, and almost every other nation in the area in a very short time. Similar story in South America.

And the 'Cities of Gold' take on this? Masses of superior (and even elites for the Aztecs). After 1550 the Colonial Spanish aren't allowed any superior troops '...they may well have lost some of their initial elan as they settled down." Meanwhile the Mayans still have superior troops up to 1698, as does almost every native state up until its fall. Clearly they maintained their 'elan' right until the end.

The classification of the meso-Americans as 'swordsmen' is dubious at best. "Swordsmen capability is as much about attitude to and experience of close combat as it is about weaponry." (p.5 Cities of Gold). This, surely, is an argument for the Spanish missile foot to be swordsmen. They not only had the weapons, they also had the attitude. Compare this to the Aztecs and other native Americans and the results they achieved.

With the classifcations as they are, the Spanish arquebusiers & crossbowmen post 1526 are dead meat against the locals. A crossbow against impact foot/light spear and swordsmen? Good luck with that. Oh, and the compulsory poor militia, even better. How many native American armies have compulsory poor troops?

Interestingly, possibly the most successful army against the Spanish, the Mapuche, has no superiors. Maybe superiors aren't the answer after all...

I have really enjoyed FOG:R and the European books have been great, but I think Cities of Gold and Colonies and Conquests really dropped the ball.

Walter

[Delbruck]

I think Cities of Gold was a spoof, a dig against the torunament mentality of many ancient, medeival, & renaissance gamers. For example, the idea that a North Ameirican woodlands indian army (who could at best put a few handred wariors into the field) matching up against a modern European army (who could routinely put 25,000 men into battle) must be considered something of a joke.

I have really enjoyed FOG:R and the European books have been great, but I think Cities of Gold and Colonies and Conquests really dropped the ball.

I have to agree. FogR was a game designed to model European warfare. Modeling colonial/native armies possibly could have been acomplished using the current rules, but books like Cities of Gold would need to have to be regarded as a seperate self contained book, not comptable witth the others. In which case, armies could have been designed without regard to other European armies. Of course, this would have prevented Aztecs fighting Ming, and Ming fighting French Hugenots, which goes back to my original comment. I also think there is a big weapons interaction problem when dealing with non-European armies.

I can't say I have a major problem in ancients with armies fighting out of time and space. I probably don't have a problem because (1) technological change were gradual and (2) these armies really could not have fought each other. This isn't true in the Renaissance. There were major tech changes, and to some extent very different armies did fight each other.

In all fairmenss this problem is not unique to FogR when modelling this period.

[khurasan_miniatures]

So the Portuguese colonial troops are like French but move faster, shoot better and fight better? If they move up to a pike/shot unit they will have more dice shooting, be on a +POA at impact and if they manage to disrupt their opponent by either their shooting or the impact they will be + POA in the melee as well.

Wow, I'm actually considering having Colonial Portuguese made in 15mm now! Here's the test sculpt:

[khurasan_miniatures]

For example, the idea that a North Ameirican woodlands indian army (who could at best put a few handred wariors into the field) matching up against a modern European army (who could routinely put 25,000 men into battle) must be considered something of a joke.

Not sure why, considering that non-European armies did in fact fight modern European armies. It's more of a fantasy to field French Wars of Religion against 1680s Austrians than it is to field Dutch against Eastern Forest Culture or Spanish against Aztecs. The Europeans were stretched in the extreme in terms of logistics when they were so far from home and were able to field only small armies, and the figure scale slides to accomodate. Actually one of the more interesting things about later renaissance warfare was the frequency of conflict between European and "native" forces.

And of course specifically colonial lists are provided in the army books.

Richard fielded one of the more effective native type armies, the later Iroquois, against an ECW force with cavalry and he thoroughly defeated the Indians if memory serves. So the game does seem to work as it should. The problem for the Europeans was fielding Horse in the colonies, which few except the Spanish made much of an effort to do. The lists reflect that.

[Delbruck]

Not sure why, considering that non-European armies did in fact fight modern European armies. It's more of a fantasy to field French Wars of Religion against 1680s Austrians than it is to field Dutch against Eastern Forest Culture or Spanish against Aztecs. The Europeans were stretched in the extreme in terms of logistics when they were so far from home and were able to field only small armies, and the figure scale slides to accomodate. Actually one of the more interesting things about later renaissance warfare was the frequency of conflict between European and "native" forces.

Except the natives are not facing an ECW list in America, but a colonial English list.

And I would be very happy using an Eastern Woodland Indian list versus Colonial English. Just looking at the lists, I don't see how the English colonists survived.

[khurasan_miniatures]

Except the natives are not facing an ECW list in America, but a colonial English list.

Exactly so there's no problem.

[Scrumpy]

So if I disagree with a list, can I redesign it according to my view on the historical evidence presented, then sanction it for use in my own country ?

[gibby]

Apparently so.

[waldo]

I also think there is a big weapons interaction problem when dealing with non-European armies.

Such as men with wooden clubs being better in melee than men with swords? In most of the colonial lists it mentions something along the lines that "pike wasn't used because it was no benefit against their opponents." Except pike and shot does work against swordsmen - it negates the + for swordsmen in melee, if steady. So the rules don't seem to reflect the history. Impact foot swordsmen against muskets - there is a lot riding on that one turn of short range musket fire, especially when the muskets are often poor and the impact foot/light spear are often superior!

It also means the Colonial armies can be bigger and poorer quality than their historical opponents. Really? From a 'top-down' perspective i.e. the Europeans clobbered the natives time and time again with very small forces, this seems completely wrong.

The authors would have been better off not giving men armed with clubs and stone weapons swordsmen capability, doing away with the blanket [unless you are the unlucky Mapuche] "veteran troops usually fought with the the other troops but we are going to give them 18-24 bases of superiors regardless" justification and include more compulsory poor troops. This at least would make the native armies bigger and less resilient than the colonials.


Walter

[jefritrout]

I've not been near a computer (except at work and the filters there block this site) since Friday, and look what has happened in this discussion.

I am going to address these posts tomorrow - as it is now quite late. I played against Paul, and there seems to be some hyperbole in what has been stated here. Again, my responses and readiness to answer questions tomorrow.

Quickly
I will agree that the Civilized Indians are not correctly represented as the rules, and in the follow up game, we changed their classification. After having given it much thought, I believe I found a better way to represent it with what the list designers intended, and without giving one unit a couple of different shooting weapons. The predominant weapon rule is what I applied, but looking at what has already been done with Norway list and the Iroquois list. Neither of those is overpowering.

Again I will respond tomorrow.

[pippohispano]

Hummm, It seems that I’ve info-excluded for too many days too. There’s a lot of posting here and some need to be clarified.

Scrumpy wrote:

“My opponent fielded 2 bg of superior Warriors armed with musket, impact foot & swords, who also had a regimental gun attached for good measure at 100 pts a bg !”
- That’s impossible! The best you can get is superior Warriors, musket, impact foot (but not swordsmen), w/ regimental gun (yes, even if you don’t like the idea, they did use small guns who followed the troops, and the only way to simulate that is to give them “regimental guns”).

“The Tupi option of front rank Bow* and rear rank arquebus is wrong, very, very wrong. Makes them far too powerful as they can claim the majority of shooting dice are gunpowder and not have a -2 on death rolls. They should be either all bow* or arquebus*.”
- That was my main problem when I did the list. The fact is they DID HAVE mix weapons formations, but it doesn’t seem to work well. Perhaps the arquebus* is the best solution, though it does not satisfy me. I’m eager to see what Jeff as devised to solve the issue.

“As for the militia cavalry, what justification is there for saying they are not Poor against every other cavalry type in the world, which in open play is what you are judging them against.”
- And what justification is there for saying that they were poor? Can you give us any contemporary data on that?

“OK, so they did fine against the Dutch they faced in Brazil, but how would they have stacked up in open play against Polish Winged Hussars, Gendarmes or other types they will face in tournament play ?”
- Read again what you’re saying: since they didn’t face Winged Hussars or Gendarmes, they should be rated Poor!!! OK, they dealt with the Dutch, but that doesn’t count...


Waldo wrote:
“So the Portuguese colonial troops are like French but move faster, shoot better and fight better?”
- Not really. They're still human. They move just as fast, shoot just as good but are not as good fighters. I guess they lack the panache!

“If they move up to a pike/shot unit they will have more dice shooting, be on a +POA at impact and if they manage to disrupt their opponent by either their shooting or the impact they will be + POA in the melee as well. Not bad for troops who couldn't make any conquests in Europe.”
- Again, you’re missinformed. The Portuguese don’t have swordsmen capability, although they should have as they were very resilient in close combat. But what you’re saying, i.e., “more dice shooting and (...) + POA in the melee as well” is apliable to Janissaries, and people don't seem to be bothered. On the other hand, “more dice shooting (...) +POA at impact” is just exactly what happened when the Portuguese faced their enemies, from Asia to America. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t. Against the Dutch it worked just fine, at least in Brazil. Oh, but I’ve forgot: the Dutch don’t count!

“Whilst I feel sorry for pippohispano or any other would be Colonial Portuguese players using the list as written I'm not sure this is the answer.”
- Unfortunately it must be, first ond foremost because the list is historically inaccurate, as I made clar in my fist post. Also, it’s very easy to “presume” something based just on lak of information or even biases (which I presume is not the case here, despite the comment “my view on the historical evidence”) so, if you really want to make serious statements, first you must read the sources (which I did). I’ve posted some bibliography in this thread should you care to read them. Then we may talk.

[jefritrout]

I was going to respond that Paul did not get things quite right. He glanced at the proposed list for about 2-3 minutes than we started to play. As it has been stated the Portuguese infantry DO NOT get sword. Simple and plain about that. Since you want to compare them to the French lets examine the issue. French are Musket*, Impact foot with some pike or some bayonets (depending on periold). Portuguese are Musket, Impact Foot, Warriors. So the warriors move faster, and they get overlaps with a ++ on POA. Therefore warriors are fantastic right?

Warriors can't move by division which is HUGE. So they can 4" but a division gets to move 6" if foot. Warriors don't get a good chance to redeploy due to that, so you better get your deployment correct. The Portuguese also don't get any pike in their warrior units. So you better protect them against mounted. Mounted will hit on impact at a ++. Mounted will generally then continue the fight with only a single +. They also take a -1 to morale when losing to mounted, or heavy foot and they automatically take a test when hit twice by artillery. Also warriors take an extra -1 to complex move tests. For all this warriors cost the same as normal heavy or medium foot. After the impact - the Portuguese fight all other (non sword armed units) even up.

This is not a rant about the Portuguese or any other warrior army, but it is to demonstrate that the comments that the Portuguese in this list are supermen are rather far fetched.

This is taken from an e-mail that I wrote to a friend about the Militia cavalry. I think the word Militia is a bad choice because of the connotation. The Portuguese called them milita because they were raised locally not in Portugal.

Now onto the rating of "Militia" cavalry... What should I call these men? They are kind of like the Vaqueros (Cowboys) who lived their lives in the saddle on the frontier, a law almost unto themselves. They lived and fought almost constantly. They were scouts, they were fighters, and they actually charged and over ran trained Dutch infantry on more than one occassion. Infantry armed with musket and pike, I might add. I think Carbine, Swordsmen, Cavalry is an accurate idea to get the game terms correct, in that they acted as scouts, skirmishing and when their fire disordered the Dutch Infantry they charged and ran right through them. Pit them against your average Parlimentarian Horse and they suffer greatly. Think of it in game terms - you have armor and pistol - that gives you a two POA advantage in combat against this cavalry. They would not stand up to any European Cavalry and I learned this lesson well against Walt and Paul on Saturday. They were run off by two cavalry units. One unit managed to fight a losing draw agaisnt Cossack Cavalry - which is kind of their equivalent. Should Cossacks be rated as poor? Much of the cavalry culture on the frontier was same between these two groups. (I can only speak to Brasil as that is what I've studied and where I've lived and also having been to Ukraine and don't forget my parents living there for a spell. With all the friends they made including historians, with whom I've talked I have a slightly informed opinion on that matter.) I think poor would be an injustice to these horsemen. Limited numbers, check, I think the list writer gets the cavalry correct. Some other stuff, I'm not sure about.

As to them fighting Poles, the Poles should run overthem. The Winged Hussars would always have a POA against this cavalry. The winged Hussars are also Superior so they have that advantage as well. In fact the Poles should run over the Colonial Portuguese unless the Portuguese get very hot dice or all the terrain.

[Scrumpy]

Fine, so based on what I thought Jeff was using the figures as I posted my coments when I got home saturday, and I hold my hand up they never had swords, I just thought he said they did.

Pippo, you come across as someone who's baby has been called ugly in your defence of this list, and whether you mean to or not I don't know, but your list seems to have been designed to make out to deal with the Portuguese on their best day, not on their average day.

They basis of ANY set of wargaming rules is to provide people with a level playing field with which to recreate battles both mythical and historical from a given time period. You therefore will be comparing non-historic opponents with each other, and the authors have the right to give their view on whether unit A is better, worse or equal to unit B in their opinion. Therefore just because the militia cavalry did well in the battle or two they fought in Brazil, who are you or I to argue with the author's view that they would stack up badly against other mounted troops from 1501-1700 ?

In such a spirit the Christianized Indians should be armed all Bow* or all arquebus* depending on hoiw you interpret the majority of the unit being armed. This works fine for other bases throughout both Fog (A&M) & (R) so why should your list be different ?


I was told that this experimental list is valid in Portugal for tournament play, is this correct ? Would seem strange for a list you seem to be getting people to try out to see if it works or not. I for one would not like to see this list become valid, not that one opinion will sway anyone I guess, but there you go.

[gibby]

Yep, I agree with Scrump's sentiment.

cheers
Jim

[pippohispano]

In such a spirit the Christianized Indians should be armed all Bow* or all arquebus* depending on hoiw you interpret the majority of the unit being armed. This works fine for other bases throughout both Fog (A&M) & (R) so why should your list be different ?

I see, this works fine for all others... so, tell me, why do the Wakou pirates have mixed formations? They should also have all Sword* or all arquebus/musket*, depending on how you interpret the majority of the unit being armed. Are they different?...

But again, Jeff’s proposal seems better than mine so here’e something I could change.

Therefore just because the militia cavalry did well in the battle or two they fought in Brazil, who are you or I to argue with the author's view that they would stack up badly against other mounted troops from 1501-1700?

I don’t know about you, but like I said over and over, I've read the sources regarding this particular subject, unlike the authors (due, I suppose, to a very tight schedule). Therefore I know what sort of cavalry these militia were - unlike many, who didn't even knew that there was Portuguese cavalry in Brazil - and I know that they fared well against their opponents, i.e., pike&shot Dutch.
Oh, but I forgot: the Dutch don’t count, right? Only Poles...

If you really want to discuss further, let's start with less controversial issues and then move on to more complicated ones.
Since you seem so well informed, write me a few lines about the presence of Tercios in Brazil, an issue which is not reflected in the official list which you seem to like so much. Where there any Tercio in Brazil and if so, how many? Who were their commanders and how many companies did they have? How long did they stayed in Brazil?

I for one would not like to see this list become valid

- Sure, if you prefer an historically inaccurate list, you’re free to choose. I prefer something better though.