Bayonets part II

[ravenflight]

Hi All,

Ok, so I've got a bit more of a handle on Bayonets now, so I'm trying to work out things with the Pike & Shot versions.

If I'm not mistaken this is how it stacks up:

<begin>

Bayonets are good against mounted, but protected (pike & shot) are better. Protected with Bayonets (Pike & Shot with Bayonets) are no better than Pike & Shot against mounted.

Bayonets are better against foot than pike and shot and pike and shot with bayonets are about the same.

<end>

So, in essence, by having pike and shot with bayonets you're getting the best of both worlds. You'll be better against mounted than just bayonets and lose nothing except maybe a bit of firepower against foot.

Costly though...

[shadowdragon]

Hi All,

Ok, so I've got a bit more of a handle on Bayonets now, so I'm trying to work out things with the Pike & Shot versions.

If I'm not mistaken this is how it stacks up:

<begin>

Bayonets are good against mounted, but protected (pike & shot) are better. Protected with Bayonets (Pike & Shot with Bayonets) are no better than Pike & Shot against mounted.

Bayonets are better against foot than pike and shot and pike and shot with bayonets are about the same.

<end>

So, in essence, by having pike and shot with bayonets you're getting the best of both worlds. You'll be better against mounted than just bayonets and lose nothing except maybe a bit of firepower against foot.

Costly though...

In some discussion about extending FoGR to the War of the Spanish Succession (WSS), RBS suggested that foot with bayonets are "protected". Presumably this would reflect the superior effectiveness of the socket bayonet over the plug bayonet (i.e., in the former case foot can still fire whilst using their bayonets which isn't true with the plug bayonet.

I've done some research for my interest in extending the rules to the WSS and there does seem to have made a big difference in the effectiveness due to the introduction of the socket bayonet in the 1690's, although it did not become widespread until after 1700. Essentially foot in at least 3 lines (the minimum they thought necessary to resist horse) with fixed bayonets can hold off horse and still fire which makes infantry units very deadly for cavalry to approach frontally. For late 17th century foot without pikes, if they fix bayonets they lose firepower whilst becoming pikemen with shorter pikes.

[mrbootsthecat]

Lucky that you have a handle on bayonets. How would you hold them otherwise ?

[kevinj]

Lucky that you have a handle on bayonets. How would you hold them otherwise ?

Stick them in the hole in the end of your musket? Surely nobody would be that stupid...

[rbodleyscott]

So, in essence, by having pike and shot with bayonets you're getting the best of both worlds. You'll be better against mounted than just bayonets and lose nothing except maybe a bit of firepower against foot.

Costly though...

Not costly because you don't pay for the bayonets in a pike and shot BG - because they don't have any effect unless you detach them or you get caught in a column with shot at the front.

[ravenflight]

Not costly because you don't pay for the bayonets in a pike and shot BG - because they don't have any effect unless you detach them or you get caught in a column with shot at the front.

I didn't really look at the costs to be honest... just went by the cost of the base as a whole without really comparing... but aren't bayonets better against foot? I mean, they cancel nearly everything, so they DO have an effect don't they?

[Scrumpy]

Only if you field a crusty old campaigner shouting " They don't like it up 'em "