I have some 15mm Swedish musketeers for the Great Northern War. Can anyone tell me how to base them for FOGR? Base depth, number of figures to a base, typical battlegroup size?
Thanks
Great Northern Wars
Moderators: terrys, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design
-
Blathergut
- Field Marshal - Elefant
- Posts: 5882
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
- Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
-
nikgaukroger
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
I suppose I ought to point out that as FoG:R stops at 1698 it doesn't cover the Great Northern War - although the Swedish army in 1698 was not really different from that in 1700 
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
Re: Great Northern Wars
Does FoG:R handle the 18th century well? As far as I can tell there is really nothing that represents proper platoon firing, not that it would apply to the Swedes early in the 18th century but you could argue that it is needed to portray 18th century fighting. Another thing that I miss is artillery shooting effectively at foot with grapeshot.
Now I havent seen the late 17th century swedish list. But from the great northern war I would say that impact foot or perhaps even salvo would be appropriate.
Now I havent seen the late 17th century swedish list. But from the great northern war I would say that impact foot or perhaps even salvo would be appropriate.
Re: Great Northern Wars
Yes, I think it would handle the Great Northern War because of the Swedish/Russian dynamic. In the linear tactics era generally, the battle was chiefly one of firepower and morale between opponents each of which had at least two continuous lines of infantry armed with musket and bayonet. Gaps were to be avoided because the thin formations had vulnerable flanks. FOGR can be adapted to for relatively small engagements. To look right it would mean an infantry depth of one base rather than two, which affects other basics of the game. But then base removal leaves gaps, while in reality the continuity of the infantry line would be preserved and the line thinned. A substantial reworking of the mechanisms is I think needed to both look right and work right.
Because of the great importance of maintaining overall formations, there should be less scope for mixing it up in minor tactical dramatic action in a substantial battle, which might mean less fun at the battalion level. I think a grand tactical approach would represent better what was significant in combat. For example, FOG Napoleonic covers the tail end of the linear system and could easily be adapted for linear era battles at the grand tactical level. The player at that level would be maneuvering brigades or half-brigades indivdiually rahter than constituent battalions.
Because of the great importance of maintaining overall formations, there should be less scope for mixing it up in minor tactical dramatic action in a substantial battle, which might mean less fun at the battalion level. I think a grand tactical approach would represent better what was significant in combat. For example, FOG Napoleonic covers the tail end of the linear system and could easily be adapted for linear era battles at the grand tactical level. The player at that level would be maneuvering brigades or half-brigades indivdiually rahter than constituent battalions.