FoG digital Renaissance - pushing the envelope

[stockwellpete]

This is very helpful on Renaissance warfare . . .

http://warfare.uphero.com/Renaissance/R ... ticles.htm

[Odenathus]

A small range of figures that could be used for Renaissance + later would be really useful, and could be added without needing to change the underlying engine. Some medium infantry arquebusiers/musketeers, cuirassiers/later reiters, 'harquebusiers' (like Cromwell's Ironsides), more suitable pikemen, and a few others could easily be used to extend the period range by another century.

I know (because I've asked them) that Slitherine isn't planning to develop a whole new game using its FoG Renaissance rules, but the Ancient/Medieval game engine is flexible enough to accommodate this period with the addition of suitable looking figures and would do the job adequately.

[stockwellpete]

A small range of figures that could be used for Renaissance + later would be really useful, and could be added without needing to change the underlying engine. Some medium infantry arquebusiers/musketeers, cuirassiers/later reiters, 'harquebusiers' (like Cromwell's Ironsides), more suitable pikemen, and a few others could easily be used to extend the period range by another century.

I know (because I've asked them) that Slitherine isn't planning to develop a whole new game using its FoG Renaissance rules, but the Ancient/Medieval game engine is flexible enough to accommodate this period with the addition of suitable looking figures and would do the job adequately.

Yes, I think this is the way to approach the issue. Although quite a few of us would immediately buy a FOG Renaissance PC game I do wonder how much of a wider market there is for such a game, particularly at a time of recession. So the obvious thing for us to do is to start lobbying for a few "extras" as you have indicated. At least that way we can render the battles of the 16th and 17th centuries a bit more accurately and maybe we could make the case of a Renaissance Battlepack to be released at some point in the future. I know that there has been some discussion in the past about problematic Renaissance formations, such as the Spanish tercio, and how could that be represented in a hex-based game - but I think all we need is both LF and MF arquebusiers and musketeers (so 4 troop types here) with the relevant firepower statistics. Then we can experiment with our scenarios to come up with the best way of dealing with these complexities.

The other thing is that the new methods of fighting associated with the Renaissance took their time to be disseminated throughout Europe. I have done some 16th C Irish battles that, because Ireland is located on the periphery of Europe, really resemble medieval conflicts where combatants were trying to bash each other's brains out still. Then as we move through the 16thC firearms do start to appear on Irish battlefields too and all that I would need to improve the scenarios are some LF (Irish) and MF (English) arquebusiers.

I would add some wheeled artillery to your list above and I wonder if a case could be made for an extra type of artillery. Basically, there were three types in the 16th C - cannon, culverins and the smaller guns like falcons, so maybe we could ask for "medium artillery" and that all the artillery be mobile, even though the heavy stuff would still be very ponderous. So if we start to make a list . . .

i) light and medium infantry arquebusiers (more lethal than handgunners)
ii) light and medium infantry musketeers (more lethal than arquebusiers)
iii) cuirassiers
iv) later reiters
v) 'harquebusiers' (like Cromwell's Ironsides), 17th century
vi) more suitable pikemen
vii) medium artillery (culverins) ? and all artillery to be mobile; also we need to be able to set artillery to "poor" (wet conditions, inexperienced gun crews etc)
vii) anything else?

Odenathus, can you expand a bit on iii), iv), v) and vi) and identify the key characteristics that you are looking to add (like I have in brackets on the list). If we can come up with a concise list between us then we can present it to cothyso/Slitherine when they indicate they are ready to move on to the next stage and address the gameplay.

[Odenathus]

Pete, looked at some of your earlier posts and others' responses and clearly we're thinking the same way. Being realistic, this is a commercial game and Slitherine aren't going to expend any $ making changes to the existing system just to satisfy a minority of players who insist on trying to design and play Renaissance + games on what's explicitly an Ancient/Medieval game engine. So I fear that some extra figure images is the best we can hope for. I'm reluctantly prepared to make things fit, e.g. give a new MF 'musketeer' figure crossbow firepower and settle for that as an easy compromise. So, in answer to your question (finally), using new figures but accepting the constraints of the existing engine - I realise that others will have different ideas:

(iii) either Knights or Cavalry, Heavy Armoured or Armoured, Drilled, no firepower but Swordsmen + to allow for them using swords and pistols in the melee
(iv) either Knights or Cavalry, Heavy Armoured or Armoured, Drilled, Pistols, Swordsmen
(v) Cavalry, Armoured, Drilled, Swordsmen + to allow for them using swords and pistols in the melee. Although named harquebusiers I think they rarely used their long firearms and all converted to shock cavalry as soon as they could. But you could give them mounted crossbow firepower if you wanted them to be able to use their firelocks.

An elegant answer to the tercio problem, used for phalanxes in the old 'Alexander's Battles' game, would be to yoke two pike units together so that they have to move and manouevre as one, we could allocate rear ranks firing or detached firepower units to taste, but this would require a significant change to the engine.

[stockwellpete]

Thanks for those ideas, Odenathus. So our list looks like this now. Any more ideas, anyone?

Renaissance figures that we would like to see added to the scenario editor

i) light and medium infantry arquebusiers (more lethal than handgunners)
ii) light and medium infantry musketeers (more lethal than arquebusiers)
iii) cuirassiers (either Knights or Cavalry, Heavy Armoured or Armoured, Drilled, no firepower but Swordsmen + to allow for them using swords and pistols in the melee)
iv) later reiters (either Knights or Cavalry, Heavy Armoured or Armoured, Drilled, Pistols, Swordsmen)
v) 'harquebusiers' (like Cromwell's Ironsides, 17th century Cavalry, Armoured, Drilled, Swordsmen + to allow for them using swords and pistols in the melee. Although named harquebusiers I think they rarely used their long firearms and all converted to shock cavalry as soon as they could. But you could give them mounted crossbow firepower if you wanted them to be able to use their firelocks)
vi) more suitable pikemen
vii) medium artillery (culverins) ? and all artillery to be mobile; also we need to be able to set artillery to "poor" (wet conditions, inexperienced gun crews etc)
vii) anything else?

I think what we might profitably do is to divide the Renaissance Age into two separate periods. If we agree that the whole period runs from about 1450 to about 1700 then perhaps the two sub-periods could either be 1450-1550 and 1550-1700 or 1450-1600 and 1600-1700 (I prefer this second option). The purpose would primarily be to allow us to prioritise figures for the earlier period as, arguably, it had already started by around 1450, well within the scope of the medieval period covered by FOG already. I think we might be on stronger ground with Slitherine if we argue for the earlier Renaissance period to be better represented in the scenario editor. Asking for 17thC figures might be a bit more problematic, in my opinion.

If people agree with this proposition then I think we need to sort the list above and put each of the unit types into the two specific time periods that we have agreed on.

Two other things we might do under the auspices of "pushing the envelope" are to compile a list of player made Remaissance period scenarios that we already have made - and to look in the scenario editor and see which of the images are OK for us to use in the early and later Renaissance periods. For example, a lot of the pikemen have a buckler-type shield attached to their fore-arm. The Scots certainly used these, I believe the Germans did too. They seemed to have become obsolete as firearms became more lethal but exactly when were they discarded? Was it while arquebuses were still the main firearms weapon or was it only when muskets became more prevalent. I am not that knowledgeable about Renaissance warfare to know the answer. Perhaps someone else knows?

[stockwellpete]

I have made the following scenarios that might be described as "Renaissance battles" . . .

Flodden 1513
Pavia 1525
Ancrum Moor 1545
Pinkie Cleugh 1547
Clontibret 1595
Yellow Ford 1598
Moyry Pass 1600
Kinsale 1601

Other 16thC scenarios that I have made are Knockdoe 1504, Linlithgow Bridge 1526 and Farsetmore 1567 but these were entirely medieval in character. Mohacs 1526 is included in the game as an official scenario as are a number of 15thC battles involving the Swiss and Burgundians that have large artillery components that were more characteristic of Renaissance battles.

EDIT: if any of the scenario builders interested in the Renaissance period would like to try some of my scenarios and have a chat about the period too then please let me know.

[ZeaBed]

Another source of Renaissance battles would be the Battle of Klushino which I referenced in this old thread. I think it shows how interesting a series of Polish-Lithuanian vs. Russian scenarios could be.

viewtopic.php?f=92&t=35530

[stockwellpete]

Zeabed (and anybody else) - do you think it would make more sense for us to concentrate on extending the scope of the scenario editor into just the 16thC rather than the entire earlymodern period? I am thinking that Slitherine might not be too enthusiastic if we try and extend the scope of the game well into the 17thC (they may want to leave their option of making a Renaissance PC game open at this point), but they might be more supportive if we just try and include the next range of military developments from 1500 onwards (basically extending the game until 1600) - so we would only be asking for a few additions, arquebusiers, wheeled artillery, and some frilly Landsknects and pikemen types.

[ZeaBed]

Zeabed (and anybody else) - do you think it would make more sense for us to concentrate on extending the scope of the scenario editor into just the 16thC rather than the entire earlymodern period? I am thinking that Slitherine might not be too enthusiastic if we try and extend the scope of the game well into the 17thC (they may want to leave their option of making a Renaissance PC game open at this point), but they might be more supportive if we just try and include the next range of military developments from 1500 onwards (basically extending the game until 1600) - so we would only be asking for a few additions, arquebusiers, wheeled artillery, and some frilly Landsknects and pikemen types.

Extending a few military developments is surely better than nothing, pete, imo. I can only enumerate what I would like to see, which includes scenarios gaming many 1500-1700 battles. As a mere player and humble scenario contributor, however, I lack any perspective on or appreciation of the costs and other difficulties that Slitherine would face if it tried to expand the game to that point, or even to just say 1600. If the parameters of FoG do not envisage taking the game beyond 1300 any time in the future, for whatever reason, I would hope they can at least provide us with those few additions that you've mentioned.

[stockwellpete]

Extending a few military developments is surely better than nothing, pete, imo. I can only enumerate what I would like to see, which includes scenarios gaming many 1500-1700 battles. As a mere player and humble scenario contributor, however, I lack any perspective on or appreciation of the costs and other difficulties that Slitherine would face if it tried to expand the game to that point, or even to just say 1600. If the parameters of FoG do not envisage taking the game beyond 1300 any time in the future, for whatever reason, I would hope they can at least provide us with those few additions that you've mentioned.

Yes OK, Zeabed. I'll wait and see if anyone else has any thoughts on this over the next few days first - but then I might send an e-mail to Slitherine asking what they think about these ideas. Next Saturday is the Salute 2013 event in London and Slitherine will have a stall there - I am 50/50 at the moment about going but if I do go I might be able to have a quick chat with them if it is not too busy. If we do end up deciding to restrict it to just a few extra units in the scenario editor then it may not cost Slitherine much at all. Perhaps there are TT players who will contribute images for arquebusiers, culverins and Landsknechts free of charge (or very cheaply anyway)?

[ZeaBed]

Good idea, Peter. Hope you get a chance to speak with them. Also, I don't know how many new items will be incorporated into the new FoG iteration, but I wonder how difficult or costly it would be to just allow the custom scenario engine to have city hexes as well as baggage camps.

[fogman]

frankly i'm sure people are more than willing to pay 20 bucks for a comprehensive upgrade. they should just go for it if they do it right.

[stockwellpete]

frankly i'm sure people are more than willing to pay 20 bucks for a comprehensive upgrade. they should just go for it if they do it right.

The indications are though that they are not going to do that in the forseeable future.

[Odenathus]

Sure it isn't what Slitherine wants to hear, but I'd sooner pay whatever for an upgrade to add Renaissance figures to the basic system than I would for the proposed 'Wolves from the Sea', which is reasonably well covered by the existing figure range.

[stockwellpete]

Sure it isn't what Slitherine wants to hear, but I'd sooner pay whatever for an upgrade to add Renaissance figures to the basic system than I would for the proposed 'Wolves from the Sea', which is reasonably well covered by the existing figure range.

"Wolves From the Sea" was prepared by HexWar, the old developers of the game and has been ready for some time, I believe. I think HexWar may have completed "Oath of Fealty" too.