Question about Tercios

[Nemo84]

Now I'm not even close to knowledgeable on 16th-17th century warfare, but there is this one thing I don't understand about the evolution of Tercios. I'm pretty certain this game vastly overestimates their combat capabilities, because if not I can't fathom why any of the historical powers would have moved away from the vastly superior early Tercios.

Their larger density should make them more vulnerable to shooting and their lower ratio of gun-equipped soldiers makes their shooting inferior to late Tercios, but the 2-3 turns of shooting before this early Tercio gets invulnerably locked in close combat make this seem like a minor drawback compared to the vastly increased morale threshold and the invincible close combat capabilities from the sheer number of troops. They are supposed to be big and unwieldy yet as far as I can see they are just as maneuverable as the smaller formations. It's even invulnerable to any form of flanking. I've literally had one of these things surrounded on all sides by 4 units of late Tercios (which means twice the number of men on my side) and the early Tercio still managed to effortlessly rout all four late Tercios.

To me it seems these units need some bigger drawbacks, because right now they are literally the strongest and most cost-effective unit in the game. Maybe at least make it so they can be shot from the flanks or rear when locked in close combat. They are supposed to be these massive fixed formations with spears pointing in all directions and gun detachments on all sides, so why can't my guys on the flank shoot the 500 or so guys currently facing them in a rigid formation, guys who are not doing anything and are not even close to my own troops engaging the front of the Tercio in close combat?

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm couple things
*there is a cap on how many men can fire so tercios likely arnt shooting as well as smaller battalions despite more muskets
*the tercios were very good, made up predominantly of veterans
*not sure why you think they are unwieldy historically. The frontage (ie more linear) is what makes it difficult to maneveur, not depth, the rear ranks simply follow the file leaders.
*in game large units are more vulnerable to artillery but not muskets. Muskets likely arnt going to punch thru men so greater depth , at least when fired on frontally shouldnt be more effective.

You can always edit the Unit database to give Early Tercio less ap's Maybe try 8 vs 10? they will be able to move two grids fwrd but wont be able to move fwrd then a diagonal. Will reduce their ability to change vectors quickly.

[gavril]

I'm sure that RBS and other knowledgeable people will post a proper response, but just a thought...

There used to be an ongoing debate around the question of why armies switched in this period from the apparently lethal longbow to the use of the arquebus. People compared firing rate, accuracy, reliability etc. to put the argument that the longbow was the more lethal weapon. This position fell though on the point that the longbowman had to be highly trained (it often took a lifetime of training to become really adept) and very fit, even after weeks or months on campaign. In contrast, you could train just about anyone to use an arquebus, and replace losses relatively quickly. AFAIK - unless the debate has moved on in recent years - that became the clincher as to why armies switched to what appeared on a purely technical basis to be a less deadly alternative.

My point being that the reasons for changes in battlefield formations and weaponry aren't always obvious!

Cheers,
Jay

[flatsix518]

War is the ultimate pragmatist -- what works, prevails. Bad or outmoded ideas on the battlefield tend to die. Pun intended...

[Nemo84]

War is the ultimate pragmatist -- what works, prevails. Bad or outmoded ideas on the battlefield tend to die. Pun intended...

Hence my question. The early Tercio was historically replaced for a reason, yet in this game I see no reason to ever pick one of its successors in its stead. Why was the early Tercio replaced historically, and is there some way to better model this in an otherwise great game?

I'm sure that RBS and other knowledgeable people will post a proper response, but just a thought...

There used to be an ongoing debate around the question of why armies switched in this period from the apparently lethal longbow to the use of the arquebus. ... My point being that the reasons for changes in battlefield formations and weaponry aren't always obvious!

I'm aware of that debate, but it doesn't seem to me that the large early Tercios are harder to train for than the later shallower ones. The smaller late Tercios are harder to operate on a historical battlefield than the early ones (more seperate units to coordinate and more vulnerable to shock), so there must have been some major advantage to offset this. I can't find one in the game, which may or may not be a flaw in how Tercios are modeled, hence my question as to what the historical reasoning was.

You can always edit the Unit database to give Early Tercio less ap's Maybe try 8 vs 10? they will be able to move two grids fwrd but wont be able to move fwrd then a diagonal. Will reduce their ability to change vectors quickly.

Hmmm, not a bad idea. Might have to try it. My main problem with the early Tercio from a gameplay perspective, irregardless of whether this is historically accurate or not, is that it pretty much becomes invincible once it reaches close combat, and it can reach close combat very easily with little losses when used well.

[flatsix518]

I don't know. Even in game turns, I ran Tercios that got quite hurt by Swiss pikes.

I'd think English Civil War pike and shot would put a licking on Tercios...

One other problem in game turns -- it appears to me that % broke is not just unit numbers but also percentage of force. The routing of a Tercio would be a pretty big portion -- in one game I ran, a single Tercio routing counted 20% toward breaking my army.

My experience in the game with Tercios is limited and I'm operating on my not always reliable memory...

I may give them a drive against something later to see what happens...

[TheGrayMouser]

War is the ultimate pragmatist -- what works, prevails. Bad or outmoded ideas on the battlefield tend to die. Pun intended...

Hence my question. The early Tercio was historically replaced for a reason, yet in this game I see no reason to ever pick one of its successors in its stead. Why was the early Tercio replaced historically, and is there some way to better model this in an otherwise great game?

I believe tercios ist came about during a time where there was need to defend against plate armoured lancers and or massive pike blocks ie the swiss. It coupled fire power and deep ranks to provide self supporting defence. By the end of the 16th C, lancers were gone, so were the swiss and there pals the landsnects, making the deep ranks redundant and or wastefull of much needed manpower, so they got shallower.
They were never "replaced", but subject like many things to slow evolution.
Nice blog about Tercios :
http://crossfireamersfoort.wordpress.co ... years-war/

[panzeh]

Tercios in this game are considerably more expensive than later tercios and pike and shot units because they have twice as many men as a late tercio and four times as many as a pike and shot unit. You lose a lot of maneuver elements and overall firepower this way. You need to have artillery to help you force those cohesion checks and get them into disrupted as fast as possible.

An early tercio runs about 120 points, a normal pike and shot unit is 42 points in skirmish.

2000 trained men should be able to assault 500 without too much trouble, particularly over the open field. That makes sense.

[rbodleyscott]

The responses so far have pretty much covered it but to summarise:

Tercios were not ineffective historically, they were just inefficient because most of the men were in rear ranks where they could not contribute to the fighting except as replacements for losses. In game, an early tercio has 1000 shot but only 300 of them can contribute fire. You can get 3 normal pike and shot units for the roughly same price, from these 990 shot can contribute fire.

The "lack of manoeuvrability" comes not from the tercio itself being unmanoeuvrable, but from the fact that the same number of men could be in 4 pike and shot units, which obviously gives more scope for manoeuvre, as well as much greater firepower.

However, this comes at the cost of each pike and shot unit being liable to be rolled over by an early tercio if the tercio makes it into close combat in the open.

[Smirfy]

The problems I have is yes fair enough the Tercio should be big and mean but it appears in game just as fast as other units. Its like the heavy cavalry fair enough they should be better once battle is joined than the lighter armoured and less numerous units but there is no appreciable differential in movement. Your cavalry never last long enough to orginize a flank attack . Basically now I just move them out of the way and use infantry to win the game as they usually rout and get in the way of the infantry. Third problem is the musket armed horse they go toe to toe with heavy infantry units and suffer little loss inflicting proportionally more. Fair enough for one round but for round after round and heavily outnumberd stopping an infantry attack in its tracks does not appear sensible.

[rbodleyscott]

One other problem in game turns -- it appears to me that % broke is not just unit numbers but also percentage of force. The routing of a Tercio would be a pretty big portion -- in one game I ran, a single Tercio routing counted 20% toward breaking my army.

That is correct, the % broken is not based on the number of units broken, (very approximately) on size rating of the broken units, with cavalry counting 1.5 times as much as foot. The size rating does not scale exactly with the number of men, but as examples an early tercio is size 16, a later tercio is size 10, and a normal pike and shot unit is size 6. So if you do lose an early tercio it counts as much as almost 3 normal pike and shot units.

[Nemo84]

Tercios in this game are considerably more expensive than later tercios and pike and shot units because they have twice as many men as a late tercio and four times as many as a pike and shot unit. You lose a lot of maneuver elements and overall firepower this way.

But the maneuver elements you do get have a lot more staying power, are immune to flanking and the difference in firepower is too minor given that an early tercio will have only one shooting turn before charging.

You need to have artillery to help you force those cohesion checks and get them into disrupted as fast as possible.

An army can easily have a lot more early tercios than artillery to deal with them.

An early tercio runs about 120 points, a normal pike and shot unit is 42 points in skirmish. 2000 trained men should be able to assault 500 without too much trouble, particularly over the open field. That makes sense.

The problem is that a well-managed early tercio seems to be able to easily rout 3 or 4 pike and shot units. Shouldn't 2000 men in 4 separate superior movement elements be able to outperform 2000 men in a single rigid formation?

Tercios were not ineffective historically, they were just inefficient because most of the men were in rear ranks where they could not contribute to the fighting except as replacements for losses. In game, an early tercio has 1000 shot but only 300 of them can contribute fire. You can get 3 normal pike and shot units for the roughly same price, from these 990 shot can contribute fire.

A very minor advantage, since all that shot will be useless after two turns because the early tercio is locked invincibly in combat. Two late tercios (1000 men each) will kill between 100-300 of the 2000 soldiers in an early tercio before it can charge and rout one of them, and that's not even taking the rest of the armies into account. Because a single map square can only fit one unit the early tercios can easily apply vast local numerical superiority at the point of impact, further mitigating the damage they take from shooting before their inevitable charge.

The "lack of manoeuvrability" comes not from the tercio itself being unmanoeuvrable, but from the fact that the same number of men could be in 4 pike and shot units, which obviously gives more scope for manoeuvre, as well as much greater firepower.

Except these 4 separate units can't outmaneuver the early tercio, since it has no flanks or rear. And any attempt to outmaneuver will inevitably present the flanks of these 4 units to the rest of the enemy army, especially their ever-plentiful shock cavalry. Again a problem the early tercio doesn't have: it can easily roll up an enemy flank all by itself without threat from cavalry.

However, this comes at the cost of each pike and shot unit being liable to be rolled over by an early tercio if the tercio makes it into close combat in the open.

Which is the main problem: it's far too easy for said early tercio to get into combat, and once it does it's near invulnerable. And not just in open ground. I've seen early tercios roll over late tercios sitting behind fortifications. It merely took two turns longer.

If a unit is capable of maintaining a cohesive and very powerful pike wall on its flanks and rear while its front is engaged in close combat, I see no logical reason whatsoever why my own units should not be able to shoot these flanks. I also don't understand why an early tercio gets so much more combat power to represent the higher numbers of troops, yet appears to be capable of projecting this power on all 4 sides simultaneously when it is engaged by 4 separate enemy units. Surely in that case each of the 4 sides can only have 500 soldiers engaged, yet each of these 500 men groups still apparently fights with more combat power than the 1000 men late Tercios each of them is engaging.

The problems I have is yes fair enough the Tercio should be big and mean but it appears in game just as fast as other units. Its like the heavy cavalry fair enough they should be better once battle is joined than the lighter armoured and less numerous units but there is no appreciable differential in movement.

The lack of movement differentiation in this game is indeed most notable with tercios and heavy shock cavalry. Especially when it comes to turning.

[batesmotel]

I note that Tercios and Later Tercios in Pike and Shot have no ability to fire to the flank (and rear for Tercios) like they can in FoGR. Was this a conscious design decision or a restriction of the engine? Historically, I would think that the abiltiy of early tercios to bring fire power to bear in any direction was an important part of their ability to function as stand alone fortresses.

Chris

[panzeh]

I ran a scenario where I took an early tercio against three normal pike and shot units. What I found is that the tercio almost always got disrupted before making contact. The residual fire was key. Occasionally after a volley at 2 range the tercio would get fragmented. Remember to have your other pike and shot units join the fight. The tercio loses combat effectiveness in melee for every other unit joining the melee.

[TheGrayMouser]

I note that Tercios and Later Tercios in Pike and Shot have no ability to fire to the flank (and rear for Tercios) like they can in FoGR. Was this a conscious design decision or a restriction of the engine? Historically, I would think that the abiltiy of early tercios to bring fire power to bear in any direction was an important part of their ability to function as stand alone fortresses.

Chris

It came up and basically was felt they were good engh already

[TheGrayMouser]

Tercios in this game are considerably more expensive than later tercios and pike and shot units because they have twice as many men as a late tercio and four times as many as a pike and shot unit. You lose a lot of maneuver elements and overall firepower this way.

But the maneuver elements you do get have a lot more staying power, are immune to flanking and the difference in firepower is too minor given that an early tercio will have only one shooting turn before charging.

You need to have artillery to help you force those cohesion checks and get them into disrupted as fast as possible.

An army can easily have a lot more early tercios than artillery to deal with them.

An early tercio runs about 120 points, a normal pike and shot unit is 42 points in skirmish. 2000 trained men should be able to assault 500 without too much trouble, particularly over the open field. That makes sense.

The problem is that a well-managed early tercio seems to be able to easily rout 3 or 4 pike and shot units. Shouldn't 2000 men in 4 separate superior movement elements be able to outperform 2000 men in a single rigid formation?

Tercios were not ineffective historically, they were just inefficient because most of the men were in rear ranks where they could not contribute to the fighting except as replacements for losses. In game, an early tercio has 1000 shot but only 300 of them can contribute fire. You can get 3 normal pike and shot units for the roughly same price, from these 990 shot can contribute fire.

A very minor advantage, since all that shot will be useless after two turns because the early tercio is locked invincibly in combat. Two late tercios (1000 men each) will kill between 100-300 of the 2000 soldiers in an early tercio before it can charge and rout one of them, and that's not even taking the rest of the armies into account. Because a single map square can only fit one unit the early tercios can easily apply vast local numerical superiority at the point of impact, further mitigating the damage they take from shooting before their inevitable charge.

The "lack of manoeuvrability" comes not from the tercio itself being unmanoeuvrable, but from the fact that the same number of men could be in 4 pike and shot units, which obviously gives more scope for manoeuvre, as well as much greater firepower.

Except these 4 separate units can't outmaneuver the early tercio, since it has no flanks or rear. And any attempt to outmaneuver will inevitably present the flanks of these 4 units to the rest of the enemy army, especially their ever-plentiful shock cavalry. Again a problem the early tercio doesn't have: it can easily roll up an enemy flank all by itself without threat from cavalry.

However, this comes at the cost of each pike and shot unit being liable to be rolled over by an early tercio if the tercio makes it into close combat in the open.

Which is the main problem: it's far too easy for said early tercio to get into combat, and once it does it's near invulnerable. And not just in open ground. I've seen early tercios roll over late tercios sitting behind fortifications. It merely took two turns longer.

If a unit is capable of maintaining a cohesive and very powerful pike wall on its flanks and rear while its front is engaged in close combat, I see no logical reason whatsoever why my own units should not be able to shoot these flanks. I also don't understand why an early tercio gets so much more combat power to represent the higher numbers of troops, yet appears to be capable of projecting this power on all 4 sides simultaneously when it is engaged by 4 separate enemy units. Surely in that case each of the 4 sides can only have 500 soldiers engaged, yet each of these 500 men groups still apparently fights with more combat power than the 1000 men late Tercios each of them is engaging.

The problems I have is yes fair enough the Tercio should be big and mean but it appears in game just as fast as other units. Its like the heavy cavalry fair enough they should be better once battle is joined than the lighter armoured and less numerous units but there is no appreciable differential in movement.

The lack of movement differentiation in this game is indeed most notable with tercios and heavy shock cavalry. Especially when it comes to turning.

hmm , did you read what RBS wrote? An Early Tercio fires once per turn w effective 300 firearms, three smaller P&S battalions combine shoot w 990! Thats is pretty significant...
Also , these were NOT rigid formations, they were very flexible and could form up in multiple ways, detach shot etc (not reprerented in game of couse)
The best way to defeat them is not to pile on with 3 plus weaker units all at once but allow the tercio to sink its teeth into one P&S unit. If you get lucky and disorder it , sure then you can pile on . Other than that wait till your unit routs and then ignore the tercio as it give chase or pour fire into it. Many ways to "bring the giant dowwwn" (love Rob Zombie)

[batesmotel]

I note that Tercios and Later Tercios in Pike and Shot have no ability to fire to the flank (and rear for Tercios) like they can in FoGR. Was this a conscious design decision or a restriction of the engine? Historically, I would think that the abiltiy of early tercios to bring fire power to bear in any direction was an important part of their ability to function as stand alone fortresses.

Chris

It came up and basically was felt they were good engh already

While restricting the field of fire may be good enough game wise, it does seem unhistorical and definitely makes it easier for enemy to avoid their fire power by staying out of their front arc. Given this was one of the primary goals of the early tercio especially, and given the large restriction on their forward fire, this seems like an unreasonable decision to make historically just because it's good enough game wise.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

I note that Tercios and Later Tercios in Pike and Shot have no ability to fire to the flank (and rear for Tercios) like they can in FoGR. Was this a conscious design decision or a restriction of the engine? Historically, I would think that the abiltiy of early tercios to bring fire power to bear in any direction was an important part of their ability to function as stand alone fortresses.

Chris

It came up and basically was felt they were good engh already

While restricting the field of fire may be good enough game wise, it does seem unhistorical and definitely makes it easier for enemy to avoid their fire power by staying out of their front arc. Given this was one of the primary goals of the early tercio especially, and given the large restriction on their forward fire, this seems like an unreasonable decision to make historically just because it's good enough game wise.

Chris

Your going to need to talk to the big guy regarding this, obviously more was discussed than they are simply "good enough". Some things: if they can fire to sides and rear, full effect 1/2 effect 1/4 ? Should they be allowed to fire 4 times? How would the AI handle it? Historically was the fire outside the frontarc all that effective in reality(at least transated into game terms ? , i have no idea mysleft)

[Aryaman]

I'm sure that RBS and other knowledgeable people will post a proper response, but just a thought...

There used to be an ongoing debate around the question of why armies switched in this period from the apparently lethal longbow to the use of the arquebus. People compared firing rate, accuracy, reliability etc. to put the argument that the longbow was the more lethal weapon. This position fell though on the point that the longbowman had to be highly trained (it often took a lifetime of training to become really adept) and very fit, even after weeks or months on campaign. In contrast, you could train just about anyone to use an arquebus, and replace losses relatively quickly. AFAIK - unless the debate has moved on in recent years - that became the clincher as to why armies switched to what appeared on a purely technical basis to be a less deadly alternative.

My point being that the reasons for changes in battlefield formations and weaponry aren't always obvious!

Cheers,
Jay

I know this is not the debate, but I would like to point that the lethality of the longbow was greatly exaggerated by the 19th century natonalist historians.
Regarding historical Tercios, TheGrayMouser has pretty much answered the questions. I would add that, of course,there was never such a thing as an "early tercio" or a "Late Tercio", and that units in the 16th and 17th century battlefields many times adopted different formations. Tilly liked deep formations because he favoured aggresive attacks, while shallow formations maximized firepower to the detriment of manouver, shock power and mobility, and usually It was a question of doubling companies or deploy them in line.

[rbodleyscott]

The problems I have is yes fair enough the Tercio should be big and mean but it appears in game just as fast as other units. Its like the heavy cavalry fair enough they should be better once battle is joined than the lighter armoured and less numerous units but there is no appreciable differential in movement. Your cavalry never last long enough to orginize a flank attack . Basically now I just move them out of the way and use infantry to win the game as they usually rout and get in the way of the infantry. Third problem is the musket armed horse they go toe to toe with heavy infantry units and suffer little loss inflicting proportionally more. Fair enough for one round but for round after round and heavily outnumberd stopping an infantry attack in its tracks does not appear sensible.

Clearly we are not all going to agree on every historical interpretation, but all of these things can be easily modded if the vanilla game is not balanced according to your interpretation. In fact all of the above could be modded without any scripting simply by altering the squads.csv spreadsheet - by altering the AP ratings of the above units, and downgrading the carbine rating of the carbine-armed units to less than 100%.