Light Foot vs non-light Cavalry

[Athos1660]

Shouldn't Light Foot (such as the Detached Musketeers or the Commanded shots) be able to charge non-light mounted troops in difficult/rough terrains (woods, marsh...), as some(?)/all(?) LF in FoGII can ?

I guess most of them carried a bladed weapon in addition to their musket : a sword, a bayonet or even a knife... Henri II, Duke of Rohan, and Cardinal Richelieu even wrote about small groups of 50 detached pikemen used as enfants perdus, besides the small groups of detached musketeers carrying the musket and the sword. Certainly useful against cavalry in the narrow streets of a city one wants to defend or capture.

P&S, difficult terrain (woods) :


P&S, rough terrain :


FOGII :

[SnuggleBunnies]

Well so as you know the rules are a little different in each of the three games. In Pike and Shot, melee-only infantry and Keil infantry can charge non-light cavalry, and any non-light infantry can charge light cavalry. Otherwise ranged and mixed infantry units can only fire.

The logic is that there are few if any examples of units of, for example, Pike and Shot, advancing into enemy cavalry, probably because the relatively small number of Pikemen in such formations made it hard to break defensive formation. The fact that the musketeers have sidearms isn't really relevant - the displayed equipment of units in the games shows the weapons they had and were trained with, or an equivalent. Musketeers generally had swords of poor quality, or were not particularly trained in their use - it was generally more effective for them to use their muskets as clubs. The game takes a top down approach - for example, longbowmen wore armor, but they are classed as 'Unprotected' in the game to give the right balance between them and more dedicated melee troops.

Setting aside the details, let's look at your first screenshot. In the game's current rules, the musketeers are quite capable of defending themselves, and can inflict casualties with fire. The cavalry can either charge the musketeers and end up in a grinding melee, or ride around them to get out of the forest. The latter move would give the musketeers still more time to fire at the cavalry from a safe position. This seems fairly realistic to me - some horsemen blunder into a wood, and they either -

1) Charge some musketeers and suffer heavily in a confusing melee, with some men ahorse and some on foot, getting shot at and ambushed by men hiding behind trees

or

2) Realize their mistake, band together as best they can and ride out of the forest, getting shot at by hidden men the whole time

I'm not sure that either game's approach is 'correct,' but Pike and Shot's ruleset does seem like at least a plausible way to interpret tactics of the era into a game.

[Athos1660]

Well so as you know the rules are a little different in each of the three games.

Not really as a matter of fact. Let's say I just start knowing deeper some of the rules of P&S. As for FoGII, I only know the general rules (and the rules about the General)

In Pike and Shot, melee-only infantry and Keil infantry can charge non-light cavalry, and any non-light infantry can charge light cavalry. Otherwise ranged and mixed infantry units can only fire.

and light foot can charge light cavalry (also foot in woods/rough terrain and arty).

The logic is that there are few if any examples of units of, for example, Pike and Shot, advancing into enemy cavalry, probably because the relatively small number of Pikemen in such formations made it hard to break defensive formation. The fact that the musketeers have sidearms isn't really relevant - the displayed equipment of units in the games shows the weapons they had and were trained with, or an equivalent. Musketeers generally had swords of poor quality, or were not particularly trained in their use - it was generally more effective for them to use their muskets as clubs. The game takes a top down approach - for example, longbowmen wore armor, but they are classed as 'Unprotected' in the game to give the right balance between them and more dedicated melee troops.

Setting aside the details, let's look at your first screenshot. In the game's current rules, the musketeers are quite capable of defending themselves, and can inflict casualties with fire. The cavalry can either charge the musketeers and end up in a grinding melee, or ride around them to get out of the forest. The latter move would give the musketeers still more time to fire at the cavalry from a safe position. This seems fairly realistic to me - some horsemen blunder into a wood, and they either -

1) Charge some musketeers and suffer heavily in a confusing melee, with some men ahorse and some on foot, getting shot at and ambushed by men hiding behind trees

or

2) Realize their mistake, band together as best they can and ride out of the forest, getting shot at by hidden men the whole time

I'm not sure that either game's approach is 'correct,' but Pike and Shot's ruleset does seem like at least a plausible way to interpret tactics of the era into a game.

I must admit I don’t know much about the tactics of Light Foot during this era.
And I only know two types of LF : miquelets and enfants perdus (+ French King’s Musketeers). I can hardly imagine the latter limiting themselves to harass the enemy from a distance, whatever the odds. But I am certainly biased

And sometimes I’d like to imagine them more ‘active’ (ie charging) than ‘passive’ (ie as shooting skirmishers).

LF get an advantage over enemy Medium Foot, Mixed Foot and Cavalry when they are on a difficult or a rough terrain. They can charge both Medium and Mixed Foot (as they can on open ground) and do it quite efficiently (at least during the impact and the first melee phases) but can’t even charge the Cavalry. It sounds to me odd.

But I’m certainly wrong.

And anyway the rules are the rules…

[Athos1660]

About the tactics of the commanded shots vs. enemy cavalry during the TYW, François d’Aurignac, career soldier, writes in Le Livre de Guerre (1663) : "After shooting, they must quickly draw their sword to go and charge the flank or the rear of the cavalry they’ve just shot at."

About the Enfants perdus shooting once with their musket before charging with their sword at the battle of Lérins (1637). Report by Henri d'Escoubleau de Sourdis.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Perhaps a future Pike and Shot II would take another look at such interactions.

[Athos1660]

Indeed.

P&S 1 tended towards generalization (one single unit of Detached Musketeers) while FoG2 tends toward the diversity of units.

Perhaps there are several distinct tactics for the Light infantry that'd deserve distinct units : skirmishing for Miquelets, Schützen… ; charge for enfants perdus...

Perhaps the French tactical doctrine for the infantry that emphasizes a rapid advance to contact rather than a prolonged shooting exchange also applied to LF, such as the Enfants perdus. The issue of the use of skirmishers along with an Impact foot infantry has been raised by FoGR players (post 3) : viewtopic.php?f=110&t=21443

Perhaps a LF unit a bit similar to the French Musketeers/P&S could be thought of.

Perhaps such charging LF units as the Enfants perdus are easier to be thought of in sieges and the storming/defense of forts, cities… (Susa 1629, Leucate 1637…) than during field battles, apart from the charge and destruction/capture of unprotected artillery.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Well other than some custom scenarios sieges are outside the scope of the game anyway, with the game largely built around pitched battle

[neillloyd]

Gorgeous.

[leschrapid]

Indeed.

P&S 1 tended towards generalization (one single unit of Detached Musketeers) while FoG2 tends toward the diversity of units.

Perhaps there are several distinct tactics for the Light infantry that'd deserve distinct units : skirmishing for Miquelets, Schützen… ; charge for enfants perdus...

Perhaps the French tactical doctrine for the infantry that emphasizes a rapid advance to contact rather than a prolonged shooting exchange also applied to LF, such as the Enfants perdus. The issue of the use of skirmishers along with an Impact foot infantry has been raised by FoGR players (post 3) : 1v1 lolviewtopic.php?f=110&t=21443slope unblocked

Perhaps a LF unit a bit similar to the French Musketeers/P&S could be thought of.

Perhaps such charging LF units as the Enfants perdus are easier to be thought of in sieges and the storming/defense of forts, cities… (Susa 1629, Leucate 1637…) than during field battles, apart from the charge and destruction/capture of unprotected artillery.

same thinking.

[Athos1660]

^ btw imho this could also be my definition of the King’s Musketeers created by Louis XIII and renewed by Louis XIV (with the difference, of course, that they were veteran (or elite ?) and could be mounted quite like dragoons) : mainly a storming troop used during sieges, charging with the musket and the sword (1), and who also fought during a few pitched battles on foot (and on horseback), quite equivalent to Veteran French Musketeers in P&S.

____________

(1) As an anecdote, Paul Pellisson-Fontanier, King’s official historian and direct witness of the siege of Maastricht, wrote about the King’s Musketeers who came back from this brutal assault that « their swords were all skewed by the cuts and thrusts they made and were covered in blood up to the guard ».

[Athos1660]

Well other than some custom scenarios sieges are outside the scope of the game anyway, with the game largely built around pitched battle

btw, now that I played a bit with field fortifications (which is real fun), I would add to my post you commented : " ... apart from the charge, destruction or capture of artillery and field fortifications (not to mention the (broken) walls and forts of custom scenarios you mentioned or, of course, the charge of enemy skirmishers)."

[Athos1660]

I found two sources describing the composition of the Enfants perdus in the 1630's as a mix of musketeers and pikemen :

1) Cardinal Richelieu, in his Memoirs, describes the order of battle of Schomberg's army at Casale on 26 October 1630 : « The seven battalions (…) detached their enfants perdus, around two hundred in numbers, as many pikemen as musketeers from each battalion (…) »

2) Father Antoine Girard in his book, Les mémorables journées des Français (1647), transcribed the combat order given by the French command before the battle of Lérins in 1637, a document then kept by the Archives of Aix : "Each of these battalions will detach sixty musketeers and forty pikemen as Enfants perdus who will form a corps of one hundred men (…) »

These descriptions may fit with what may have been a more aggressive use of the Enfants perdus during say the 1620's and 1630's than previously (when they may have been only detached musketeers/arquebusiers skirmishing). Think also of the taking of Suse on 6 March 1629.

(btw I am not sure there are lots of (other) texts specifying which weapons Enfants perdus had.)

[Athos1660]

I found two sources describing the composition of the Enfants perdus in the 1630's as a mix of musketeers and pikemen :

1) Cardinal Richelieu, in his Memoirs, describes the order of battle of Schomberg's army at Casale on 26 October 1630 : « The seven battalions (…) detached their enfants perdus, around two hundred in numbers, as many pikemen as musketeers from each battalion (…) »

2) Father Antoine Girard in his book, Les mémorables journées des Français (1647), transcribed the combat order given by the French command before the battle of Lérins in 1637, a document then kept by the Archives of Aix : "Each of these battalions will detach sixty musketeers and forty pikemen as Enfants perdus who will form a corps of one hundred men (…) »

These descriptions may fit with what may have been a more aggressive use of the Enfants perdus during say the 1620's and 1630's than previously (when they may have been only detached musketeers/arquebusiers skirmishing). Think also of the taking of Suse on 6 March 1629.

(btw I am not sure there are lots of (other) texts specifying which weapons Enfants perdus had.)

Likewise, according to Cardinal Richelieu in his Memoirs, during the operation of rescue on October 20, 1627 at the Siege of Saint-Martin-de-Ré, 32 out of the 100 King's musketeers were armoured and armed with halberds so that they could "break through any enemy battalion".

[Athos1660]

Interestingly, Wilhelm Dilich’s Kriegsbuch shows how to take control of the opponent's pike shaft with the axe blade of the (shorter) halberd or with its hook/thorn :

[SnuggleBunnies]

Not sure if I'd trust my life to that trick. Think I'd prefer to run away ;)

[Athos1660]

To each his own nature (and fencing skills).

[annagrobinson]

I quite like this game, I like historical war games.

[splashagent]

Each of these three games has its own set of rules. Musketeers, according to the present laws of the game, are entirely capable of defending themselves and inflicting casualties with fire gorilla tag. The cavalry could engage the musketeers and end up in a bloodbath, or they could ride around them and escape the woodland. The second maneuver will give the musketeers additional time to fire from a secure position at the cavalry. This appears to be fairly plausible to me - some riders got lost in the jungle, and so did they.