Slitherine

waldo wrote: Yes the colonial troops may have defeated the massed hordes of the 'barbarians' but giving them superior would result in them being considered the equal of the best of the line troops in Europe. Is this really the case? Why weren't the Portuguese in high demand as mercenaries in Europe that being true?

Walter highlights a real conundrum when writing lists - we do not want "peripheral armies" (for want of a better description) turning out to be be uber-armies due to some quirk of composition and wrinkles in the rules. Thus these peripheral armies tend to not get the benefit of the doubt in cases of classification (especially gunpowder shooters) - the quality of the Portuguese foot is a case in point. If armies were to only fight their historical opponents things may well be different, however, we have to live with the reality that this will not happen.

nikgaukroger wrote:

waldo wrote: Yes the colonial troops may have defeated the massed hordes of the 'barbarians' but giving them superior would result in them being considered the equal of the best of the line troops in Europe. Is this really the case? Why weren't the Portuguese in high demand as mercenaries in Europe that being true?

Walter highlights a real conundrum when writing lists - we do not want "peripheral armies" (for want of a better description) turning out to be be uber-armies due to some quirk of composition and wrinkles in the rules. Thus these peripheral armies tend to not get the benefit of the doubt in cases of classification (especially gunpowder shooters) - the quality of the Portuguese foot is a case in point. If armies were to only fight their historical opponents things may well be different, however, we have to live with the reality that this will not happen.

If we were really being accurate we could allow the Portuguese to be all Superior, but then they only get a maximum of 100 or 200 points of Portuguese in an army.

This is more or less what happens to the Spanish Conquistadors in Cities of Gold, they do not have a list of their own. They are Superior but they only form very small proportion of an army which is otherwise mainly Tlaxcalan or Inca.

They only get their own list after the establishment of Spanish hegemony, but then the quality of the troops is rated lower.

We cannot have a 900 points army of Superior Spanish or Portguese conqustadors, because that would be very silly in open tournament - which is (like it or not) where they would get used.

Nick, you may be concerned with open tournaments but in this case, I’m afraid that’s not the point.

Any army, no matter how “peripheral” it may be (compared to which “central” ones, by the way?), must be put vis a vis the ones it fought against, not those of other continents.

In this case, the Portuguese should be compared with the Indians, Indonesians or Colonial Dutch, not with Gustav Adolphus’s Swedish nor Ambrosio Spinola’s Spanish.

You’re concerned that the Portuguese turn out to be too powerful against these. I doubt that they would not only because they’re less orderly (too many Warriors!) but they also lack any cavalry whatsoever. Put them in a featureless table and you’ll see what happens.
But should they beat the Swedish, so what? Are there armies that should not be defeated by others?

Anyway, that’s not the main problem. Actually, that’s not a problem at all.

The problem is to compare the Portuguese vis a vis their historical enemies. And these enemies, as they are showed, are way too good, so good that, should the opponents be as your put them in the lists, the Portuguese couldn’t have made their Empire!
Like someone said above, if Portuguese Average Impact Foot are put against Indonesian swordsmen, they will have a hard time!
Please bear in mind that I don't propose to give them all Superior status. That would be absurd. To allow half of them to be would be very, very nice.
But I do propose that they should be considered swordsmen, as History does show.

Vasco also proposed Salvo; Sword. That could be interesting, perhaps you could think about it.

Anyway, the best way to "visualise" the list's inaccuracy is how the army “feels” on the table.
Like Vasco said as a testimony, the “Average”, “swordless” Portuguese army was more numerous than its Indian opponents!
As you know, that’s impossible! That’s unhistorical.
And that should be corrected...

If you prefer, we may continue this duscussion in a more private way.


And please, if I sounded arrogant in any way, please forgive me but I tend to get carried away when discussing these issues…

rbodleyscott wrote: This is more or less what happens to the Spanish Conquistadors in Cities of Gold, they do not have a list of their own. They are Superior but they only form very small proportion of an army which is otherwise mainly Tlaxcalan or Inca.

Oh my God!

Thank goodness I read this thread. I literally just last night commissioned Spanish troops to be sculpted, and now I have to de-commission them.

I was all ready to make them but will not make them if I also have to make a full line of Tlaxcalans or Inca. The American armies are very poor sellers and I'm not going to sink $2,000 into making another one....

khurasan_miniatures wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote: This is more or less what happens to the Spanish Conquistadors in Cities of Gold, they do not have a list of their own. They are Superior but they only form very small proportion of an army which is otherwise mainly Tlaxcalan or Inca.

Oh my God!

Thank goodness I read this thread. I literally just last night commissioned Spanish troops to be sculpted, and now I have to de-commission them.

I was all ready to make them but will not make them if I also have to make a full line of Tlaxcalans or Inca. The American armies are very poor sellers and I'm not going to sink $2,000 into making another one.

Don't panic, the Spanish colonial list that we discussed still exists, it just doesn't start until 1526 in Mexico and 1542 in Peru. The earlier armies of the conquistadors are covered by the Tlaxcalan, Inca and Arawak lists.

PHEW!

I spent hours putting the sources together. Glad to see I don't have to pull the plug.

waldo wrote: I agree with the comment about numbers. Because of a lack of cavalry these colonial armies tend to be on the large side. I think that average is an exaggeration of the capabilities of the usual opponents of the colonial powers. Surely most should be poor, judging from their repeated defeats against vastly smaller colonial armies? It would have no net effect in regards to any intra-region conflicts but would make them larger and less effective against their colonial opponents.

If the colonial troops were downgraded to poor and their opponents were left average then the Asian armies would be smaller than their European opponents!

Walter

Good point, which can be easily explained by the fact, that Portugal was not only scarcelly populated, but also highly overstretched in terms of manpower, because of the many differents theatres of war where they operated, just to mention the portuguese were fighting in north africa the moors, in west and east africa they had numerous outposts, that needed men to defend, in Brazil, in India they conquered a few cities and held some of them even through the 20th century, in Indonesia, they helped the chinese fought pirates. From the period of 1580 to 1640 we were also involved in the wars of the Spanish and you can see portuguese fighting for example in the low countries.

The Portuguese fought not only natives, but also the Dutch and other european powers for competing trade lines and last but not least fighting the Ottoman Turks.

All in a country about the size of Scotland and with a population of about a million (I am guessing here, but it shouldn't be too far).

With all this action, there were not many portuguese mercenaires available.

Nick, Richard & Friends,

I was "chalanged" for a test game using a house made Colonial Portuguese list vs Indians. I hope Vasco and others will be there as well to compare this game with the other one played a few days ago.

I'll send you the report as soon as possible.

rbodleyscott wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

waldo wrote: Yes the colonial troops may have defeated the massed hordes of the 'barbarians' but giving them superior would result in them being considered the equal of the best of the line troops in Europe. Is this really the case? Why weren't the Portuguese in high demand as mercenaries in Europe that being true?

Walter highlights a real conundrum when writing lists - we do not want "peripheral armies" (for want of a better description) turning out to be be uber-armies due to some quirk of composition and wrinkles in the rules. Thus these peripheral armies tend to not get the benefit of the doubt in cases of classification (especially gunpowder shooters) - the quality of the Portuguese foot is a case in point. If armies were to only fight their historical opponents things may well be different, however, we have to live with the reality that this will not happen.

If we were really being accurate we could allow the Portuguese to be all Superior, but then they only get a maximum of 100 or 200 points of Portuguese in an army.

This is more or less what happens to the Spanish Conquistadors in Cities of Gold, they do not have a list of their own. They are Superior but they only form very small proportion of an army which is otherwise mainly Tlaxcalan or Inca.

They only get their own list after the establishment of Spanish hegemony, but then the quality of the troops is rated lower.

We cannot have a 900 points army of Superior Spanish or Portguese conqustadors, because that would be very silly in open tournament - which is (like it or not) where they would get used.

I think your option for the Spanish conquistadores makes good sense, it probably should have been used (at least partly) in some of the Portuguese, although I admit, it would be difficult to cover all the different areas with a single list.

I don’t think that a proportion of the Portuguese being superior would unbalance the game, especially if you would limit their number (if the player wants a bigger army he has to bring some more average natives), this would be more realistic. Also this would hardly be a Killer army, as it doesn’t have a single unit of cavalry, neither has pikes, so it would be very vulnerable to mounted in the open.

As it is, many native lists are unrealistically strong against the colonial troops that beat them, many times in huge disadvantage in numbers.

VMadeira wrote:

waldo wrote: I agree with the comment about numbers. Because of a lack of cavalry these colonial armies tend to be on the large side. I think that average is an exaggeration of the capabilities of the usual opponents of the colonial powers. Surely most should be poor, judging from their repeated defeats against vastly smaller colonial armies? It would have no net effect in regards to any intra-region conflicts but would make them larger and less effective against their colonial opponents.

If the colonial troops were downgraded to poor and their opponents were left average then the Asian armies would be smaller than their European opponents!

Walter

Good point, which can be easily explained by the fact, that Portugal was not only scarcely populated, but also highly overstretched in terms of manpower, because of the many different theatres of war where they operated, just to mention the Portuguese were fighting in north Africa the moors, in west and east Africa they had numerous outposts, that needed men to defend, in Brazil, in India they conquered a few cities and held some of them even through the 20th century, in Indonesia, they helped the Chinese fought pirates.

João Ribeiro, in the last chapters of his “Fatalidade Histórica da Ilha de Ceilão”, refers to this dispersion as one of the main reasons for the Portuguese inability to keep their Empire. Wanting to control everything, the Portuguese became strong nowhere and week everywhere. A clear strategic lack of vision!

VMadeira wrote:From the period of 1580 to 1640 we were also involved in the wars of the Spanish and you can see Portuguese fighting for example in the Low Countries.

Yes, and there’s a couple of paintings depicting two of their flags under the Habsburgs, one naval (blue, Burgundy Cross and the Portuguese coat of arms in the middle) and another one white, the Portuguese coat of arms surrounded by a Golden Fleece collar (maybe an infantry flag, who knows?).

VMadeira wrote:All in a country about the size of Scotland and with a population of about a million (I am guessing here, but it shouldn't be too far).

You’re right. Portugal had between 1 million and 1 million and a half. Too few for such a large Empire.

VMadeira wrote:With all this action, there were not many Portuguese mercenaries available.

That’s not all. There were not many Spanish mercenaries available either, although they were good soldiers. And why? Because mercs go after the sinews of war, that is, money. In Portugal, money didn’t lye in the German or Italian wars; it lied either in the Brazilian sugar cane or in the Asian spices and trade.

VMadeira wrote:
I think your option for the Spanish conquistadores makes good sense, it probably should have been used (at least partly) in some of the Portuguese, although I admit, it would be difficult to cover all the different areas with a single list.

I don’t think that a proportion of the Portuguese being superior would unbalance the game, especially if you would limit their number (if the player wants a bigger army he has to bring some more average natives), this would be more realistic. Also this would hardly be a Killer army, as it doesn’t have a single unit of cavalry, neither has pikes, so it would be very vulnerable to mounted in the open.

As it is, many native lists are unrealistically strong against the colonial troops that beat them, many times in huge disadvantage in numbers.

I totally agree!

As FOGR is a generic set of rules with emphasis on European warfare (rightly IMO), you could always design house rules for a historical Colonial Portuguese vs Tribal army. Such as, making the Portuguese all Superior and/or as Tercio BG's (i.e. no flanks) and forcing all BG's in a much larger tribal army to make cohesion tests if within 8 MU of enemy - just an example off the top of me 'ead.

Richard

youngr wrote:As FOGR is a generic set of rules with emphasis on European warfare (rightly IMO), you could always design house rules for a historical Colonial Portuguese vs Tribal army. Such as, making the Portuguese all Superior and/or as Tercio BG's (i.e. no flanks) and forcing all BG's in a much larger tribal army to make cohesion tests if within 8 MU of enemy - just an example off the top of me 'ead.

Richard

You would be right, Richard, was not for the fact that FOGR, an excellent rules set, also covers TOs other than Western Europe.
And in this particular case (the East), either most of the native lists are too strong or the Portuguese Colonial are too week. That is a fact. So, what should we do?

IMO, making house lists, though they may work well, would diminish the Colonial Portuguese to an unequal status. Would you do that to, say, the Japanese or the Moguls? Would that be acceptable? I don’t think so…

So, IMO, the best, desirable option is to make an ad hoc list. If Slitherine is about to rewrite many FOGAM lists, namely the Romans, why not do the same whit this one? I suppose the FOG community wouldn't frown at that.

Anyway, thanks for the suggestion. Stay tuned, I’ll send the report of Sunday’s game as soon as possible.

Actually I am not convinced the Colonial Portuguese or lists with them as an ally are not the top 25% of prefered lists in C&C. I plan to try them out.

Also the idea that there will be a revised FOG AM lists in a printed book in 12-36 months is a very different thing than a one list replacement.
I think a more modest amendment could come forth in the C&C errata when published. That route would allow a few things you request as addditional or special campaigns withought all the wholesale changes.

Letting the curretn CP list upgrade one BG to superior is no big deal or allowing it a tercio in a certain frame. It may not be everything you want, but some.

nikgaukroger wrote: Walter highlights a real conundrum when writing lists - we do not want "peripheral armies" (for want of a better description) turning out to be be uber-armies due to some quirk of composition and wrinkles in the rules.

Very true. But similarly customers will feel aggrieved if an entire book is full of poo armies who have no real role in the game except for those fighting historical match ups.

Interesting discussion. I have always wanted to learn about the Colonial Portuguese (and the Colonial Dutch), but I do not know of any sources.
Can anyone direct me to English Language sources (books, articles, etc) for these topics?

As it is, many native lists are unrealistically strong against the colonial troops that beat them, many times in huge disadvantage in numbers.

I think here is the problem, in fact we don really know the real numbers the colonial troops, be it Portuguese, Spanish or English, faced, becuase we only have one side of the story, our sources are almost exclusively Western writers, and they sistematically exgerated the number of enemies, while downplaying the role of local allies. I would not be surprised to find the the Aztec army hardly outnumbered the army of Cortes at the battle of Otumba, but we don have Aztec muster calls.
To put an example, traditionally ottoman armies are depicted as huge, much larger than European armies. The researc of Ottoman documentary sources, however, show the Ottoman armies to be well within the size of European armies.

atatnet wrote:Interesting discussion. I have always wanted to learn about the Colonial Portuguese (and the Colonial Dutch), but I do not know of any sources.
Can anyone direct me to English Language sources (books, articles, etc) for these topics?

Sure! As for the Portuguese sources, look at these:

The Portuguese Expedition to Abyssinia in 1541-1543 As Narrated by [Miguel de] Castanhoso
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9135 ... d-by-casta


Castanhoso was one participant in this expedition. His descriptions are very, very good. I don’t know if this is a good translation, but unless you know Portuguese, it’s the best you can have.

History of Ceylon: presented by Captain John Ribeiro to the king of Portugal
http://books.google.pt/books?id=D6M2AAA ... &q&f=false

The descriptions by João Ribeiro (a participant in many of the events portrait in this book) seems to be very accurate. For example, he has no problems criticizing some decisions and attitudes by the Portuguese leadership, or saying how the Portuguese fought alongside thousands of allied Sinhalese. In this particular case, he makes no effort in diminishing the native participation in the battles and he praises the Sinhalese lanscarins (auxiliaries or allies)


You should also try to find out if there’s any English translation of the work “Décadas da Ásia“ by João de Barros and Diogo do Couto, but probably there is none, which is a pitty.

As for the Portuguese and Dutch colonial History, you could start with this site:
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/eng/bibli ... a.html[url][/url]

Aryaman wrote:
As it is, many native lists are unrealistically strong against the colonial troops that beat them, many times in huge disadvantage in numbers.

I think here is the problem, in fact we don really know the real numbers the colonial troops, be it Portuguese, Spanish or English, faced, becuase we only have one side of the story, our sources are almost exclusively Western writers, and they sistematically exgerated the number of enemies, while downplaying the role of local allies. I would not be surprised to find the the Aztec army hardly outnumbered the army of Cortes at the battle of Otumba, but we don have Aztec muster calls.
To put an example, traditionally ottoman armies are depicted as huge, much larger than European armies. The researc of Ottoman documentary sources, however, show the Ottoman armies to be well within the size of European armies.

Try to read the descriptions of Castanhoso and Ribeiro. They seem to have no trouble with numbers, particularly Ribeiro, who puts allied Sinhalese numbers in much higher figures than the Portuguese.

The Portuguese Expedition to Abyssinia in 1541-1543 As Narrated by [Miguel de] Castanhoso
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9135 ... d-by-casta

History of Ceylon: presented by Captain John Ribeiro to the king of Portugal
http://books.google.pt/books?id=D6M2AAA ... &q&f=false

hazelbark wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: Walter highlights a real conundrum when writing lists - we do not want "peripheral armies" (for want of a better description) turning out to be be uber-armies due to some quirk of composition and wrinkles in the rules.

Very true. But similarly customers will feel aggrieved if an entire book is full of poo armies who have no real role in the game except for those fighting historical match ups.

Touché! That's my problem. I like the Imperialists, and the Spanish, the Swedish, the French… But I also like the Portuguese and I know that they won a lot of battles, being it medium or smallish. And the only reason I don’t “like” the Safavids, the Moguls or the Japanese is that I don’t have compatible figures!
So, how can we say that "some lists" are "peripheral"?

Regarding the amendment you propose, it’s not enough because, unfortunately, the list suffers from many conceptual problems and some enormous mistakes, some of which I pointed out such as having them exclusively as Impact Foot Crossbowmen before 1525… while at the storming of Malacca, in 1511, half the Portuguese shooters already where arquebusiers!
So, it’s a much bigger problem than just giving them one Superior BG…

I don't know if Slitherine would agree to make just one revised list and publish it, either in a book or in a PDF (why not? I wouldn't care! Would you?), but IMHO, Slitherine should do it.