Slitherine

I gave the Saxons a regimental gun, they then have 4 v 3 in dice at long range, theory being that they should score an average of 2 hits per bound at long range, causing a test, the Swedes should average 1.5, and no cohesion test.

As always it is great on paper, its the dice that ruin it.

How many BGs did the Saxons have in total Paul?

I managed to get 12 on the table, same as the Swedes.

4 x 6 Average foot + regimental gun
1 x 4 Average Det. Horse
2 x 2 Medium Guns
2 x 4 Dragoons
1 x 4 Polish Winged Hussars
1 x 4 Polish Cossacks (bow)
1x 4 Poor Polish Raytars.

1 x GC, 2 x TC & 1 TC A/G.

Theory is the Raytars can sit behind the foot line and support all 4 units for only 36 ap. Seems to work.

V nice - I especially like the Polish Ally - those Hussars look scary!

They look beautiful, even when they die. lol

I vaguely recall that the armies of his combined states campaigned together, but I only recall that because the Poles and Saxons did not like each other very much and performed very poorly when combined.

It might have been resonable to require at least half the Saxon infantry to be poor if they use Polish allies.

I played at list 10/12 LoA game anglo-dutch vs french and each result is always correlated with good tactic and deployement and also good dice.

Hopefully this is the case. The Maritime Powers and the French should provide a fair match-up historically. It is interstting that they are so different.

A couple of comments.

Whatever the rational I can't see the point of making the German infantry pure musketeers, giving them the most firepower in the period. Did they really have superior firepower to the British and Dutch? I don't think anyone would have objected to them continuing to have 5 muskets and 1 pike in their BG's.

Also, considering the rules anomalies created by the regimental gun, it might have been one idea that was best left in the design phase. One could have assumed the regt guns were integral to the BG firepower, and that perhaps the unit was on average somewhat smaller than the average unit without regimental guns. This would have kept the rules simpler and perhaps avoided some imbalances.

Delbruck wrote:A couple of comments.

Whatever the rational I can't see the point of making the German infantry pure musketeers, giving them the most firepower in the period. Did they really have superior firepower to the British and Dutch? I don't think anyone would have objected to them continuing to have 5 muskets and 1 pike in their BG's.

Also, considering the rules anomalies created by the regimental gun, it might have been one idea that was best left in the design phase. One could have assumed the regt guns were integral to the BG firepower, and that perhaps the unit was on average somewhat smaller than the average unit without regimental guns. This would have kept the rules simpler and perhaps avoided some imbalances.

The points system is intended to provide the necessary balance. I myself choose not to use regimental guns because of the cost - they increase the firepower of a BG but not its resilience. More BGs with slightly less firepower may in fact be more effective.

Though I do say so myself (and though I did have 1 BG with RGs, owing to having nothing else to spend the points on) I won the recent Roll Call competition. My last round game was against a mirror image Later TYW German Catholic army, apart from the fact that my opponents' BGs had RGs, hence my army was somewhat larger. No fancy manoeuvres were attempted. The RG-heavy army was put to flight.

Likewise, the cost of bayonets in pikeless BGs makes them rather cost-inefficient, even though they have greater firepower on a BG to BG basis.

Only time will tell whether we have got the balance exactly right, but I submit that it is looking good so far.

If anything, it is the 5 musket 1 pike BGs that are most cost-efficient overall, but that is balanced by none of the armies containing them having a particularly strong mounted arm. (Although something can be bodged up with allies).

Hence I think TYW/ECW armies should be able to match the later armies on even terms overall.

The French mounted arm being the best around in the Western European armies, although their foot lacks firepower when compared to contempary opponents.

6 (average) musket & bayonet cost the same as 1 pike + 5 musket + regt gun.

If looking for pure firepower Hapsburg foot plus regt gun (without bayonets) is the most economical. Pike/musket combinations can be used to help protect the Hapsburg flank vs cavalry.

If the Anglo-Dutch have an advantage in infantry in the Nine Years War, I am not sure the French still have an advantage in cavalry. After 1670 they are no longer impact cavalry and after 1689 they lose their armor. Having an elite cavalry BG might help though

Armies without battalion guns should have a larger artillery park than those that have them. If the allies are dispersing their guns then the French should be allowed more guns under central control.

Delbruck wrote:Armies without battalion guns should have a larger artillery park than those that have them. If the allies are dispersing their guns then the French should be allowed more guns under central control.

Once again, in practice, the points system sorts this out. Spending a lot of points on RGs and a lot of points on artillery is liable to lead to a shortage of fighting troops.

Sure, you can do it if you want, but it is probably not a winning strategy.

We are happy to give players enough rope to hang themselves - if they choose to go for unbalanced army compositions.

Delbruck wrote:If the Anglo-Dutch have an advantage in infantry in the Nine Years War, I am not sure the French still have an adavantage in cavalry. After 1670 they are no longer impact cavalry and after 1689 they lose their armor. Having an elite cavalry BG might help though

Is it true that the French cavalry are no longer superior to other armies' cavalry after 1690?

Is it true that the French cavalry are no longer superior to other armies' cavalry after 1690?

The Anglo-Dutch and Hapsburg cavalry can be armored average. The French cavalry are unarmored but can be superior, with one BG as elite (representing the Maison led by the Horse Grenadiers).

Average armored cavalry is 60 points, superior unarmored is 72, and elite unarmored is 84. I assume the French still have a small advantage.

Both sides can have unarmored average cavalry at 48 points. The Dutch can also have poor cavalry for 36 pts a BG.

Correction: the French lose their armor after 1670 and their impact status after 1690.

Is there anything that prevents a salvo or impact BG advancing in column (2 wide by 3 deep)? If these were used next to each other it would reduce casualties on each indidual BG, and perhaps increase the chances of making contact.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Some dispute about this, the numbers do not look good at first.

.........................Long range....... Close range

4/2 Salvo............... 2 dice.................2 dice
5/1 Impact............ 2 dice................4 dice
5/1 musket............ 2 dice................5 dice
6 musket................ 3 dice................6 dice

But you do need to take into account that (if Average)
the Swedes cost 42 points
the 5:1 boys cost 45 points
the 6 musket/bayonet boys cost 54 points

The 4:2 army can in fact afford Regimental Guns and still cost less than the the 6 musket:bayonet boys without RGs. The 5:1 armies can afford RGs for the same cost as the 6 musket/bayonet boys without RGs. This alters the odds considerably:

4/2 Salvo + RG ...... 3 dice.................3 dice (51 points) (Only one round at close range then they charge - otherwise they are doing it wrong)
5/1 Impact +RG...... 3 dice................5 dice (54 points)
5/1 musket + RG.... 3 dice................6 dice (54 points)
6 musket (no RG). 3 dice................6 dice (54 points)

Also the Swedes have much better cavalry than the Saxons, and apart from rolling up the Saxon horse, have a reasonable chance of riding down bayonet armed musketeers. (Equal POAs, the Swedes are Superior).

Note that none of the 5:1 Musket or 6 Musket/Bayonet armies have good cavalry.

So each army needs to play to its strengths and not to its weaknesses.

You can't reasonably expect a BG of Swedes costing 42 points to win against a BG of 6 Saxons with RGs costing 63 points - without help.

How does a 4/2 unit of Musket, Swordsmen fare in these comparisons, they work out at 46 points per BG.

Well, I will stick to my early swedish because it is the army I like even if I will loose

Exactly, pick an army you love even when you get repeatedly hammered.

In our group we are finding the opposit problem how to beat the super troops that are the swedes just fought a game with am Savoyard army and got waxed as soon as the salvo foot hits the Bayonet armed troops melt away with ++ at impact and nothing in melee for the bayonet unless you get great shooting not going to win

Kevin S

stork wrote:In our group we are finding the opposit problem how to beat the super troops that are the swedes just fought a game with am Savoyard army and got waxed as soon as the salvo foot hits the Bayonet armed troops melt away with ++ at impact and nothing in melee for the bayonet unless you get great shooting not going to win

Kevin S

Agreed, but the trick is to outshoot them at long range for as long as possible, don't close to 3" and give up a couple of rounds of shooting.

Scrumpy wrote:

stork wrote:In our group we are finding the opposit problem how to beat the super troops that are the swedes just fought a game with am Savoyard army and got waxed as soon as the salvo foot hits the Bayonet armed troops melt away with ++ at impact and nothing in melee for the bayonet unless you get great shooting not going to win

Kevin S

Agreed, but the trick is to outshoot them at long range for as long as possible, don't close to 3" and give up a couple of rounds of shooting.

I understand the Idea but the reality is that with all the secial rules for the swedes at long range they actualy have as good if not better chance to hurt you then you do them they fire three dice hitting on 456 we shoot back with 3 (4 if reg gun) hitting on 56 because of the swedish bregade special rule of shooting at the extra stand which may be there may not depending on the situation. also we need three hits to cause them to test they only need two. I have been playing FOGR scence the first Bata came out and the more I play the more I am convinced the Sweads are very Broken every special rule and exeption is for them because evedently the rest of Europe was just fighting the wrong way for the next 250 years

Kevin S