Slitherine

Elsewhere Richard has commented:

RBS wrote: My view on the Swedes is that I find the Early Swedes far more scary than the Late.

The reason is mainly them counting as Armoured against muskets at long range, which means that they outshoot any other foot at long range. This does not seem right.

In my view
1) Swedish brigades should not count armoured at long range. This, I think, is the only necessary change to them. The extra base (without increased vulnerability to artillery) is a significant bonus, as is the fact that they can take off 2 pike bases before they must remove a shot base. These benefits still justify the trivial +4 cost for Swedish brigades without the armour bonus.

2) The commanded shot hunter killer issue can be largely resolved by making them Musket rather than Salvo.
Alternatively a more general rule might be added to the effect that commanded shot must be deployed in contact with mounted troops or in non-open terrain. Also 2 base commanded shot BG should not get the movement bonus in terrain for being a column.

There is a bit to think about here, sorry for repeating this but I don't see any of the issues described. This might be down to only playing with contemporary armies (TYW German of various denominations; Late Imperial Spanish; TYW French; various ECW variations and Later PLC) or just the way we play given that it isn't ever in a competition.

Removing the armour classification at long range would make me less likely to close, it's the 5+ at long range that makes me want to get in as quickly as possible as I always feel that it's worth it to do so. If it was 4+ I would be more likely to stand off and try and make the opponent come to me, Swedes with a RG having 3 dice whilst the P&S have 2 (or 3 with a RG), evens fire-fight and the 7 base Swedes being more resilient. We also take as much of the Swedish Foot as Superior or Elite as possible, the combination of CT re-rolls and armour at long range is again what makes it worth the risk of closing as quickly as possible. Taking the 5+ away would make me take as much average Foot as possible and using the saved point to buy more RGs and go the fire-fight route, with salvo at impact being the bonus when your opponent tries to close as he's losing the fire-fight.

Since we always deploy the Commanded Shot with Horse (usually mounted Arquebusiers as the DH want freedom of movement), giving them an extra shooting dice (musket v salvo) at short range is a great idea, that gives my 4 base Arquebusier and CS combo 5 shooting dice at effective range.

Commanded shot move as a column - bugger, that would never, ever, have crossed my mind

RBS wrote:
2) The commanded shot hunter killer issue can be largely resolved by making them Musket rather than Salvo.

I'd still be tempted to take away the regimental guns. Then again I have a feeling that they were only actually recorded at Lutzen so they could instead be a Special Campaign with a GC compulsory - or, of course, ignored as a one off. I think I allowed them from 1632 on the basis that although Lutzen was the recorded use that it may have continued thereafter until Nordlingen ruined the Swedish army.

Alternatively a more general rule might be added to the effect that commanded shot must be deployed in contact with mounted troops or in non-open terrain. Also 2 base commanded shot BG should not get the movement bonus in terrain for being a column.

Possibly no bad thing to say they need to be deployed in edge contact with mounted anyway - historical and all that

I'd agree with the removal of the Regimental Guns from the commanded shot as that is what makes them so powerful.

Just deploying Commanded Shot with the horse does not stop them separating in move 1 - horse to the flanks and CS to the centre. They are often sepated as the battle develops by the very nature of pursuits etc. The Swedish cavalry don't generally go flying off anyway - it's the foot that wins it for them (or not!).

Don

quackstheking wrote: Just deploying Commanded Shot with the horse does not stop them separating in move 1 - horse to the flanks and CS to the centre. They are often sepated as the battle develops by the very nature of pursuits etc.

Commanded shot being used away from the cavalry is perfectly historical - the Swedish right flank at Lutzen is a very good example of this - and in the design stage we considered whether the commanded shot should be part of the mounted BG but decided against it because of this. However, they were deployed with the mounted at the start of the battle.

The Swedish cavalry don't generally go flying off anyway - it's the foot that wins it for them (or not!).

Don

Fairly historical again

Removing the armour classification at long range would make me less likely to close

I'm struggling to see the logic here. As the Swedes you currently have a significant advantage in a long range firefight. Why does that make you more keen to close as quickly as possible, where you lose that advantage, than if you did not have it?

kevinj wrote:

Removing the armour classification at long range would make me less likely to close

I'm struggling to see the logic here. As the Swedes you currently have a significant advantage in a long range firefight. Why does that make you more keen to close as quickly as possible, where you lose that advantage, than if you did not have it?

Yeah - were you talking about playing the Swedes or the TYW Germans here ... ?

With Swedes counting as armoured at long range, it's the Germans who are better off by rushing up into short range (which then means "into contact"), not the Swedes...

quackstheking wrote:I'd agree with the removal of the Regimental Guns from the commanded shot as that is what makes them so powerful.

Agreed. 2 dice per frontage at long range, with the gun being at 4's against Horse as well is what's excessively lethal.

Otherwise maybe take away the superiority - they are (I think) the only "Superior" commanded shot out there too, so even when rolling 2 dice in shooting the Superior re-roll is a big plus - and the Superior is also a major bonus given that every time they are hit themselves they take a test counting the "1 hit per 2 bases" minus.

kevinj wrote:

Removing the armour classification at long range would make me less likely to close

I'm struggling to see the logic here. As the Swedes you currently have a significant advantage in a long range firefight. Why does that make you more keen to close as quickly as possible, where you lose that advantage, than if you did not have it?

It's not that hard to grasp surely? Early Swedes are at their best in impact, so try and get them into contact as soon as possible. Other than French impact foot, everyone else needs to do as much damage from shooting prior to impact as possible to avoid the double -, The armour reduces the effect of incoming fire, so making it more likely that the Swedes will survive until impact so making it worth while trying to close.

Making everything 4+ means it is less likely that the Swedes will make it into combat so it then is easier to use the shooting advantage at long range, assuming the presence of a RG - plus the extra cost means it is more likely that the Swedes will be up against more than 1 enemy foot BG, so not necessarily having the long range advantage that seems to concern every one?

It's not that hard to grasp surely? Early Swedes are at their best in impact, so try and get them into contact as soon as possible.

What I (and it seems Madaxeman) are struggling with is why you think that increased vulnerability at long range will make you less inclined to close than you are currently. At present, with a significant advantage in the long range firefight there is a tendency that some of us have oserved, for the Swedes to try to use this advantage to reduce the effectiveness of the enemy shooting before closing and taking advantage of their superior impact capability. It has been suggested that removing part of this advantage would encourage closing quicker, whereas your view is that the Swedish player will be more likely to prolong a long range firefight when they have less of an advantage. That's the logic I'm struggling to grasp.

Because the risks of engaging in a long range fire-fight will become less than the risk of getting shot to bits by the increased fire effect on the way in.

Three wrote:Because the risks of engaging in a long range fire-fight will become less than the risk of getting shot to bits by the increased fire effect on the way in.

A long range firefight is already far less risky for the Swedes than the risk of charging in.

My 7 base Swedish unit rolling 3 dice at 4's at long range is going to beat your 6 base unit rolling 2 or 3 dice at 5's all day - so why advance at all, just stand at long range and I should win in the end almost every time...

By advancing into charge range I'm far worse off - I still dish out 3 dice at 4's, but I will take 4 or 5 dice at 4's for two whole turns.

Maybe this is why you are struggling with the Swedes The secret with using them currently is not to close to hand to hand as soon as possible, but to try and keep the long range firefight going for as long as possible...

madaxeman wrote:

Three wrote: Maybe this is why you are struggling with the Swedes The secret with using them currently is not to close to hand to hand as soon as possible, but to try and keep the long range firefight going for as long as possible...

Sorry, where did I say that I struggled with the Swedes?

What I said is that when I do play them I will close to combat as quickly as possible because that is what they did best and historically that was their favoured doctrine. To do that I'll take as much superior foot as possible. I do not engage in long range fire-fights, because when I do play them, I am usually facing more enemy BGs of foot than I have so I am at a disadvantage in the long range fire-fight in terms of dice, even if at an advantage in terms of POAs. The turns where a 5+ is needed makes it easier to weather the storm and get into contact.

If the POA goes then I'll take as many avergae BGs as possible, add in RGs and stay at long range, that way whilst it might be even POAs at least it will also be even dice.

I'm not looking to optomise a tournament army, I want to play the TYW with Swedes attacking as quickly as possible. MY experience is that this is the sort of game I regularily get with things as they stand, but making it easier to hit at long range means I will take more hits on the way in and will struggle to get home due to base losses and CTs being failed so in my view the risks of long range fire-fights are less.

Three wrote:What I said is that when I do play them I will close to combat as quickly as possible because that is what they did best and historically that was their favoured doctrine. ..,.

Aaaah - that makes sense . Thanks for the clarification.

I guess it doesn't however undermine the main point of the debate.

- Currently staying at long range (provided you can engineer a broadly equal "BG on BG" firefight) is the optimum - but a-histoirical - tactic for Swedes in FoGR.
- If you attempt to use them "historically" by rushing to close, the experience of players is that they often suffer debilitating levels of casulaties from the two rounds of enemy close range shooting, to such a degree that if they were made more vulnerable at long range too this (historical) tactic could well prove fatal most of the time..

madaxeman wrote:
- Currently staying at long range (provided you can engineer a broadly equal "BG on BG" firefight) is the optimum - but a-histoirical - tactic for Swedes in FoGR.

- If you attempt to use them "historically" by rushing to close, the experience of players is that they often suffer debilitating levels of casulaties from the two rounds of enemy close range shooting, to such a degree that if they were made more vulnerable at long range too this (historical) tactic could well prove fatal most of the time..

Yep, that is what I've been saying all along.

The issue of engineering a BG v BG match up given that the Swedes usually are out-numbered in foot is problematical, to say the least hence my further comment about taking more average Swedish units with RGs and slugging it out at long range, easier to get that BG v BG match up, than risking the attempt to close.

OK - makes sense.

So what if Salvo foot were able to fire at the same effect as muskets at say, 2MU or 1MU, but still lost the armour advantage at long range? Im not sure if this helps, but it sounds clever....

The incentive to stay at long range is diluted (having 7 bases is still important as you avoid a load of tests that a 6-pak will take), the disincentive to close is also sort of negated as you can then dish it out as well as take it at close range, but you still have to be fully committed to closing to contact to be able to benefit from the +2 at impact ?

Well, I'm pretty comfortable with things as they are to be honest, they seem to fit with how I think things worked.

Having said, that I've never seen the "stand off and shoot at long range" thing. Is it where players use the Commanded Shot with RG in tandem with Foot BGs? If it is then the issue might very well be the ahistorical complication of the Commanded Shot + RGs working in combination with the Foot BGs rather than just being about the Foot BGs themselves?

The simplest way of dealing with that IMO would be to make the CS deploy in base contact with Horse, at least initially and limit the attachment of RGs as Nik suggested above.

Three

I have seen ETYW Swedes used and have played against ETYW Swedes. Even when the ETYW Swedes use the CS in a broadly historical mode, I still see the hold off and shoot at long range as being the tactic used most often against historical opponents. The ETYW Swedes are at a major advantage at long range and are at a major disadvantage at short range AGAINST HISTORICAL OPPONENTS. Unless/until my flanks are about to be caved in I loiter at long range against historical opponents (especially so since a Britcon experience against Alisdairs' uphill Austrian Imperialist P&S BGs). Nik is right and something needs to change.

Regards
Tim

Is it mainly a competition issue? Admittedly there are only 5 of us in our club playing regularily, at least 2 games of R a month, but every time ETYW Swedes hold off, and that due to constricting terrain or in my case poor deployment rather than a deliberate tactic, their flanks get turned and their inferior cavalry routed off.

I suppose we can only comment from our own experiences, but I'm tempted to suggest that competition play, optomised competition armies and gamey tactics (CS with RGs deployed with the Foot) are the major factors here, in which case tweaking the POAs to deal with ahistorical play seems to me to be the wrong way to do it and will penalise players who actually use historical tactics.

I suppose we can only comment from our own experiences, but I'm tempted to suggest that competition play, optomised competition armies and gamey tactics (CS with RGs deployed with the Foot) are the major factors here, in which case tweaking the POAs to deal with ahistorical play seems to me to be the wrong way to do it and will penalise players who actually use historical tactics.

I think you're right in that it's unhistorical use that we're trying to address here and I now see why you think this suggested fix may not have the desired effect. The problem is that the rules as they currently stand do benefit this unhistorical tactic, but we need to find a better fix.