"Typical Army" Restrictions

[madaxeman]

This would kill all the Eastern Indian armies and the Turks (who aren't that good anyway), who actually relied on Heavy Artillery.

Don

Do you mean the whole idea of linking numbers of foot to Heavy/Medium artillery or the idea that maybe Heavy would require more infantry to be fielded?

Possibly both... The Turks almost certainly need to field at least 6 guns, maybe 4 of which are heavy, if they are to be both viable and historical. If this created a requirement for 42 bases of foote (15+15+12) then it may not be possible to actually field a legal list at 800AP, never mind a representative one...

[nikgaukroger]

This would kill all the Eastern Indian armies and the Turks (who aren't that good anyway), who actually relied on Heavy Artillery.

Don

Do you mean the whole idea of linking numbers of foot to Heavy/Medium artillery or the idea that maybe Heavy would require more infantry to be fielded?

Possibly both... The Turks almost certainly need to field at least 6 guns, maybe 4 of which are heavy, if they are to be both viable and historical. If this created a requirement for 42 bases of foote (15+15+12) then it may not be possible to actually field a legal list at 800AP, never mind a representative one...

Both was my assumption, however, I did want to check.

Its this sort of thing that does make me think that global restrictions may not actually work in FoG:R due to some of the differences across the period in terms of military systems. A case where the "solution" is simple, elegant and wrong - to quote one of Phil Barker's favourite comments

[kevinj]

As convenient (and simple for list checkers) as it would be, I don't think that a single set of restrictions is feasible. I think that Richard's suggestions are a good start that would work for most of the armies in WoR and D&G.

8 Horse and 8 Dragoons would allow up to 8 6 base BGs of foot which should be enough for most uses, but having less mounted would not allow some of the minimised mounted configurations that have caused concern. Applying proportions to Superior vs Average/Poor mounted and basing artillery allowances on foot should curb the more troublesome aspects of the max mounted TYW/Louis XIV armies, although I think it would be preferable to make the more specialised mostly mounted options Special Campaign sub-lists in the same way as the ECW Royalist Raiders are. As others have pointed out, Commanded Shot should be excluded from these proportions.

I don't think these proportions work so well with some of the T&T or CofE armies, paricularly the early Keil based ones, but I do think linking artillery allowances to foot would be worthwhile. I don't think they really work for the likes of the Turks, or the stuff in C&C or CofG. So I think we'd need a separate set of general regulations for the European armies in T&T or CofE and could probably leave the others as they are.

The prospect of more Average mounted has already resurrected the debate on targetting these with artillery. If there's no desire to mess with autobreak levels or factors, would a simple rule along the lines of "Artillery may not be deployed in a position where the outer 12MU of the table (on each side) is within its arc of fire" help to resolve the problem?

For the avoidance of pedantry, the references to "half the maximum" should be revised to "at least half the maximum".

[nikgaukroger]

So are we, perhaps, better off looking at some restrictions that were of a form something like:

Restriction 1 - <<definition of restriction>> applies to the following lists: <<series of army list names>>

Restriction 2 - <<definition of restriction>> applies to the following lists: <<series of army list names>>

.
.
.


With the number of restrictions kept to a minimum to try and keep things as simple as possible.

[martinvantol]

As one of the fans of restrictions, I do understand they would apply mostly to west European armies of the 17th century. I also think they would fit easiest with restricted period competitions. They would be easiest to implement that way, and with fewer unintended side-effects. I never particularly intended those restrictions to apply to the Ottomans, but then never really envisaged the Ottomans playing many west European armies anyway.

Martin

[rbodleyscott]

This would kill all the Eastern Indian armies and the Turks (who aren't that good anyway), who actually relied on Heavy Artillery.

Don

hence the "half the maximum" bit

[rbodleyscott]

Possibly both... The Turks almost certainly need to field at least 6 guns, maybe 4 of which are heavy, if they are to be both viable and historical. If this created a requirement for 42 bases of foote (15+15+12) then it may not be possible to actually field a legal list at 800AP, never mind a representative one...

Both was my assumption, however, I did want to check.

Its this sort of thing that does make me think that global restrictions may not actually work in FoG:R due to some of the differences across the period in terms of military systems. A case where the "solution" is simple, elegant and wrong - to quote one of Phil Barker's favourite comments

Well it becomes wrong if you insist on simplifying the proposal without considering the reasons for the exception. The "half the maximum" part is intended to prevent the problem.

[nikgaukroger]

Possibly both... The Turks almost certainly need to field at least 6 guns, maybe 4 of which are heavy, if they are to be both viable and historical. If this created a requirement for 42 bases of foote (15+15+12) then it may not be possible to actually field a legal list at 800AP, never mind a representative one...

Both was my assumption, however, I did want to check.

Its this sort of thing that does make me think that global restrictions may not actually work in FoG:R due to some of the differences across the period in terms of military systems. A case where the "solution" is simple, elegant and wrong - to quote one of Phil Barker's favourite comments

Well it becomes wrong if you insist on simplifying the proposal without considering the reasons for the exception. The "half the maximum" part is intended to prevent the problem.

Fair point - I guess we hadn't worked that bit through properly

I think that fundamentally I'd prefer something a bit more complicated (or at least appears so) as I think it can add a certain degree of additional historicality whilst not being too much to deal with. As that'd be leaving many lists with no additional requirements (as in the WoR examples I posted) those lists would actually be simpler than under a global restriction

One thing I don't like about your scheme (as I previously mentioned) is that whilst forces D&G armies away from mounted minimum, as is historical, it doesn't cap the French mounted is an equally historical manner and that just smacks of being unfair IMO and not really fitting in with "Many people think it would be a good thing if some tournament themes enforced more typical army compositions.". If you carry on allowing the French (D&G list) to have a proportion of mounted about 2x the historical prototype I think you have to allow mounted minimised as well - but for preference I'd curtail both obviously.

[madaxeman]

This would kill all the Eastern Indian armies and the Turks (who aren't that good anyway), who actually relied on Heavy Artillery.

Don

hence the "half the maximum" bit

aaah - so to get 6 artillery would mean that 22 bases of foote became mandatory in an Early Ottoman army, or 32 bases (at least 174 points worth even with 16 bases of poor archers) in an Later Ottoman army. This might be harder than it looks...

[nikgaukroger]

aaah - so to get 6 artillery would mean that 22 bases of foote became mandatory in an Early Ottoman army,

Which could be all 16 Janissaries and the minimum 6 Azaps - probably what most people take anyway.

or 32 bases (at least 174 points worth even with 16 bases of poor archers) in an Later Ottoman army. This might be harder than it looks...

How does that stack up against what people might taken currently for this army?

[Maniakes]

A case where the "solution" is simple, elegant and wrong - to quote one of Phil Barker's favourite comments

Well it becomes wrong if you insist on simplifying the proposal without considering the reasons for the exception. The "half the maximum" part is intended to prevent the problem.

Hmm..... which just goes to show why I shouldn't be writing rules or amendments.... (in my defence it is harder than it looks).

Having said that most Turkish armies would already be close to those ratios when you count all the Janissaries and other foot wouldn't they? (as Nik points out)

[MatteoPasi]

So are we, perhaps, better off looking at some restrictions that were of a form something like:

Restriction 1 - <<definition of restriction>> applies to the following lists: <<series of army list names>>

With the number of restrictions kept to a minimum to try and keep things as simple as possible.

What about to have for every single list a new table reporting how many unit for each "family" can be taken in order to have a "standard" army ? list are still valid but "unstandard" armies can be penalized with a malus (ie 15 pt for every BG over or under max and min). The amount of penalization can be fixed from organizer of each competition so o for "open" comp and "20 or 30" for more restricted ones.

Ex: 800 ECW Royalist armies can be considered standard if they have:
3-4 Mounted
3-6 Infantry
0-1 light troops
0-1 artillery

I can still take 5 horse 3 infantry, 2 dragoons and 2 artillery but I have 3 "point of unstandardness" that can be 60pt so my Whole army must be at max 740 pt.

Easy, not to bad and players/organizers that want to mantain things like now can still do
opinions ?

[nikgaukroger]

A case where the "solution" is simple, elegant and wrong - to quote one of Phil Barker's favourite comments

Well it becomes wrong if you insist on simplifying the proposal without considering the reasons for the exception. The "half the maximum" part is intended to prevent the problem.

Hmm..... which just goes to show why I shouldn't be writing rules or amendments.... (in my defence it is harder than it looks).

Its why I always let Richard have the last say on wording

[nikgaukroger]

What about to have for every single list a new table reporting how many unit for each "family" can be taken in order to have a "standard" army ? list are still valid but "unstandard" armies can be penalized with a malus (ie 15 pt for every BG over or under max and min). The amount of penalization can be fixed from organizer of each competition so o for "open" comp and "20 or 30" for more restricted ones.

Ex: 800 ECW Royalist armies can be considered standard if they have:
3-4 Mounted
3-6 Infantry
0-1 light troops
0-1 artillery

I can still take 5 horse 3 infantry, 2 dragoons and 2 artillery but I have 3 "point of unstandardness" that can be 60pt so my Whole army must be at max 740 pt.

Easy, not to bad and players/organizers that want to mantain things like now can still do
opinions ?

Certainly an interesting idea, and it'd make for a different comp. However, I'm not sure I'd want to use it as the general basis for list restrictions - on balance I prefer the sort of approach we've been discussion so far.

[ravenflight]

Another anomaly that I think I've noticed... what about armies like the Japanese? They don't have any average mounted (do they? I'm not 100% confident)

[nikgaukroger]

Another anomaly that I think I've noticed... what about armies like the Japanese? They don't have any average mounted (do they? I'm not 100% confident)

Some of the options in the list allow Average mounted, but not all.

[nikgaukroger]

2) Armies must have at least 1 Mounted or Dragoon base for every 3 Foot bases (excluding Dragoons and Artillery), or half the total maximum permitted bases of each of Mounted troops and Dragoons if this totals less. If the list only allows a maximum of one unit of Mounted troops and Dragoons, the army doesn't have to have to have any.

Mulling the minimum mounted thing again last night and had a bit of a look at number of mounted in French armies in the period – French as opposed to anyone else because I had books to hand that had information in so it was easy

Richard’s suggestion quoted above is basically saying an army must have at least 25% Mounted and Dragoons. Numbers of mounted as a percentage of the army I found for some French armies (not an exhaustive list, it omits Turenne's army in the 1640's for example) were:

1525 – 19%, 17%
1544 – 17%
1552 – 10%, 16%
1558 – 22%
1562 – 17%, 13%
1567 – 29%
1568 – 27%
1569 – 36%, 29%, 36%
1573 – 5% (but this was an army raised to besiege La Rochelle so can probably be ignored)
1574 – 11%
1575 – 36%
1601/09 – 28%
1610 – 12%
1625 – 13%
1629 – 11%, 8%, 11%
1630 – 10%
1635 – 9%, 18%, 17%, 24%
1636 – 9%, 23%, 14%
1637 – 34%
1638 – 24%, 23%, 25%, 22%
1640 – 27%, 35%, 25%
1641 – 19%, 25%, 31%, 29%
1642 – 30%
1643 – 30%
1658 – 40%
1674 – 47%
1690’s – 30%

[nikgaukroger]

One thing I don't like about your scheme (as I previously mentioned) is that whilst forces D&G armies away from mounted minimum, as is historical, it doesn't cap the French mounted is an equally historical manner and that just smacks of being unfair IMO and not really fitting in with "Many people think it would be a good thing if some tournament themes enforced more typical army compositions.". If you carry on allowing the French (D&G list) to have a proportion of mounted about 2x the historical prototype I think you have to allow mounted minimised as well - but for preference I'd curtail both obviously.

However ...

Alasdair may like this as I came across the Battle of Sinsheim, 1674 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sinzheim

French 6000 mounted, 1500 foot
Imperials 7000 mounted, 2000 foot

Clearly not a common thing as far as I can see, but these are meaningful armies.

Note no artillery - and that may be the key thing to take from this. Would suggest that the lists covering these armies should have had an option similar to the Royalist Raiding Force or the *ed one in the Later TYW Swedish and Weimarian list.

That said I did see another reference to the French being 5000 foot and 4000 mounted - which would be more in line with the picture in that Wikipedia article (which may also show 6 cannon), although I have no idea as the reliability of the picture and these things can be wildly out at times (as can army figures in Wikipedia mind you ...) - so maybe just the Imperials in this case.

[gibby]

So apart from a few raiding forces. None of those figures have more Mounted than Foot. And a range of approx 10% to 40% if we ignore the outliers. Looks like 25% bang in the middle of that range so maybe not so bad a figure to use.

And in terms of the game those raiding forces would be 1 unit of 6 foot bases and 6 units of 4 base horse/dragoons. Probablyabout 400/500 points worth.

cheers
Jim

[nikgaukroger]

So apart from a few raiding forces. None of those figures have more Mounted than Foot.

No raiding forces in that list - which are you referring to?

Certainly none of those French armies had more mounted than foot, however, other armies of the period did and not just raiding forces.

And a range of approx 10% to 40% if we ignore the outliers. Looks like 25% bang in the middle of that range so maybe not so bad a figure to use.

Or perhaps the reason why French armies of the period should have to have 10% to 40% mounted.

And in terms of the game those raiding forces would be 1 unit of 6 foot bases and 6 units of 4 base horse/dragoons. Probablyabout 400/500 points worth.

Which raiding forces?