Slitherine

I have another suggestion (for later TYW period only) that I think can work in conjunction with cohesion test for infantry rotating in place. Making the open flank of an infantry Pike & shot unit subject to flank attack by cavalry even when charged in the front. If an infantry unit has no adjacent friendly unit to either flank and it is charged by enemy cavalry in the front still will suffer the flank penalty for "overlapping" cavalry. I think it will provide 4 benefits to the game.
1) Making cavalry more valuable
2) Making it more valuable on the defensive, because you need to protect the flanks of your infantry line with cavalry (that will not have the overlapping penalty)
3) Making unnecessary to reduce the price of cavalry, since a single cavalry unit would be enough to pose a menace on the enemy infantry flank
3) It will also make the unhistorical converging lines a more difficult proposal for players.

Aryaman wrote:I have another suggestion (for later TYW period only) that I think can work in conjunction with cohesion test for infantry rotating in place. Making the open flank of an infantry Pike & shot unit subject to flank attack by cavalry even when charged in the front. If an infantry unit has no adjacent friendly unit to either flank and it is charged by enemy cavalry in the front still will suffer the flank penalty for "overlapping" cavalry. I think it will provide 4 benefits to the game.
1) Making cavalry more valuable
2) Making it more valuable on the defensive, because you need to protect the flanks of your infantry line with cavalry (that will not have the overlapping penalty)
3) Making unnecessary to reduce the price of cavalry, since a single cavalry unit would be enough to pose a menace on the enemy infantry flank
3) It will also make the unhistorical converging lines a more difficult proposal for players.

No because P&S units didn't need to operate historically with units directly on the flanks at all times. look at the swedish brigade and even dutch deployments, basically diamond shape formations with a lone unit "on point". Cavalry can NOW charge P&S units frontally and generally bounce off causing higher casualties to the infantry than they themselves get... If they are luck and cause a disruption to the infantry, they will win overall....

I knew you wouldn't like the formation change thingie

I really do like the test for rotating in place. A player would need to start thinking about his flanks long before his flank cavalry fails. No more adhoc, spin the infantry toward closest threat on a dime.

As for wider maps, mehh, it might help a little but nothing will prevent an infantry heavy army from "fanning out" his infantry to match the cavalry player broadening his front...

Infantry changing facing did not have to be that big a deal. Changing 180 degrees for instance could be accomplished by simply having each man turn around.
I think that more highly trained troops(of better quality) should be less likely to have problems with cohesion when changing facing. An argument could be made to have cohesion checks for raw and average troops.

Aryaman wrote:1) Running a test for infantry wheeling similar to that for falling back. Wheeling in front of the enemy was as dangerous and potentially catastrophic as falling back, if not more. From gameplay perspective it could allow cavalry the chance to outflank infantry.

This. I strongly second this suggestion. The chance for losing cohesion when wheeling in front of enenmy infantry should also be substantially lower than doing so in front of non-light cavalry.

Turning a whole musket formation in contact with Russian, Turkish, Polish cavalry of this period or cuirassiers wouldn't be a good idea or an easy thing to do.

I don't like the idea, since veterans are already so significantly advantaged over more raw units, but as long as the cohesion test only occurs on rotations of more than 90' I can live with it.

However, like the fall back command, I urge the dev to add an indication to the UI when the unit is within charge ramge and such a move will result in a cohesion test.

Edit: I would rather do something like only give later tercios half flank protection and early tercios half rear protection

Having just won Breitenfeld after three failed attempts, I believe that tercios are much too maneuverable in the game.
Tercios were great defensively vs melee but much less so for fire attacks.
Trying to imagine a formation such as theirs moving as fast as the Swedish infantry boggles the imagination.
People who claim that cavalry is nerfed perhaps haven't experienced the effectiveness of the Catholic Heavy cavalry.

shawkhan2 wrote:Having just won Breitenfeld after three failed attempts, I believe that tercios are much too maneuverable in the game.
Tercios were great defensively vs melee but much less so for fire attacks.
Trying to imagine a formation such as theirs moving as fast as the Swedish infantry boggles the imagination.
People who claim that cavalry is nerfed perhaps haven't experienced the effectiveness of the Catholic Heavy cavalry.

At Breitenfeld the Catholic regiments were deployed 2 companies deep, while the Swedish were just 1 company deep. It was an assault formation, moving not as fast, but faster than the Swedish brigade, that was relatively cumbersome with its longer frontage, it was a formation to maximize firpower and defensive capabilities, but rather slow and ponderous on the offensive.

Actually, I believe that to be completely wrong.
The tercio was a huge unwieldy formation(just look at its complicated arrangement).
It was the defensive formation par excellance.
But it could not move quickly at all.
Basically it was a moving fortress.
The game gives it way too many APs.
Swedish cavalry was lightly armored, and patterned after the Polish cavalry, which Gustavus had fought for 2-3 years.
It is much less maneuverable than it should be.
At Breitenfeld, the Imperial cavalry charged them 7 times and were counter-charged successfully each time. You cannot do this in the game. The Imperial cavalry should be using the caracole tactic, not shock attack as they are currently doing.
In the battle, the Imperial tercios were shot to pieces by the Swedish salvo infantry that was much more maneuverable than them.
If one fights the battle the way that it happened historically, you will lose.
In the actual battle, Gustavus allowed the Saxons to be annihilated, while he rolled up the other wing, then swung over to the other side to complete his victory.
According to Richard H. Berg:
Imperialist commander Johannes Tilly had also seen this, and his massive tercios
were bearing down on that dangling flank, visions of destruction and looting
dancing in their collective heads. And such would probably have been the
result, had not Gustavus’ heavy infantry brigades done something no tercio
dared to do, or could do, had they dared – they rapidly wheeled around to the
flank, marched up to the painfully slow tercios, and began firing volley after
volley of massive salvo fire into their thick ranks. When General Baner and the
Swedish heavy cavalry, having disposed of Pappenheim, crossed over to the
Swedish left – capturing the Imperialist guns in the bargain the rout began. The
Imperialist army – for a decade, totally supreme on the battlefield – had been
just as totally destroyed in under three hours. For the Catholics, “culture shock”
was a mild, albeit somewhat jarringly modern, term.
I would like to see the game more accurately depict the tactical capabilities that actually existed vis a vis the 30 Years war.
Right now players can not see the reason the Early Tercios were done away with after Breitenfeld.

I don't know if this is wholly accurate.

Tilly's army was out flanked, his bigger battalions did not have the same frontage as the combined Swedish-Saxon Army. So, he attacked obliquely with his infantry and cavalry and drove the Saxons off the field. The plan was then to roll up the more linear deployed Swedish infantry. It almost worked, but the Swedish firepower and rear lines were able to counter the German "crossing the t" in time
This does not imply lumbering slow going fortresses. Even at Breinenfeld its likely they were in 10 ranks deep

The Kuirassiers were not using the carocole. They could have been in 3 or maybe 6 ranks deep but they were pretty flexible. The front rank could advance and fire, retire, leaving the second rank to decide if the enemy needed more prep work, or they could close for melee, the third rank was like a reserve. If the swedish horse was that good, why were a significant # of shot stationed with them (which took heavy causalties showing how fierce the fighting was...)

Do you really believe Gustav "allowed" the Saxons to be destroyed" ? This was a desperate battle and could have gone either way. It was the training and the exemplar leadership that the Swedish sub commanders displayed that turned the tables.

I dunno, everything can be interpreted differently, but I never liked various historians that compared the Dutch system and the Swedish brigade to one of Roman cohorts vs the lumbering archaic phalanx analogy...

shawkhan2 wrote: Swedish cavalry was lightly armored, and patterned after the Polish cavalry, which Gustavus had fought for 2-3 years.

This is not the case. Gustavus' cavalry were essentially "budget cuirassiers" and used the same tactics as these, they were just less well armoured, close to the arkebusiers.

At Breitenfeld, the Imperial cavalry charged them 7 times and were counter-charged successfully each time. You cannot do this in the game. The Imperial cavalry should be using the caracole tactic, not shock attack as they are currently doing.

Imperial cuirassiers - those under Pappenheim were the horse that charged 7 times - did not use the caracole. Cuirassiers, as they had done since the time of Henri IV and Prince Maurice, charged to contact at the trot discharging pistols at point blank range, eseentailly using them as melee weapons. As ever would refer people to Brzezinski's osprey books as an accessible way to looking into this.

If one fights the battle the way that it happened historically, you will lose.
In the actual battle, Gustavus allowed the Saxons to be annihilated, while he rolled up the other wing, then swung over to the other side to complete his victory.

Having fought it 3 times now successfully, that is exactly how I have fought it

When I do not support the Saxons in Breitenfeld they are completely wiped out, costing me over 30% casualties. Then it is just a matter of time before I go over the limit and lose the battle.
When I win it is because I send substantial reinforcements to support the Saxons.
Do the Saxons survive in your games w/o help?

shawkhan2 wrote:When I do not support the Saxons in Breitenfeld they are completely wiped out, costing me over 30% casualties. Then it is just a matter of time before I go over the limit and lose the battle.
When I win it is because I send substantial reinforcements to support the Saxons.
Do the Saxons survive in your games w/o help?

Most of the Saxons have always been lost in the games I've played, however, I've always been breaking plenty of Imperial units as well so there has been little danger of losing on the 40% option. Crushing the Imperial left and moving onto the rest has worked well for me.

nikgaukroger wrote:

shawkhan2 wrote:When I do not support the Saxons in Breitenfeld they are completely wiped out, costing me over 30% casualties. Then it is just a matter of time before I go over the limit and lose the battle.
When I win it is because I send substantial reinforcements to support the Saxons.
Do the Saxons survive in your games w/o help?

Most of the Saxons have always been lost in the games I've played, however, I've always been breaking plenty of Imperial units as well so there has been little danger of losing on the 40% option.

Especially as it is 50% for the Swedes at Breitenfeld.

Having read 5 accounts of the battle of Breitenfeld, I have not found one that does not say the tercios were ponderous or lumbering or very difficult to maneuver.
Every description I have read of the Swedish cavalry says they were trained to charge at the gallop, preferring cold steel.
The most lucid account I have read of the battle does state that Pappenheim's men used the caracole.
Tilly's cavalry may or may not have used it, as he seems to have preferred shock combat.
Not being a big fan of Osprey publications I include a link to the military history magazine account of the battle I found most entertaining and detailed.
http://www.historynet.com/thirty-years- ... enfeld.htm

I again state that tercios have too many APs in the game.
Imperial cavalry are not successfully countered by the Swedish cavalry in the game. Much like others I suspect, I counter Imperial cavalry with infantry fire.
I would prefer the game to be as historically correct as possible.
As it is, there is little reason for anyone to not use the early tercios by preference, as they are as fast and maneuverable as the Swedish salvo infantry in the game, which was not really the case. After Breitenfeld, they were converted by the next year, hence their absence at Lutzen.

shawkhan2 wrote:Having read 5 accounts of the battle of Breitenfeld, I have not found one that does not say the tercios were ponderous or lumbering or very difficult to maneuver.

Out of interest are any of those contemporary or are they modern?

Every description I have read of the Swedish cavalry says they were trained to charge at the gallop, preferring cold steel.
The most lucid account I have read of the battle does state that Pappenheim's men used the caracole.

Alas I do not have the time to go and dig out the contemporary stuff on this that I accumulated when we wrote the FoG:R rules - however, it was quite clear that the former is a modern myth and not based on anything in the Swedish military records (FWIW they only started using this tactic in the late 1670's where it is described as being in the French style ...) and the German manuals all instruct cuirassiers to charge home, the caracole is for arkebusiers.

Tilly's cavalry may or may not have used it, as he seems to have preferred shock combat.
Not being a big fan of Osprey publications I include a link to the military history magazine account of the battle I found most entertaining and detailed.
http://www.historynet.com/thirty-years- ... enfeld.htm

A nice read, however, I think its reliability on detail can be summed up by this line "and for every pikeman who went down there fell a 30-foot iron-tipped pike to trip and impale his mates." ...

As it is, there is little reason for anyone to not use the early tercios by preference, as they are as fast and maneuverable as the Swedish salvo infantry in the game, which was not really the case. After Breitenfeld, they were converted by the next year, hence their absence at Lutzen.

It is worth noting that the biggest difference between the imperial foot at Breitenfeld and Lutzen was that at the former they were probably about 10 deep (again FWIW I think Richard has it wrong using Early Tercio here, I'd use Later ones, but the early model does give the look of some of the prints about the battle so ...) whilst at the latter probably 7 and some light guns were attached in imitation of the Swedes.

That is the problem with history.
There seems to be multiple interpretations of what actually happened.
Somehow Swedish cavalry was supposed to have stopped the Imperial cavalry.
This is not possible in the game, at least by me, hoho!
I will take your word on your winning Breitenfeld the 'historical' way and will try it myself another time or two.
Simply saying your sources are right and all the others are wrong is not that valid an argument however.
Saying the tercios in the game are not 'really' tercios, with the thirty ranks of pike or more, does not make sense.
Military men are about the most conservative in any society. They would not have changed the basic structure of their beloved tercios w/o it being graphically proven they were no longer of value. The early tercios had only two weaknesses, their slow speed and their reduced firepower in a given direction. The fact that they were a huge target for firearms only gradually became a liability as firearms were improved.
Having tercios be as maneuverable as Swedish salvo infantry in the game does not make sense, as it does not agree with ANY of the historical sources.

shawkhan2 wrote:That is the problem with history.
There seems to be multiple interpretations of what actually happened.
Somehow Swedish cavalry was supposed to have stopped the Imperial cavalry.
This is not possible in the game, at least by me, hoho!
I will take your word on your winning Breitenfeld the 'historical' way and will try it myself another time or two.
Simply saying your sources are right and all the others are wrong is not that valid an argument however.
Saying the tercios in the game are not 'really' tercios, with the thirty ranks of pike or more, does not make sense.
Military men are about the most conservative in any society. They would not have changed the basic structure of their beloved tercios w/o it being graphically proven they were no longer of value. The early tercios had only two weaknesses, their slow speed and their reduced firepower in a given direction. The fact that they were a huge target for firearms only gradually became a liability as firearms were improved.
Having tercios be as maneuverable as Swedish salvo infantry in the game does not make sense, as it does not agree with ANY of the historical sources.

Sources in this case are contemporary sources, and I am not aware of any contemporary sources that claims Swedish brigade to be more maneuverable that the German regiments (BTW they were not called at the time Tercios, it was the pike formation that was called Tertia). It has been an assumption based on the now very much outdated work of Michael Roberts that has survived for much longer in the wargame community than in the research community.
Now, the basis for Roberts to declare the Tercio lumbering and ponderous, and a dinosaur was a rigid description based on the mid 16th century spanish tercio, one that was not correct even for that period. The Tertia formation in Tilly´s army was simply one of a mass assault column in 2 companies depth, much faster than the Sedwish brigade, and that is a question of simple logic, the same logic that apply to Napoleonic columns and battlelines, the longer the frontage the more fipower you get, but trading it for reduced maneuverability. It is as simple as that. Gustavus Adolphus knew that well and at Alte Veste used that same 2 deep company assault formation of the "lumbering" Tilly´s Tertia.

shawkhan2 wrote:That is the problem with history.
There seems to be multiple interpretations of what actually happened.

Also one of the fun things IMO

Simply saying your sources are right and all the others are wrong is not that valid an argument however.

Also very true, alas I don't have the time to put up the material I used, Mea culpa. Not that there has been much evidence posted here by anyone to be honest.

Saying the tercios in the game are not 'really' tercios, with the thirty ranks of pike or more, does not make sense.
Military men are about the most conservative in any society. They would not have changed the basic structure of their beloved tercios w/o it being graphically proven they were no longer of value. The early tercios had only two weaknesses, their slow speed and their reduced firepower in a given direction. The fact that they were a huge target for firearms only gradually became a liability as firearms were improved.

Well by the time of Breitenfeld smaller, shallower formations had been in use around Europe for 30+ years - plenty of time for even ossified military minds to make changes. FWIW the "classic" tercio itself did not always form up so deep, there was a formation called "El Prolongado de Gran Frente" which had a depth of 16 ranks. German formations certainly seem to have been reformed in the early C17th under the influence of Johann von Nassau-Siegen and Giorgio Basta and here is an illustration of an "old style" formation and the same number of men in smaller n"new style" formations - http://s277.photobucket.com/user/Dstabe ... ort=3&o=57

Nik are you going to recommend any changes to RBS re Tercios ?

I think Richard probably knows my views already