Slitherine

nikgaukroger wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

Jhykronos wrote:Is there any point in revisiting Spanish Gendarmes being classified as "Light Lancers"? I seem to recall there being some dispute on this, and in game terms it makes them absolute garbage against all their historical opponents for the same price.

Another case where a half PoA would be rather useful

I'll have a think about this one.

We could give them Heavy Lancers but drop them to Average - is, in effect, then half a PoA down from the Superior versions and assuming we change the break points as suggested they won't be breaking on different losses from the Superiors. May get the right effect.

It seems a better solution. Have you considered giving the spanish the option to have superior light cavalry, especially Jinetes? It seems that were the area where they truly excelled.

Akbar wrote: It seems a better solution. Have you considered giving the spanish the option to have superior light cavalry, especially Jinetes? It seems that were the area where they truly excelled.

I'm pretty sure that was considered when the lists were drawn up, so what we have is the conclusion that was reached. Skirmishers tended not to get the benefit of the doubt in these cases.

The proposal to classify Polish Hussars, later Swedes and later French cavalry as Impact Mounted, Pistol gets my vote.

Having my winged hussars fail yet again against average Reitary determined horse making them impacted mounted pistol gets my vote. You may see more than the minimum amount of Hussars making it on the table. Mind you this should be the only change I do not want my hussars to be as tough as in a certain European set of rules which has seen Cossack cannon balls bounce off my hussars armour to no effect.

FOGR is a really good set of rules which works well for a set covering a time period where the type of warfare rapidly changed. Apart from artillery and perhaps terrain generation and fortifications not much needs changing, perhaps just changes to certain army lists.

jonphilp wrote:Having my winged hussars fail yet again against average Reitary determined horse making them impacted mounted pistol gets my vote. You may see more than the minimum amount of Hussars making it on the table. Mind you this should be the only change I do not want my hussars to be as tough as in a certain European set of rules which has seen Cossack cannon balls bounce off my hussars armour to no effect.

There are no plans for any further changes to their capabilities - although I think it is likely that pints changes will make them cheaper which should benefit game balance and be another reason for them more likely to be fielded. A good thing I think

One possibility would be to allow one Hussar unit to be upgraded to Elite. Certainly arguable historically (for example at the start of the battle to relieve Vienna one Hussar unit charges out at the whole Ottoman army - at least crazy if not Elite). Shouldn't disturb game balance too much and they strike me as at least as Elite as some other troops that get the classification.

Maniakes wrote:One possibility would be to allow one Hussar unit to be upgraded to Elite. Certainly arguable historically (for example at the start of the battle to relieve Vienna one Hussar unit charges out at the whole Ottoman army - at least crazy if not Elite). Shouldn't disturb game balance too much and they strike me as at least as Elite as some other troops that get the classification.

Same could probably be said of many lists - I think without going through them all it would be wrong to have a change in the Poles.

I imagine this would be a minority interest, but I think the Early Henrician army in France (1513) is out of kilter with historical reality - eg no firearms, no mounted archers (as dragoons), not enough artillery, and no crossbow for the Border Horse despite their Scottish counterparts having them.

[ None of this applies to the Flodden army or the Late Henrician forces. ]

nikgaukroger wrote:

Maniakes wrote:One possibility would be to allow one Hussar unit to be upgraded to Elite. Certainly arguable historically (for example at the start of the battle to relieve Vienna one Hussar unit charges out at the whole Ottoman army - at least crazy if not Elite). Shouldn't disturb game balance too much and they strike me as at least as Elite as some other troops that get the classification.

Same could probably be said of many lists - I think without going through them all it would be wrong to have a change in the Poles.

Going through them all wouldn't be a horrible idea some day, but I guess it's out of scope for this round.

Actually, I've seen at least one professed expert on the Poles say that the Hussars should have the option to be average as well, so maybe the current rating is a happy medium. Especially since at the implied scale of the game, a unit probably represents several banners of Hussaria.

Jhykronos wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

Maniakes wrote:One possibility would be to allow one Hussar unit to be upgraded to Elite. Certainly arguable historically (for example at the start of the battle to relieve Vienna one Hussar unit charges out at the whole Ottoman army - at least crazy if not Elite). Shouldn't disturb game balance too much and they strike me as at least as Elite as some other troops that get the classification.

Same could probably be said of many lists - I think without going through them all it would be wrong to have a change in the Poles.

Going through them all wouldn't be a horrible idea some day, but I guess it's out of scope for this round.

Agreed it could be a good thing. However, in order to keep things manageable not this time.

Actually, I've seen at least one professed expert on the Poles say that the Hussars should have the option to be average as well, so maybe the current rating is a happy medium. Especially since at the implied scale of the game, a unit probably represents several banners of Hussaria.

Again one that could easily apply to other mounted who are graded as Superior with no Average options.

I guess we could come up with a blanket alteration for all list books that says any mounted who are graded as Superior only can instead be fielded as Average at the appropriate points cost.

How about a provision for armies that lose their commanded shot as units to be allowed 6-stand all-shot units, for excess shot not supporting the cavalry.

Reasoning: Nobody was ever able to achieve their "ideal" ratio of pikes to shot, usually leading to excess shot. However, battlefield squadrons were generally kept as close to this ratio as possible, leaving a surplus of shot that were often formed into "utility" units to hold terrain, provide a reserve, guard the artillery, or protect the baggage. Many lists already get this type of unit, but those that previously had 2-stand commanded shot units often don't, due to the assumption that those units could also provide this role.

I'd have to check the lists to see who it should effect.

Erm, no.

Battle groups already cover a whole range of ratios and I don't believe you are correct in saying battlefield units were kept as close to the ideal ratio as possible as (IIRC) the figures on the Swedish brigades at Lutzen show for example (way more musketeers than they should have had).

However, after saying that the Swedes should probably have what you are suggesting as they did deploy such bodies as support for the brigades (again see Lutzen and, I think, Breitenfeld) as well as the commanded shot.

The Swedes did indeed deploy Henderson's (all musket) infantry regiment in reserve to their first line of infantry at Lutzen.

At Breitenfeld the musketeers in the reserve line were interspersed with horse so could be classed as commanded shot.

I have always thought that the Swedish early 30YW army list could have included a small (4 base - although the size of Henderson's regiment was small enough that it could have been 2 bases ) unit of all salvo foot (and as Henderson's were Scots I would grade them as Superior - although I suppose Germans could have been used , in which case they could also be average ).

As a user of Spanish Gendarmes with Light Lance I have never found them to be garbage; they just need to be lucky at impact. Quite happy as they are.

We could give them Heavy Lancers but drop them to Average - is, in effect, then half a PoA down from the Superior versions and assuming we change the break points as suggested they won't be breaking on different losses from the Superiors. May get the right effect.

You could always provide an alternate classification in the list, as some FOG lists do, if there are competing theories on representation. So take them all as either Superior Light Lance or Average Heavy. Everybody's happy

nikgaukroger wrote:Erm, no.

Battle groups already cover a whole range of ratios and I don't believe you are correct in saying battlefield units were kept as close to the ideal ratio as possible as (IIRC) the figures on the Swedish brigades at Lutzen show for example (way more musketeers than they should have had).

In the specific case of Lutzen, "as close as possible" wasn't really that close, but that's really beside the point. The point is that when you are talking about battlefield (as opposed to organizational) formations, there is an ideal unit size and an ideal force mix that the commander is trying to achieve... in order for a Swedish Brigade to BE a Swedish Brigade, or a Catholic League Squadron to BE a Catholic League squadron, the component companies need to add up to something within some loose tolerance of the tactical system you are trying to practice. If you're a bit thin on pikes, you compensate by running them in less files or ranks... to a reasonable point... beyond which you are forced to re-organize your units to get a more acceptable ratio.

And given that, most armies (Swedes or no) had more shot than their battlefield pike/shot formations could use.

But I suppose it really doesn't matter if we agree on the actual mechanism for their existence (as you say below).

However, after saying that the Swedes should probably have what you are suggesting as they did deploy such bodies as support for the brigades (again see Lutzen and, I think, Breitenfeld) as well as the commanded shot.

Tilly did pretty regularly as well, but I think his list already gets them. Late Imperial Spanish List don't get any, even though they had one prominent body at Fleurus (not to mention all the independently running Mangas at Nordlingen, etc). I suppose the detached shot rule could cover some of this for that list, though I'd argue they should get some anyway, as a number of the German Garrison regiments available to them were entirely shot (I've seen at least one hypothesis that these made up the third line at Rocroi).

As far as lists that get commanded shot go, Later 30YW Germans and all the ECW lists already have the option of taking all-shot units, so It looks mainly like we're talking early Swedes anyway.

Vespasian28 wrote:As a user of Spanish Gendarmes with Light Lance I have never found them to be garbage; they just need to be lucky at impact. Quite happy as they are.

They cost exactly the same as their historical enemy counterparts and are strictly inferior. This is a game problem.

A number of people in the know have also questioned the actual justification for the classification as well, but I can't speak as much to that.

Oh and just about any troops can be successful if they get lucky and roll high.

Can I raise one final list change on behalf of Ray who hasn't had chance to post. In the Japanese list later option the firearms are classed as arquebus. I understand that although called this they were more akin to muskets in range. Al the clans bar one had moved to firearms from bow. At present the arquebus man sitting behind a palisade will be outshot by a bowman at 4" without being able to retaliate. In competitions I have only once seen this version of the samurai used, instead people use the quasi medieval version. I would suggest the arquebus in this list is reclassified as musket.

Spedders

While agreeing that it does produce slightly ahistorical results, IMO that is a result of the bow not being hindered enough by the fortifications and there being no ammo/friction rules. As for musket, I raised exactly this with Nik when the list were first being written. I went back to sources. Turnbull is quite explicit that they are Arquebus NOT Musket. I am going to need some very solid evidence before I am willing to argue against the experts.

This one was thrashed out quite extensively when the rules & lists were originally written. Nothing has really changed. People may wish to look again at the bow range topic though.

Only a small point, but New Model Army should not be allowed a separate unit of firelocks after 1647, as they had been absorbed into the Tower Guards, which later served in the field as a conventional P&S regiment.

http://wiki.bcw-project.org/new-model-a ... lery-guard