Slitherine

Jhykronos wrote:

Paulkit0 wrote:I note the routed Dragoons but - surely in pursuit (admittedly not that frequent) they'd also be back on their horses ? So might suggest [if routing or pursuing]. In the line above?

Pursuing with Dragoons probably won't happen too often. I thought routing made sense to get the full move, but maybe the additional detail here isn't worth it.

I think that it's not really worth it for a couple of reasons:

From a game perspective, the 'extra rule' for the amount of times it happens to me seems a little like unnecessary clutter (no insult intended); and,
From a realism point of view, I don't think they would necessarily have their horses by this stage... not in a formed manner at least. Destruction of a BG isn't (in my opinion anyway) every man to the sword. There are 'unrepresented men that have ridden off into the sunset'. IF somehow, you 'rally' the troops, then some come back, and as you get more and more cohesion back that represents more and more troops returning.

added to this the new autobreak rules and I agree, the extra complication isnt worth it

Just an additional viewpoint about dragoons from a fellow Wessex player who does not frequent these forums:

If Dragoons are to count as dismounted once they get to 6 MU’s of the enemy, then they remain so for the rest of the game. Alternatively a Marker should be left at the point where the Dragoons dismounted to indicate where they left their Horses. To count as mounted again the Dragoons must first go back to that marker so that they can remount.
I must admit I do not recall an example of Dragoons going back for their mounts, but there are several examples in both the ECW and the 30YW where Dragoons originally deployed on foot remounted to take part in the pursuit.


Does he have a point that effectively once within 6" the dragoons are likely to remain dismounted? They are unlikely to remount in my experience once troops get within 6" so their mobility will effectively be reduced to just the first few moves of a game.
I think the marker idea is an unlikely added complication but never having been on the receiving end of these uber sniper dragoon teams I don't see a problem with the rules as written.

It's a valid point and something I did consider when thinking about Dragoons but I think it is an added complication that we don't need. in most games it won't arise and It would require a number of additional rules such as what happens if enemy contact the marker.

Agreed about the marker but as I mentioned does he have a point that after the first couple of turns what you have is a not terribly effective unit of medium foot?

Or maybe that's the idea?

I must admit I am surprised that the dragoons are seen as a problem in FOGR . If we are going to treat units as medium foot if they are within 6mu of the enemy do we need to replace them at that point with medium foot sized bases. I always thought the larger base size for dragoons worked as they cause issues with retreating dragoon bases if supporting troops are to close plus they give a larger target for enemy troops who are within charge range. If we go this route the medium foot base size makes sense as during the ecw dragoons were used I believe as infantry units in some battles. However do we go the way of other rule sets that have dragoon units based as horse but changing to foot sized bases when dismounted. Better visually than markers.

I think the point is to try to get dragoons acting more like they did historically, i.e. Not motoring all over the place at high speed acting as snipers. This amendment means that they need to hide in cover which is what, certainly in the ECW, they did.

Keith

Sorry should have added I don't see any need to have replacement bases.

In our club games dragoons often run out of space on the normal size table especially if in a group of 4 . Hence the surprise that their mobility is an issue

It sounds like maybe the people at your club use them more historically. Unfortunately, it's also possible to use them as a kind of Light Horse with Musket, as Keith describes above. The purpose of the proposal is to prevent that and force more historical usage.

kevinj wrote:It's a valid point and something I did consider when thinking about Dragoons but I think it is an added complication that we don't need. in most games it won't arise and It would require a number of additional rules such as what happens if enemy contact the marker.

Agreed. It's hard to see how they will end up outside 6" again once they get into that zone with this rule change, so the marker or the change of bases is kinda irrelevant.

Currently the "cheese" happens in a handful of mostly-mounted armies, and its their ability to move with mounted, shoot at enemy mounted at long range, and then evade long distances in open terrain on very open battlefields that is where the "problem" is seen.

madaxeman wrote: Agreed. It's hard to see how they will end up outside 6" again once they get into that zone with this rule change,

Most likely way I would think is where they are on the extreme flank of a mounted wing which beats an opposing mounted wing leaving no enemy within 6". Bit like Naseby.

madaxeman wrote:Currently the "cheese" happens in a handful of mostly-mounted armies, and its their ability to move with mounted, shoot at enemy mounted at long range, and then evade long distances in open terrain on very open battlefields that is where the "problem" is seen.

But is this "cheese"? I seem to recall individual dragoon troops being attached to squadrons/regiments of horse, on both sides, during the ECW in order to do precisely this - support them with musket fire in order to disrupt enemy horse.

RonanTheLibrarian wrote:

madaxeman wrote:Currently the "cheese" happens in a handful of mostly-mounted armies, and its their ability to move with mounted, shoot at enemy mounted at long range, and then evade long distances in open terrain on very open battlefields that is where the "problem" is seen.

But is this "cheese"? I seem to recall individual dragoon troops being attached to squadrons/regiments of horse, on both sides, during the ECW in order to do precisely this - support them with musket fire in order to disrupt enemy horse.

But they aren't actually used in the manner of a small number of dragoons "embedded" in a cavalry unit - they are operating as distinct units as as skirmishers in a LH-esque manner.

madaxeman wrote:the "cheese" happens in a handful of mostly-mounted armies, and its their ability to move with mounted, shoot at enemy mounted at long range, and then evade long distances in open terrain on very open battlefields that is where the "problem" is seen.

On a point cost per shooting dice basis, they are by far the best skirmishers in the game. Quite odd for a troop type that for much of the period had a very limited battlefield role.

Well, my dragoons have always been nothing but useless so this gives me a good excuse not to use them at all which means they will indeed have a very limited battlefield role

After due consideration we have decided that - This proposal will be implemented

Will stop the ahistorical stuff often seen. Good compromise. Thanks

We had an issue today on moving Dragoons.

What distance should they move when the only troops within 6 MU are routing? At this point in a battle, we would assume that they would mount up and be moving at 5MU until they came across unbroken enemy within 6 MU. However, what is the proposal?

Enemy is enemy as applies to 2nd and 3rd moves; only commander's bases are ignored.