Slitherine

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:20 am
Pike and Shot is a top down design, not a bottom up design. We have our theories as to why things happened as they did, but ultimately as long as we get the right historical effect, we don't worry too much about the reasons for that effect.

Could you share those theories? Just for an interesting food for thought.

companion wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:21 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:20 am
Pike and Shot is a top down design, not a bottom up design. We have our theories as to why things happened as they did, but ultimately as long as we get the right historical effect, we don't worry too much about the reasons for that effect.

Could you share those theories? Just for an interesting food for thought.

They are as described in the replies above.

Interestingly about the lance, Montecuccoli, the great Commander who served between 1628 and 1678, wrote in his memoirs : "The lance is the queen (ie the best) of the weapons for the cavalry, as the pike is for the infantry ; but the difficulty in obtaining, maintaining and using lances made us abandon their use." According to him, the cost of the equipment of a lancer, the need for a servant, etc were very expensive ; the horse of a lancer had to be "excellent and well-trained" and "if the ground is not solid and smooth without any bushes nor hollows, the lance is more often than not useless."

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 11:29 am Interestingly about the lance, Montecuccoli, the great Commander who served between 1628 and 1678, wrote in his memoirs : "The lance is the queen (ie the best) of the weapons for the cavalry, as the pike is for the infantry ; but the difficulty in obtaining, maintaining and using lances made us abandon their use." According to him, the cost of the equipment of a lancer, the need for a servant, etc were very expensive ; the horse of a lancer had to be "excellent and well-trained" and "if the ground is not solid and smooth without any bushes nor hollows, the lance is more often than not useless."

1. "...as the pike is for the infantry" - he was wrong. Arquebus and musket wins.
2. "The lance is the queen (ie the best) of the weapons for the cavalry" - lance was used, in difference forms, by cavalry almost 2000 years. But, again, it has lost with arquebus/pistol.
BTW - agains good armoured cavalry lance (for example winged hussars "kopia") was mostly useless. It breaks on the armour and do nothing.

gribol wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:24 pm

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 11:29 am Interestingly about the lance, Montecuccoli, the great Commander who served between 1628 and 1678, wrote in his memoirs : "The lance is the queen (ie the best) of the weapons for the cavalry, as the pike is for the infantry ; but the difficulty in obtaining, maintaining and using lances made us abandon their use." According to him, the cost of the equipment of a lancer, the need for a servant, etc were very expensive ; the horse of a lancer had to be "excellent and well-trained" and "if the ground is not solid and smooth without any bushes nor hollows, the lance is more often than not useless."

1. "...as the pike is for the infantry" - he was wrong. Arquebus and musket wins.
2. "The lance is the queen (ie the best) of the weapons for the cavalry" - lance was used, in difference forms, by cavalry almost 2000 years. But, again, it has lost with arquebus/pistol.

Montecuccoli knew the efficacy of arquebus, musket and pistol and how to use them effectively.
He was one of the best generals of his time.
That's why his opinion about the lance that was (becoming) outdated is interesting

As for the pike, you might have forgotten the horse in the equation.

Meanwhile I had time to read a couple of books, including one of Brzezinski's Osprey book and a Lutzen book by Wilson. Topic relevant information form two books were different.
Then I came across internet postings by one Daniel Staberg, who seemed to be a genuine expert of the military science of 15~16th C. (judging from his habit of quoting loads of primary materials as evidences) and also was endorsed by a developer as an authority (is Zarkarion RBS?) https://steamcommunity.com/app/377520/d ... 8708597405

I was foolish enough not to save notes from my forum searches but from the top of my head:

1. Armor did matter a lot in cavalry combat and sword charging was not effective against well armored horsemen. Highly disciplined regiments like Alt-Piccolomini are reported to have retained their armor even though others were discarding them due to the emphasis of "stomach warfare" making armors too burdensome to carry around.
2. Finnish cavalrymen were basically identical with Swedish in terms of equipment and tactics (pistol trot charge that is ubiquitous in TYW era). Quality was also nothing special but Stalhandske did have some veteran Finn horse units from previous wars.
3. One of the reasons lancers disappeared was economics. Demi-lancers, while cheaper to maintain than Gendarmes due to the lighter equipment (half armor, means less weight and thus cheaper horse), they were still more expensive than reiters or cuirassiers because the lancers' horses needed to be able to charge at speed.
4. Swedish invention of charge at gallop with sword is a myth. A closely connected received wisdom that is Rupert's "galloping cavaliers" is also likely to be a myth.
5. Charging with pistol, charging with sword, and performing "caracole," - all three could be employed by TYW horse units depending on circumstances; they were not restricted to a single mode of combat.


In game terms using top-down design philosophy, points 1 and 2 means cuirassiers that retained 3/4 armor should either not be facing impact mounted in their timeframe or not be subject to the PoA disadvantage at impact.
Also, Hakkapels should just be an elite quality horse with same armor rating of 33 but..... that does reduce the flavor of the army list quite a bit so I'm ok with them as they currently are.
ECW cavaliers having impact mounted status seems ok in terms of overall effect as long as they don't get to interact with continental army roster. It seems they currently are restricted to ECW roster matchups in the game so I'm fine with this also.
And point 5 seems impossible to reflect in the game with current game engine.

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 11:29 am Interestingly about the lance, Montecuccoli, the great Commander who served between 1628 and 1678, wrote in his memoirs : "The lance is the queen (ie the best) of the weapons for the cavalry, as the pike is for the infantry ; but the difficulty in obtaining, maintaining and using lances made us abandon their use." According to him, the cost of the equipment of a lancer, the need for a servant, etc were very expensive ; the horse of a lancer had to be "excellent and well-trained" and "if the ground is not solid and smooth without any bushes nor hollows, the lance is more often than not useless."

I did a quick google search and found this:
"Raimondo Montecuccoli referred to it as the queen of weapons', following his encounter with Polish cavalry in 1658-59. (from google book preview of the book "Warfare in Modern Europe 1450-1660")
Compare this with La Noue's remark in 16th C "it is a miracle if any be slain by the Speare."
I think the main reason behind the difference is the average amount of armor encountered on the battlefield. When cavalry shed enough armor such that sword-charging shock tactic became viable again, then lance too should be viable again.

I found the Wilson book illuminating as well. Zarkarion on Steam is indeed RBS. I suppose theoretically one thing you could do is give Kurassiers/Horse Pistol shooting ability as well, but that'd probably be OP. But I think the balance is fine - you could argue that "charging" Pike and Shot units with horse actually represents the horsemen closing to pistol range and firing before drawing off, with the casualties they sustain being from return fire of the musketeers.

Montecuccoli’s quote seems to have confused quite a few ppl. I’d be sorry if this great man were misunderstood. So I will try to explain it

First thing, if I quote this passage from Montecuccoli, it is because this thread was mainly about the lance and why it became unused. So I thought it was interesting to know what one of the best generals of the 17th century would think about lances.

By saying that the lance was « the queen of the weapons for the cavalry », he did not mean that it was the weapon cavalrymen of his time should actually use. He said it : « the lance is more often than not useless »

And he explained why lances were not used anymore in his time :

companion wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 3:44 pm 3. One of the reasons lancers disappeared was economics.

… is indeed one of the reasons Montecuccoli gave (as I mentioned it).

In his book, he actually mentioned all the kinds of cavalry at his disposal (Lancers, Arkebusiers, Cuirassiers) and set out the pros and cons of each. And the cavalry he favoured is that of his time, wearing cuirass, using pistols and swords and supported by commanded shots (and their muskets).

btw...

companion wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 3:44 pm I did a quick google search and found this:
"Raimondo Montecuccoli referred to it as the queen of weapons', following his encounter with Polish cavalry in 1658-59. (from google book preview of the book "Warfare in Modern Europe 1450-1660 »)

I think he is said to have finished writing his ‘memoirs’ in c. 1670. A very instructive book.

Hoping it is clearer

companion wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 3:44 pm 3. One of the reasons lancers disappeared was economics.

btw I was told the Queen costs a lot of money
(But being French, we solved that issue a long time ago.)

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 4:44 pm I found the Wilson book illuminating as well. Zarkarion on Steam is indeed RBS. I suppose theoretically one thing you could do is give Kurassiers/Horse Pistol shooting ability as well, but that'd probably be OP. But I think the balance is fine - you could argue that "charging" Pike and Shot units with horse actually represents the horsemen closing to pistol range and firing before drawing off, with the casualties they sustain being from return fire of the musketeers.

I was actually thinking about adding an another layer of complexity, something like "change stance" available once per turn, so a cuirassier could switch to become a superior reiter or a "sword (impact)" cavalry which activates only against disrupted enemies and maybe inflict additional cohesion dice roll similar to how sword(melee) operates.
Whether that'd be a good idea is another matter though.

companion wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 6:45 pm

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 4:44 pm I found the Wilson book illuminating as well. Zarkarion on Steam is indeed RBS. I suppose theoretically one thing you could do is give Kurassiers/Horse Pistol shooting ability as well, but that'd probably be OP. But I think the balance is fine - you could argue that "charging" Pike and Shot units with horse actually represents the horsemen closing to pistol range and firing before drawing off, with the casualties they sustain being from return fire of the musketeers.

I was actually thinking about adding an another layer of complexity, something like "change stance" available once per turn, so a cuirassier could switch to become a superior reiter or a "sword (impact)" cavalry which activates only against disrupted enemies and maybe inflict additional cohesion dice roll similar to how sword(melee) operates.
Whether that'd be a good idea is another matter though.

My assumption : I don't think that a squadron could "change stance" at will depending on the situation on the battlefield. Reiters were trained (and liked) to use caracole, cuirassiers to charge with pistols, lancers to use lances, etc. They had their habits, skills, specialisation and preferences.

French Henri IV is said to have forced his German mercenary reiters not to use their pistols and to charge with their sword because he thought that caracole was useless, especially against catholic lancers. But he ordered that before the start of the battle and for the duration of the battle. And the order was straight and simple.

And in terms of gameplay, I like specialised units (with strengths and weaknesses).

I'm no expert on the period but I wonder if training was a major influence. I imagine training someone to use a pistol effectively was a lot easier than training someone to use a lance effectively. By this period I guess that a lot of the troops were now made up of more 'commoners' that needed training rather than aristocratic types who spent their lives 'training'. I'm don't know. Anyone have any thoughts on this idea?

Maybe what made it impossible IRL to have :

companion wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 6:45 pm (...) something like "change stance" available once per turn, so a cuirassier could switch to become a superior reiter or a "sword (impact)" cavalry

ie a Swiss army knife of cavalry unit, is less a matter of the complexity or duration of the shooting training than a matter of :

• habits (as caracole and charge require specific collective training) and thus non-versatility of a unit,

• riding skills and courage of the horsemen,

• difficulty to make horsemen, accustomed to fire and leave (à la caracole and alike), charge with pistols or with the sword at will depending on the actual situation. It is very hard to make cavalrymen, accustomed to pistols, use only the sword. It is very hard to make those accustomed not to charge, charge. It is hard to make those accustomed to trot, gallop. Etc. There are quite a few testimonies about that.

The heaviness of the armour of the Reiters/Cuirassiers together with the bad quality of their horses, their use of deep formations and pistols and the habit of some not to charge makes it difficult to have them behave as Impact mounted. And vice versa.

In the same vein, P&S may also be about creating stereotypes of fighting behavior : caracole, charging with pistols, charging with the sword...

My 2 cents.

From Wilson's Lutzen book:

"It has been plausibly suggested that the imperial cavalry deliberately targeted the Swedish pikemen by firing their pistols from a safe distance, rather than charging home. Most of the Swedish units lacked their full complement of pikemen, and the additional casualties they now suffered further reduced the capacity of the remainder to protect the musketeers, thus further confirming the continued effectiveness of the supposedly obsolete caracole tactics."

Reference given is "Sennewald, Das Kursächsische Heer, pp.162, 170." Not that I'd be able to verify it since I don't speak German


And from Mr. Staberg:

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=266148
"The Reiters were never restriced to the Caracole in the way described in many books. Already in the wars of the 1540's & 1550's they charged into combat to use their pistols at point-blank range and in the melee. However a drop in quality beginging in the 1560's meant that more and more units became reliant on firing at a distance and had problems with conducting a proper charge. Actual performance would depend on the time and place."


http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=248351

(note: not in TYW period)

"To complicate matters further any good squadron commander would be capable of employing several diffrent combat methods as the need arose.

For example during the battle of Lund 1676 the Swedish Life Guards charged with pistol, charged with sword or used carbines & the caracole at diffrent times in the battle. The choice of tactics depended on the situation and the squadron commander.
(The unlucky captain who chose to use carbines was promptly charged through by the Danes and lost his standard. The Danes on the other hand frequently fired and turned away using the caracole as their well fed, stronger horses allowed them to keep the distance from the Swedes whose horses were suffering from exposure and a lack of fodder)"



Arguments can be made that such occurences were so extraordinary that it does not warrant change in game rules. Adding a layer of complexity is always handled with warning and caution anyway.

companion wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:53 am Arguments can be made that such occurences were so extraordinary that it does not warrant change in game rules.

Indeed (with a top-bottom approach). And making Reiters charge IRL does not mean they could charge as well as Cuirassiers and, even more so, as the in-game "Impact Mounted". Doing something and doing it (very) well are two different things.

btw that's exactly what is shown in game : Reiters can shoot (caracole) or charge. If they charge, it'll be without any Impact capability.