Slitherine

rbodleyscott wrote:There is no real reason for the Swedes to enter Lutzen during the battle

Well, be it as it may, Wallenstein ordered to set fire to Lützen to prevent the Swedes to capture the town (source: Matthäus Merian der Ältere http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Abbildung ... Geschechen - in old German; with an interesting OOB below).

It is questionable though if the ownership of this place would have had a real advantage for Gustav Adolf during the battle; Wallenstein decided against the opportunity to use the small but walled town as a defensive position for himself but made sure that the town could not be used by the enemy for the same purpose. Would be nice for a what-if scenario to explore if a Swedish or Imperial occupied Lützen would have made a difference to the course of things.

BTW, a possible representation of the burning town is not only an aestethical question but also concerns the FoW. The smoke caused massive problems on the Swedish left flank.

Schweinewitz wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:BTW, a possible representation of the burning town is not only an aestethical question but also concerns the FoW. The smoke caused massive problems on the Swedish left flank.

The scenario has lots of Fog of War all over the battlefield (reducing visibility severely and variably from turn to turn), because of the variable amounts of actual fog/mist present during the battle.

Mist and smoke add together make an impenetrable miasma.

I once went to our local firework display. It was all fixed, so when it turned out to be mildly misty on the day (the field is near the river), they went ahead anyway. After the first few fireworks had been set off, it became impossible to see anything. They burned up who knows how many £100s worth of fireworks which nobody could see. In the end we went back home, and could see the rockets above the smoke/mist mix (the rockets could not be seen at all in the actual display field).

So there would not have to be much mist to make the smoke from Lützen and indeed from musket fire severely reduce visibility all over the battlefield. Gustavus Adolphus was killed on the other wing, after supposedly having become separated from his men in the fog/smoke mix.

Ivenend wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

Ivenend wrote:Are there any unit with heavy weapons such as german two-handed swords ?

....
Obviously a Landsknecht verlorene haufen unit with two-handed swords would be possible, but there isn't one in any of the current scenarios. It could easily be added to the units spreadsheet for your own scenarios - the rules for heavy weapons are in place.
...

Thanks for your relpy, would you add them in the expansion of the Italy wars ?

We'll see what we can do.

Hi
Will the game have optional rules that can be applied to one or both sides when setting up to play a particular scenario, to add extra realism to that clash without distorting the overall game? I was thinking hear of things like.

1. Artillery capture. (not unknown in the English Civil War for overrun artillery to change sides)

2. No limbering for anything other than light artillery, particularly for earlier modules like the "Italian Wars".

Many thanks
Ian

All quite... maybe working in the game section in forum??? if release is to late year...

Or we are going to see soon a "call to arms for mercenaries" like in other games??? hehehe

Good luck and have a fun summer

Hello,
is it forseen that units have to do formation change (iNFANTRY: Columne, line- Arty : LIMBERED UNLIMBERED AND SO) ?

Having been away from wargaming due to work for a while, am new to this. Can wait for the release date.

Hoplite1963 wrote:Hi
Will the game have optional rules that can be applied to one or both sides when setting up to play a particular scenario, to add extra realism to that clash without distorting the overall game? I was thinking hear of things like.

1. Artillery capture. (not unknown in the English Civil War for overrun artillery to change sides)

2. No limbering for anything other than light artillery, particularly for earlier modules like the "Italian Wars".

Many thanks
Ian

No optional rules currently planned - although they could be implemented easily enough by modding the scripts.

Micha wrote:Hello,
is it forseen that units have to do formation change (iNFANTRY: Columne, line- Arty : LIMBERED UNLIMBERED AND SO) ?

Artillery limbering/unlimbering yes.

Units capable of other significant formation changes have that factored into their normal behaviour. e.g. Pike Keils and early Tercios are immune to the ill effects of flank attacks as they are assumed to be able to turn men easily to face them.

To keep things simple this is not visually represented.

However, here is a screen shot of some early tercios.



And some kittens.....

Nice!

Thanks for info.

Very nice...

Well, to be honest I hope this is an alpha graphic, very plane, unrealistic figures. BTW what flags are those red flags with white crosses? theyt look Swiss rather than Spanish

Aryaman wrote:BTW what flags are those red flags with white crosses? they look Swiss rather than Spanish

They are not the Spanish textures which are in the process of being drawn.

The graphics are based on 17th century battle engraving conventions, in which each "man" represents several actual men. Nevertheless, a single tercio would comprise 148 figures and it is possible to have 128 units on screen at once. To keep the graphic overheads down for tablets, the units are not made out of individual figures. The alternative would have been to model the units with a much smaller number of individually rendered figures, but we wanted to keep the authentic "big battle" 17th century feel.

Works for me - and it DOES look like period engravings

I agree, this looks nice. Keep it coming ...

I understand your point but maybe made the pikes less... dense and made the units look less... square, i know is not the final art but maybe base the unit exteral view more in soldiers helps a lot modding... you know like in "Age of Rifles" you can mod 1 soldier look and this is translated to the unit, if you have units based in soldiers in the external line of soldiers...

Not all pictures of the period shows units like a big box to represent pikes... some "air" between them doesnt reduce the "box formation" taste.

For example Battle of Kirchholm/Salaspils


The Battle of Grunwald.


I like the game and i prefer a strong engine over super graphics but if the base is good made it good for eyes is not bad.

I also like this stylised approach and suspect that there are 2 advantages to it that have not been mentioned yet.

1. By keeping the cost of adding new nations / armies down it should make it easier for Slitherine to do modules to cover all the armies in all the expansion booklets that were produced for the tabletop rules. ( (something that is proving problematical with the individual miniatures approach taken with "Field Of Glory Digital") So 2 to 3 years down the line we might actually get to refight the Manchu conquest of Ming China and the Mogul / Persian 17th centaury struggle over Afghanistan
2. By making the moding of graphics for the game less daunting it will speed up the production of 3rd party mods for the game

Perhaps there could be a set of blank nation templates made available for the game at some point once all / most some of the planned modules have been released to support its moding? I

Scutarii wrote:"Age of Rifles"

Oh man, sweet memories ... That game is a real classic one, great ideas and detail combined with lots of content provided much fun, you could replay the scenarios and campaigns over and over again. Countless newer games didn't achieve that by far.