Slitherine

Gotta say I think the keil discussion needs its own thread as it seems to be dominating this one.

But since I have no idea how to go about that I'll just carry on here.

grahambriggs wrote:I think what you are trying to achieve with Kiels is:

- form deep. Hence 2x4 deep filed of pike and friends.
- able to pop out a base either side of heavy weapons/swords.

But i don't think the rules quite do this:

- the current errata says you must form Kiel. But what is Kiel?

1. The general formation rule says all but back rank equal numbers but special formations are an exception.
2. The Kiel rule (an exception) says 2 files of 4 pikes (or friends).

So, it seems, I could have a 16 base Kiel 10 bases wide: two files of 4 deep and eight files one deep. I don't think this is what you are trying to achieve. I suspect what you'd want is that BG in a 4x4 block, albeit it could pop it's heavy weapons guys out.

The Keil rule is not an exception it's an additional restriction preventing certain shallow Pike formations. The general exceptions are listed on p 34. A 1111111144 formation isn't one of those exceptions and would be even sillier than my original cheese.

The rules to 'pop out' heavy weapons are a bit broken:

- the rules say different troop types within a mixed BG can form their own rectangles in the BG. But:

1. In the Swiss, the troops type is all determined foot; it's the capabilities that differ. So that actually says you can't pop out the HW guys.
2. The 'each troop type in their own rectangle' wording suggests you can't pop one HW out and not the other (as you'd break their rectangle). Also, it suggests you can't pop one out on either side of the pikes as it again breaks the rectangle but have to do two on one side (which is not what you wanted I think)

1. Except that the rule and diagram about Other Mixed Formations on p 34 seems to allow the Heavy Weapons to pop out.

2. I think it would be possible to argue you could do both these things based on p 34, but it wouldn't be a strong argument. I'd rather see something written that specified what you can and can't do in these circumstances.

Further questions/thoughts:

a) Can you deploy a Keil with 9 Pike and 1 Heavy Weapon or must both be in even numbers?

b) I like the idea put forward that Keils should automatically reform when casualties cause a loss of the Keil formation. This by analogy with Early Tercios automatically becoming Late Tercios when they can no longer maintain their formation. Though maybe this should only apply to Keils when they aren't in h-t-h combat.

Dave

rbodleyscott about the 'Captured Artillery Conundrum' wrote: Aye, I think some version of this could be considered for the Errata sheet.

While you're at it can you remove the anomaly created by: "uncontrolled artillery does not count as enemy to either side"? (p 127)

I know we all know what it means (at least we think we do), but what it actually says is that uncontrolled artillery can't be recaptured. Because you can only charge enemy - if they aren't enemy they can't be charged and thus would be tricky to recapture...

Dave

daveallen wrote:While you're at it can you remove the anomaly created by: "uncontrolled artillery does not count as enemy to either side"? (p 127)

Would it not be better to add "uncontrolled artillery will be captured by moving into cohesion" - instead of charging empty guns...

This would avoid the anomaly without creating strange situations.

What does 'moving into cohesion' mean?

I suspect it's meant to read "moving into contact"!

Don

Duty & Glory

Covenanting Rebels pages 59-61

They have allied commanders, but no allies list.

Dave

daveallen wrote:Gotta say I think the keil discussion needs its own thread as it seems to be dominating this one.

But since I have no idea how to go about that I'll just carry on here.

grahambriggs wrote:I think what you are trying to achieve with Kiels is:

- form deep. Hence 2x4 deep filed of pike and friends.
- able to pop out a base either side of heavy weapons/swords.

But i don't think the rules quite do this:

- the current errata says you must form Kiel. But what is Kiel?

1. The general formation rule says all but back rank equal numbers but special formations are an exception.
2. The Kiel rule (an exception) says 2 files of 4 pikes (or friends).

So, it seems, I could have a 16 base Kiel 10 bases wide: two files of 4 deep and eight files one deep. I don't think this is what you are trying to achieve. I suspect what you'd want is that BG in a 4x4 block, albeit it could pop it's heavy weapons guys out.

The Keil rule is not an exception it's an additional restriction preventing certain shallow Pike formations. The general exceptions are listed on p 34. A 1111111144 formation isn't one of those exceptions and would be even sillier than my original cheese.

Dave

I agree it should be the case but I'm just pointing out that the RAW don't actually say that, or at least don't say that clearly. The way they are written at present suggests the general formation rules do not apply to special formations. It would be easy to fix by adding "troops capable of Kiel obey the general formation rules above and are further constrained" or similar would do it.

The one thing being gentlemen is that Keils were not stupid and if you read the Osprey book on the battle of Pavia, you will discover that swiss keils were trained in the acordeon tactics in order to diminish casualties when approaching artillery .

So why such a debate on an historical recognised tactic .

bahdahbum wrote:The one thing being gentlemen is that Keils were not stupid and if you read the Osprey book on the battle of Pavia, you will discover that swiss keils were trained in the acordeon tactics in order to diminish casualties when approaching artillery .

So why such a debate on an historical recognised tactic .

Really!?

You're citing the Battle of Pavia as evidence of Swiss prudence?

Don't have the authorities to hand, but my recollection is that some Swiss overran an artillery battery that was being (or had recently been) manoeuvred. The entire contingent was then taken apart by the Spanish and the survivors had to swim to safety.

Will have to look at the Osprey to see what they're talking about, but I doubt Swiss formation changes did them much good.

Dave

bahdahbum wrote:The one thing being gentlemen is that Keils were not stupid and if you read the Osprey book on the battle of Pavia, you will discover that swiss keils were trained in the acordeon tactics in order to diminish casualties when approaching artillery .

So why such a debate on an historical recognised tactic .

Because concertinaing isn't just about reducing casualties from artillery.

BTW the bit you refer to in the Osprey refers to both extending frontage and depth to minimise casualties. Without seeing what this is based on I suspect it is opening the spacing between men which is the sort of thing that falls below the abstraction level of FoG:R, and I think it is still clear that these formations were still more susceptible to artillery than the later thinner formations.

You're citing the Battle of Pavia as evidence of Swiss prudence?

I did not say "prudent" I said not stupid and they tried to minimize casualties . They might be swiss but they are not kamikazes .

And Nick, OK if you do think keils should be vulnerable, OK for me .

TYW French and Regimental Guns. This has resurfaced recently so could usefully be tidied up in the next Errata. Original discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=70&t=20153&p=377507&hil ... ns#p377507

kevinj wrote:TYW French and Regimental Guns. This has resurfaced recently so could usefully be tidied up in the next Errata. Original discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=70&t=20153&p=377507&hil ... ns#p377507

Yes, one that would ideally be tidied up within a week, as the Worlds has at least 1 TYW Froggie with RG's and no/few Superiors. I'd hope the list checker would read the thread and accept the authors intent, but still...

Yes, please expressly clarify the 30YW French regimental gun situation.

The list checker has approved my list.

Not that regimental guns have done anything for me to date, but I would rather spend that last 18 points on 2 of them rather than making a unit superior, in an otherwise totally average army,

Adrian

tamerlane wrote:Yes, please expressly clarify the 30YW French regimental gun situation.

How does this sound:

"At least as many superior BG's (if used) must be supplied with Regimental Guns as Average BG's"

"At least as many superior BG's (if used) must be supplied with Regimental Guns as Average BG's"

I think that only covers the situation where you have no Superiors, otherwise it's the same as the current wording. Here's my attempt:

"If Regimental Guns are used, there may not be a greater number of Average BGs with Regimental Guns than Superior BGs with them, unless all Superior BGs used have Regimental Guns"

kevinj wrote:

"At least as many superior BG's (if used) must be supplied with Regimental Guns as Average BG's"

I think that only covers the situation where you have no Superiors, otherwise it's the same as the current wording. Here's my attempt:

"If Regimental Guns are used, there may not be a greater number of Average BGs with Regimental Guns than Superior BGs with them, unless all Superior BGs used have Regimental Guns"

Ahh, yes. I see what you're saying. Mine works with both 'no Superiors' and 'equal or greater Superiors' but doesn't work if you want all your regiments to have RG's and have 2 Superior and 3 Average.

Yours is better. I was trying to be less wordy. Unfortunately it's necessary wordiness for the intent.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Niceas wrote:For the Caroline Imperialist list, my copy does not list field fortifications as being available.

This for the army that fought behind field fortifications at Bicocca in 1522?

Am I missing something here?

Colonna strengthened the position afforded by an existing sunken road - which would already count as an obstacle and hence have the same effect as field fortifications under the rules.

To justify field fortifications in the list, one would need to show that they did the same thing where there was no pre-existing obstacle.

Pavaro wrote:A question about Early Danish list in the Clash of Empires companion....

In the optional troops, Early Danish can have mounted reiters with Impact capacity Pistol and Close Combat capacity Pistol without any date limit.

Is this correct?

Thanks
Roberto

We did feel that they started earlier than some other armies, and could not identify a starting date. If anyone could enlighten us we would be grateful. Fortunately they are crap, so do not unbalance anything meantime.

Scrumpy wrote:In the Spanish Imperialist list (T&T) The English troops for the 1557-59 period fight as Pike, bow & Caliver combined as per the Elizabethan list. Shouldn't they be allowed that formation in the Later henrican list when Mary is Queen ?

Conceivably, but probably not worth the hassle of adding a large chunk to the list table.