Determined Horse over-priced ...

[nikgaukroger]

As to the problem with Poles

I think the main issue with the Poles is in the interaction with HA Cuirassiers. Since these habitually turn up as Superior it's very hard for the Poles to Disrupt them at Impact, leading to a -- Melee. Perhaps some balance could be restored by adopting the AM change relating to armour. This is that the POA for better armour does not apply if there is only one level of armour advantage and it would bring the overall net POA above +. This would leave the Poles at only - if they fail to disrupt the Cuirassiers and in combination with the suggestions on overlaps, would give them a sporting chance in a one on one fight.

When originally writing the lists I was convinced that when facing good cuirassiers (i.e. the Superior types) the Poles struggled quite badly and this was part of the reason why I went the way I did with their classification. However, as I said above - "Tell you what, have a stab at convincing me that it isn't correct and I'll also go back and look at the classification whilst you do that. Deal?"

[daveallen]

When doing the lists I was pretty convinced that Melee swordsmen was correct both in the style of fighting (carried pistols but weren't actually that keen on using them and favoured their swords) and, importantly, getting the right effect against historical opponents. Tell you what, have a stab at convincing me that it isn't correct and I'll also go back and look at the classification whilst you do that. Deal?

I'll look into it.

In the meantime, looking at the >50% break point for average. It would really benefit my average keils. Actually, it would make Superiors overpriced.

How about:

Battle troops autobreak on whichever is the greater of 3 base losses or the relevant percentage.

This would have the effect of making Poor pike and shot viable too.

Battle groups of two would retain the usual vapourise in the JAP rule...


Dave

[gibby]

I actually like Dave's latest idea.

However we do need to be careful with this sort of thing. Sometimes fixing what we think is wrong changes the overall game and not necessarily for the better.

So whilst I like the idea, it will have the side effect of making all Average and poor troops more viable and importantly more resilient.
So this logically will flow through to more prolonged combats imo.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing but it might change the ratio of winning scores to draws.

cheers
JIm

[madaxeman]

As to the problem with Poles

I think the main issue with the Poles is in the interaction with HA Cuirassiers.

When originally writing the lists I was convinced that when facing good cuirassiers (i.e. the Superior types) the Poles struggled quite badly and this was part of the reason why I went the way I did with their classification. However, as I said above - "Tell you what, have a stab at convincing me that it isn't correct and I'll also go back and look at the classification whilst you do that. Deal?"

My research shows that the meaning of "struggled quite badly" is materially different to "2 POAs down in melee" ..?

Give them an option for melee pistol as well as/instead of sword would be super-cute and would keep Gush-era wargamers happy too

[Three]

On reflection, and working on the premise that the points values can't be changed, I am now of the opinion that the best option would be to allow DH/Gdm/Cavaliers with sword to be ++ on overlap.

The 2 dice per overlap file is initially more attractive, but that would make FA Gendarmes better against HA Cuirassiers than they should be imo.

Better armour not giving the ++ is less attractive than the staus quo, would make armoured superior horse an even better bargain, not to mention TYW Carbine/Pistol mounted arquebusiers actually being useful.

Average break point higher sounds nice for (mounted), but somebody mentioned average keils and suddenly it isn't nearly as nice.

[daveallen]

I actually like Dave's latest idea.

However we do need to be careful with this sort of thing. Sometimes fixing what we think is wrong changes the overall game and not necessarily for the better.

So whilst I like the idea, it will have the side effect of making all Average and poor troops more viable and importantly more resilient.
So this logically will flow through to more prolonged combats imo.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing but it might change the ratio of winning scores to draws.

cheers
JIm

Whatever changes are made I'd like to see them tried out in a few competitions before we actually mess with the rules.

Actually the suggestion would only affect Average in 4s and Poor in 4s and 6s.

Of course, the army that would gain most from this would be Scots Covenanters

Knowing the Scots god botherers as I do, I suspect most combats would be prolonged by no more than one turn.

Dave

Dave

[johngl]

I don't like the idea of changing break points - it would skew the whole game and make points changes even more necessary. Just change the points for determined horse and cavaliers instead of fiddling around with the rules.

[nikgaukroger]

For Dave I found this amongst some notes:

Once the lances were discarded and the hussar was in close melee he could chose from a selection of weapons. Against heavier opponents he would pick his 'palasz' (broadsword - see right) or 'koncerz' (estoc - see left), bothe carried below the saddle. The palasz was used early in our period, it was a heavy slashing sword most useful against heavily armoured opponents but as the use of armour declined it tended to give way to the preferred koncerz. The koncerz originated from a medieval sword and appeared at the end of the 15th century when it was about 1.3m long, quite heavy and badly weighted. By the late 16th century it had increased in length to a typical 1.60m overall (1.40m blade) and was much better designed. The koncerz was a stabbing sword, used more like a spear and it provided a rider with a very long reach. It had no cutting edge, just a sharp pointed end, being triangular or square in cross section.

Sabre
The sabre was however the favourite weapon of the hussars and was worn by all noblemen. There were initially two type of sabres, Hungarian and Polish sabres. Though there was also the 'karabela' sabres which were a more delicate decorative sabre used for ceremonial or everyday usage, but not for war. Later in the 17th Century there appeared a special hussar sabre developing from the Polish-Hungarian sabres. The hussar sabre (see left) was very versatile with a 82-87cm long blade and double edged towards the point. It provided a very efficient ratio of effort to cutting ability.

Other weapons
Pistols were carried and were widespread in the cavalry from as early as Batory's reign. However they had a small role to play and were never used in the charge when lance or sabre were preferred.
Other less widespread weapons include shields, whose use disappeared at the start of the 17th century and small numbers of bows and arquebuses or muskets were also carried. A popular weapon for the nobility were the war hammers or axes - nadziak, obuch and czekan, while the rotmistrz and other commanders would carry maces (buzdygan).

And from Brzezinski's Osprey on the hussaria; here he is talking about what happens after the initial lance charge when the kopia has shattered:

Some might reach for pistols ... Others might grasp a warhammer ... The bulk of hussars, however, took to their sabres, which hung on a sword knot from the wrist during the charge. ... Against pistol armed cavalry the hussars would now find themselves at a disadvantage;

[madaxeman]

Adding dice for overlap in the impact phase seems like the most simple and obvious solution to make DH/Gdm/Cav better, and also to further encourage them to be used in shallow formations.

Given these troops also tend to be armed with sword and often some sort of clever impact capability, it also leaves the rather entertaining "win at impact and go onto win, or lose at impact and die..." mechanic slightly rebalanced rather than fundamentally changed.

Restricting the impact overlap to DH/Gdm/Cav fighting horse would seem to be sensible as otherwise it could skew a currently acceptible foot vs mounted interaction

Restrciting it further to sword-armed DH/Gdm/Cav fighting horse could make it even tighter - but may not be necessary ?

One die at ++ or two at normal factors (usually +1 at impact I guess?) would then be down to some maths genius to work out and hazard an opinion..

[madaxeman]

This would have the effect of making Poor pike and shot viable too.
Dave

The fact they can provide rear support to Average troops, plus the more flexible support rules do both give them much more of a legitimate role in FoGR than in FoGAM already though..?

[hazelbark]

....nor, IMO, is there the need or demand for such as there was with FoG:AM.

"was" ...? surely "still is" would be more appropriate

Like their politicians the players got the AM v2 they deserved

Hardly accurate. The fact that AM v2 was bungled in the home office is inescapable and to pretend otherwise reduces your credibility.

[hazelbark]

So the issue is Average Determined Horse in out of period fights?

How about just saying that a Determinved horse average gains a 5th base at no charge?
Might make them too good.

Other option would be to allow average determined horse to be purchased as just Horse.

[nikgaukroger]

Hardly accurate. The fact that AM v2 was bungled in the home office is inescapable and to pretend otherwise reduces your credibility.

Nice to know I have credibility to lose

[nikgaukroger]

So the issue is Average Determined Horse in out of period fights?

IMO it is Average mounted Battle Troops period from what I have seen.

[Vespasian28]

IMO it is Average mounted Battle Troops period from what I have seen.

My two pennies worth is that we should mess with Superior break points at our peril as it will be a cascade effect to a considerable number of lists with all sorts of knock on effects whilst just trying to fix a couple of issues related to mounted.

Yes, average units in 4 are brittle especially if you play FOGAM and are used to fielding average troops in 6-12 element units. Trouble is we also have gunpowder and the possibility that an average unit will be down 25% before any hand to hand takes place. Most of the ECW games I have played have seen(usually) Parliamentarian average horse brushed aside very quickly and foote units of both sides routing from firepower alone as those DR's are lethal.

So, as we can't change the points please don't mess up Superiors( even though I hate those cavaliers) and look at the overlap issue to fix it.

[madaxeman]

IMO it is Average mounted Battle Troops period from what I have seen.

Trouble is we also have gunpowder and the possibility that an average unit will be down 25% before any hand to hand takes place.

Just let all average mounted battle troops be fielded in 6's. Thats about as low-impact a change as you could concievably ever get.

[gibby]

Yep,

That would be my favoured low impact option.

cheers
Jim

[daveallen]

Seems like an elegant solution to the brittle Average mounted problem. I assume we wouldn't fiddle with existing maxima.

On the DH overlap question -

a) Re-rolling 1 & 2

++ on one dice will hit 89% and miss 11%

- or -- on two dice will double hit 20%, single hit 49% and miss 31%

b) Re-rolling 1

++ on one dice will hit 78% and miss 22%

- or -- on two dice will double hit 16%, single hit 47% and miss 37%

c) No re-rolling

++ on one dice will hit 67% and miss 33%

- or -- on two dice will double hit 11%, single hit 44% and miss 44%

Which makes them roughly equivalent in terms of overall damage inflicted, with the two dice option giving greater variability.

This assumes DH overlapping better armoured (&/or armed) opponents. Against equal or weaker troops the two dice option gains considerably.

For this reason I'd prefer the one dice ++ on overlap as causing fewer unwanted side effects.

You pays yer money...

Dave

[Sarmaticus]

If it was thought necessary to beef up Polish hussars, two plausible redefinitions suggest themselves:
a) They could be classed as HA on the basis of what the prestigious leading rank were wearing; the ones who prefer swords to pistols.
b) They could be given melee pistol on the basis of the firearm equipped pacholeks in their supporting ranks.

[Jhykronos]

In my own limited experience, I'd have to agree with those saying the problem is the points, not the troop interaction. Messing with the game capabilities of Determined Horse -might- achieve better balance, but risks doing so at the cost of hurting the simulation.

Anyway, the markup from horse to determined horse is, what, 50%? Maybe if it was more like 25% or 33% it would be more correct. Cavaliers and Gendarmes would have to be adjusted as well.

Not sure why the points have to be a sacred cow. We already have errata on Kiels and Brigades that cross the line to being full-fledged rules changes. Maybe all the competition organizers should just get together and agree to an "unofficial" points fix that everybody happens to use.

Now if only we could convince the powers that be to do something nice for all those poor schmuck troops with light lance...