Slitherine

kevinj wrote:

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.

nikgaukroger wrote: 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?

nikgaukroger wrote:

kevinj wrote:

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?"

gibby wrote: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

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).

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;

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

nikgaukroger wrote:

madaxeman wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: ....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

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

hazelbark wrote: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 wrote:

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.