Slitherine

daveallen wrote:Interesting. Where are the mounted?

With that number of guns I too would concentrate my fire on the foot - at least they can't run away.

Dave

It's Lutzen, so the cavalry are on both flanks of the Swedes (top of picture), with commanded shot in between the squadrons and pairs of light guns in front of those. The Imperialist cavalry is mainly on their left with some on the right behind Lutzen .
Apart from the Windmill battery that is partly in front of the Imperialist Right Wing cavalry, all the guns are in front of infantry formations - even if they are commanded shot . All the heavy guns are firing at infantry .
I suppose that invites a speculation as to whether gunners and/or commanders deploying guns required infantry support for their pieces or whether infantry was the preferred target for heavy guns - or a bit of both .
Guns, equipment and skilled gunners were difficult and expensive to replace. Gunners were vulnerable and could be timid; their guns slow firing and incapable of halting a cavalry charge and likely to find a cavalry melee an unhealthy environment .
NB the Imperialists are wrongly shown in Early Tercios.

Sarmaticus wrote:It's Lutzen, so the cavalry are on both flanks of the Swedes (top of picture), with commanded shot in between the squadrons and pairs of light guns in front of those...Apart from the Windmill battery that is partly in front of the Imperialist Right Wing cavalry, all the guns are in front of infantry formations - even if they are commanded shot . All the heavy guns are firing at infantry ...NB the Imperialists are wrongly shown in Early Tercios.

I guess my first concern would be if the Early Tercios are wrong what else is just artistic imagination? But taking that picture at face value a lot of the guns are in front of mounted (particularly on the right) - and if those detatched blocks in front of the Swedish foot represent mounted (as they seem to on the flanks) then almost every gun is in front of mounted.
Seems to justify the current rules if anything (except that the guns are deployed much further onto the right flank than they would be allowed in FoG:R - maybe the rules are actually too restrictive in not allowing guns to face mounted?)

This is a better deployment map for Lutzen:

list_lurker wrote:

but surely in practice that would mean there was almost no point in shooting at any horse with just 2 artillery, as you'd need to do 2 hits to cause either a test or a casualty

well , 2 guns firing would have a 25% chance of causing a test on mounted, with a 18% of getting a casualty (which given the half of the suggestion sup breaking on >=50% then would be bad, should it happen..). Compared to shooting at foot with an 18% chance of getting 2 hits , with a 33% death roll...

Actually, if that's the math, I work it out as meaning that shooting 2 gunnes on a normal unit of foot you, as well as the chance of 2 hits you also have a 44% chance of getting 1 hit, which the has an 18% chance of a failed death roll, so in total 7% + 6% = 13% chance of losing a base when shooting against foote, vs an overall 4-5% chance of killing a base when shooting against mounted.

I think I could live with a one-line rules "clarification" that means the same chance of causing a test against mounted and a slightly reduced chance of a casualty, especially as a casualty is more significant to (usually in 4's) mounted. With those odds I'd also be more tempted to use gunnes against foote.

Do this, and allow all average battle-mounted (horse/cavalry etc) to be fielded in 6's too and that might be enough to fix it for me.. no need to tweak break points then either

Maniakes wrote:

Sarmaticus wrote: I guess my first concern would be if the Early Tercios are wrong what else is just artistic imagination? But taking that picture at face value a lot of the guns are in front of mounted (particularly on the right) - and if those detatched blocks in front of the Swedish foot represent mounted (as they seem to on the flanks) then almost every gun is in front of mounted.
Seems to justify the current rules if anything (except that the guns are deployed much further onto the right flank than they would be allowed in FoG:R - maybe the rules are actually too restrictive in not allowing guns to face mounted?)

I don't think there's any dispute between the sources as to the location of the guns. The guns on the Swedish flanks are light pieces deployed in front of the commanded shot in the intervals of the Swedish front line horse .

Sarmaticus wrote:I don't think there's any dispute between the sources as to the location of the guns. The guns on the Swedish flanks are light pieces deployed in front of the commanded shot in the intervals of the Swedish front line horse .

I'm no expert - and I'm not trying to be difficult (I hope!). Just saying that that picture (and Nik's map) aren't strong evidence that artillery never fired at mounted. I though last time we talked about this people came up with several examples where artillery was deliberately deployed against mounted (one from the Italian Wars?).

If I have got an agenda it is that we want to be really careful changing the rules - the law of unintended consequences and all that. I know that it is fun to talk about rules changes - but it's easy to break things while you think you are fixing them!

Here is the last thread on art vs mounted
viewtopic.php?f=70&t=39581&p=371359&hil ... ed#p371359
worth a read

Maniakes wrote: I'm no expert - and I'm not trying to be difficult (I hope!). Just saying that that picture (and Nik's map) aren't strong evidence that artillery never fired at mounted. I though last time we talked about this people came up with several examples where artillery was deliberately deployed against mounted (one from the Italian Wars?).

I don't think it is a case of artillery never shooting against mounted, they did, but the way the rules appear to encourage it so you end up with artillery often placed towards the wings shooting at the mounted whereas they usually appear to have been placed fairly centrally more often than not so mainly shooting at the infantry. There are of course exceptions to the generalisation over the 200 years the rules cover.

Looking at Lutzen I cannot recall reading that Bernhard's cavalry wing suffered particularly from the windmill battery placed opposite it despite his sustained attacks at the end of the Imperialist line that side of Lutzen itself. On the other hand it took him all day to capture it ...

There is certainly an example from the Italian wars where the French (IIRC) deliberately targeted some Spanish cavalry who were drawn up in a deep formation. There is at least the implication that the depth of the target was a factor in choosing it - better target.

Spanish cavalry who were drawn up in a deep formation. There is at least the implication that the depth of the target was a factor in choosing it - better target.

maybe you could tie that into the solution to make DH in shallow formations better!

nikgaukroger wrote:

Maniakes wrote: I'm no expert - and I'm not trying to be difficult (I hope!). Just saying that that picture (and Nik's map) aren't strong evidence that artillery never fired at mounted. I though last time we talked about this people came up with several examples where artillery was deliberately deployed against mounted (one from the Italian Wars?).[/quotThere is certainly an example from the Italian wars where the French (IIRC) deliberately targeted some Spanish cavalry who were drawn up in a deep formation. There is at least the implication that the depth of the target was a factor in choosing it - better target.

That's probably Ravenna, where the Hispano-Italian horse was the only available target; were held stationary under fire covering the gaps either end of the Spanish entrenchment; were enfiladed by the Duke of Ferrara's guns from over the river. The other specific example advanced was of a few long range shots being fired off at a mounted vanguard stumbling on a waiting army. Again, no other target was available.

Looking at the shape of battles as a whole, there was a trend through the period for cavalry to gain in importance but in terms of hanging on to baggage, loot, loved ones, etc., the infantry centre could be important and require breaking even after the cavalry fight was finished. I'm just wondering if some sort of weighting of army break points to stress core infantry formations would be appropriate. Probably a red herring though.

list_lurker wrote:

Spanish cavalry who were drawn up in a deep formation. There is at least the implication that the depth of the target was a factor in choosing it - better target.

maybe you could tie that into the solution to make DH in shallow formations better!

A very simple way would be hit any troops in two ranks on 4, any troops in one rank on 5. Would mean you hit most foot better than most mounted but deep average horse would have the same problem as now.

.... See I've got tempted into suggesting rule changes - it's so seductive! I still think any change should get lots of play testing. After all the original rules had lots.

A very simple way would be hit any troops in two ranks on 4

I really don't like that idea! That would make those big batteries letal to p&s! I think the effect on foot is about right. We just need to make Mounted less of an attractive target. You could prescribe the rule to prevent them doing it, but I think that the authors idiom is such that you should not prevent stupidity, just penalise it!

I don't think that the single rank idea would be very clever, you'd just end up with people deploying in line , thus avoiding the early salvo, and then contracting as they go forward - equally silly!

If art hit mounted on 5's then maybe... but I think the +1 vs to death roll for BG of 4 vs art is (combined with =50% break for superior) is worth a thought. It would give AVG and POOR Horse a boost by making SUP more brittle.

I'm still in pychic shock after that first FOGR playtest game with you Dave (about 5 years ago), when art had more dice the closer you got. Your Muscovite with 8 light guns - each with 3 dice each at close range... still wakes me up at night!

list_lurker wrote:

A very simple way would be hit any troops in two ranks on 4

I really don't like that idea! That would make those big batteries letal to p&s! I think the effect on foot is about right. We just need to make Mounted less of an attractive target. You could prescribe the rule to prevent them doing it, but I think that the authors idiom is such that you should not prevent stupidity, just penalise it!

I don't think that the single rank idea would be very clever, you'd just end up with people deploying in line , thus avoiding the early salvo, and then contracting as they go forward - equally silly!

If art hit mounted on 5's then maybe... but I think the +1 vs to death roll for BG of 4 vs art is (combined with =50% break for superior) is worth a thought. It would give AVG and POOR Horse a boost by making SUP more brittle.

I'm still in pychic shock after that first FOGR playtest game with you Dave (about 5 years ago), when art had more dice the closer you got. Your Muscovite with 8 light guns - each with 3 dice each at close range... still wakes me up at night!

All very good points - this rule writing isn't as easy as it looks! Yes, that game was an example of play testing finding the problems ... I still think about it some nights, but with a dreamy smile on my face ...

I would venture to suggest that there should a +1 on the death roll where all the shooting was artillery outside of short range. From what I read artillery cause relatively few casualties other than at very short range against dense targets (for example Novara) but they really have an effect upon troop morale (so leave the -1 on the CT). Leaves the combined arms stuff in play.

timmy1 wrote:Determined Horse, Gendarmes, (and possibly Cavaliers) in formations 1 rank deep are 3 dice per base at impact (rather than 2). I say possibly Cavaliers because I have two ECW Parliamentary armies...

I think this is CRAZY. I love it, but it's crazy. 3 dice impact mounted would walk over pike and shot formations.

6 dice @ + vs 9 dice at - with re-rolls.

I make that 3 hits for the P&S and 3 hits for the shock mounted. Given that of the 6 misses about 2 will reroll the chances are the P&S will lose the combat. They are then going to be rolled in melee.

Just my opinion of course.

petedalby wrote:On reflection, I think a better balance might be achieved by reducing the break point of all Superiors rather than increasing the break point of average troops?

And I like the suggestion of DH, Cavaliers & Gendarmes getting 2 dice per base in overlap - gives the incentive to use them in shallow formations.

Alternatively allow these troop types to have any overlaps at ++? That would give them an advantage of HA horse.

How about:

Melee POA's

If fighting as an overlap - foot, Determined HOrse, Cavaliers & Gendarms with swordsman or pistol capability, foot with Heavy Weapon, or Warriors = ++ Final overall POA regardless of all other factors.

*Edit* sorry, it's been said several times. I was just replying as I read. I do think this is the best solution. I'd be happy both having that used against me and for me.

list_lurker wrote:Its just a niggle for me , but the illustrations I see of renaissance warfare the guns are central pointing ahead...pointing at infantry.

Not exactly disagreeing with you, but it occurs to me that in that depiction the artillery are deployed far far in front of their infantry and cavalry on the right. If they aren't that good against cavalry, why don't some Swedish cavalry ride them down before their own troops can get forward to protect them?

Or perhaps riding frontally towards guns wasn't such a good idea....

Maniakes wrote:I thought last time we talked about this people came up with several examples where artillery was deliberately deployed against mounted (one from the Italian Wars?).

Ravenna

why don't some Swedish cavalry ride them down before their own troops can get forward to protect them?

perhaps they have read the rules too and are afraid of getting stuck to the guns